WIX Archives

Re: The problem with aviation books.....

Posted by JDK on Sun Apr 18, 2004 04:53:36 PM

In reply top The problem with aviation authors..... posted by Cees Broere on Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:13:35 AM

Hi Cees, et al,

Problem is simply about how much work someone is going to do. Some books are good some bad, and usually it's about how much effort the author's put in. As the Shakers knew, all work is importfect; as somene else might have said, so work is less imperfect than others.

I DON'T trust the vets overall; not to say their input and firsthand accounts aren't vital; but the number of myths and misconceptions perpetrated by those who were there are equel to those perpetrated by those who weren't there!

Many authors rely on second hand sources (and vets are secondhand sources BTW - their logbook, or their photos are primary sources) and that's how myths get perpatrated. However, primary sources are also always partial, so a good author's real job (rarely done) is to sift the info, and show you, the reader, the alternatives.

I'm not an expert, but as a bookseller, publisher and author (in that order!) I've seen quite a few books - I think some good points have been made above; but each to their own.

My views on the Warpaint books are well know to some - some of their authors are excellent - but their production and publishing is rushed and careless. The book I'm involved with as a publisher DO contain mistakes; but as we publish them with a view to getting it out when it's ready and right, we work hard to make less mistakes than the others. (www.mmpbook.biz if you wish to know)

As regards the Halifax, I haven't seen the book - but anything on the RAF's big three, the Lancaster, Halifax and Seirling which ignored the other two would be partial - the bombing offensive was carried out with these three aircraft, none in isolation. The author's trick is to show that comparason or company well, and to present the subject clearest. The danger in all this is to fall into the trap of perpetuating the same cliches or errors. (In my opinion of course!)

One example. The Boulton Paul Defiant was intended as a destroyer of unescourted bombers. At that it was (at night) and would have been excellent. However, as we know, the Germans occupied Europe (not part of the plan!) and German fighters devistated the Defiants. Almost all authors brand the aircraft as a failure (which it was) in its chosen role (which it wasn't) as the role it was a dsaster in was not it's intended role. It's a subtle point, and something difficult to put accross. That's the trick!

Just my 2d

Cheers
James

Follow Ups: