Lot of Reading to Do

[Coog]

Just received three "new" books in the mail that I got off eBay at a bargain price:

The Commodores: The U.S. Navy in the Age of Sail by Leonard F. Guttridge and Jay D. Smith, Harper and Row, 1969

Nothing Too Daring: A Biography of Commodore David Porter 1783-1843 by David F. Long, United States Naval Institute, 1970

Commodore John Rodgers 1773-1838 by Charles Oscar Paullin, United States Naval Institute, 1909/1967

At first glance they appear to be full of information that I have not seen in other books. I'll post reveiws when Keith gets the book reveiw section set up. Until then I have a lot of reading to do.

[csadn]

Beware the author who puts a good chunk of the chapter content in the endnotes....

[David Manley]

Do any of those authors do that? I must admit, I don't have copies.

[Capt P]

Took a class when I was on Okinawa (80-85) called the History Of Seapower. I have to pull my text book out and do a re-read. Only remember a few things as it was 30 years ago.

[csadn]

Do any of those authors do that? I must admit, I don't have copies.

No idea; but as many historical texts as I read which do that, it's a reasonable warning. (And it's typically British authors who do it.... ;) )

[David Manley]

Ah yes, of course. I find the practice quite useful. It keeps the main body of the text focussed on the subject, whilst in many cases pointing the reader who has more than a passing interest to some fascinating side stories and other references. I'm reading a history of the Foreign Legion in preparation for a gaming project next year and I've already found a dozen other references and "sideshows" worth picking up on. Same thing happened with my reading on the Sudan in the 1880s. I guess the authors in those cases could have dumped everything in the main body of the text, but I suspect an editor would have struck it out as "not relevant".

[csadn]

Ah yes, of course. I find the practice quite useful. It keeps the main body of the text focussed on the subject, whilst in many cases pointing the reader who has more than a passing interest to some fascinating side stories and other references.

Meh -- I prefer to keep my Text and my References separated. It's really annoying to have to flip back and forth; it breaks up the narrative as badly as including the detail parenthetically would have. But that's a style issue.

[David Manley]

But that's a style issue.

indeed. My pet style hate is historians (particularly in TV documentaries) talking in the present tense. It happened years ago chaps! Sounds crap to me. Whats even more annoying is that occasionally I catch myself doing it :mad:

[csadn]

indeed. My pet style hate is historians (particularly in TV documentaries) talking in the present tense. It happened years ago chaps! Sounds crap to me. Whats even more annoying is that occasionally I catch myself doing it :mad:

It's acceptable if one is doing historical re-enactments -- there was a David Wolper series whose conceit was "film cameras existed during historical events where they really didn't", which had re-enactors referring to ACW battles or medieval events in the present tense. But that's the limit.

[Coog]

Finished reading The Commodores: The U.S. Navy in the Age of Sail. A very good book and worth reading. It focuses more on the men of the period rather than the details of the battles they fought and the ships in which they fought.

Also took Chris' recommendation on The Command of the Ocean. Just received a copy in the mail today. Glanced through it, reading a little here and there. Looks like it will be a real good book. Thanks for the tip Chris!

[Blackrose]

Ah yes, of course. I find the practice quite useful. It keeps the main body of the text focussed on the subject, whilst in many cases pointing the reader who has more than a passing interest to some fascinating side stories and other references. I'm reading a history of the Foreign Legion in preparation for a gaming project next year and I've already found a dozen other references and "sideshows" worth picking up on. Same thing happened with my reading on the Sudan in the 1880s. I guess the authors in those cases could have dumped everything in the main body of the text, but I suspect an editor would have struck it out as "not relevant".

Meh -- I prefer to keep my Text and my References separated. It's really annoying to have to flip back and forth; it breaks up the narrative as badly as including the detail parenthetically would have. But that's a style issue.

I look at it as a balancing act; I prefer any notes on the text to be on the bottom of the page, but somestimes that gets too much. Straight references to sources are best in the endnotes.
My biggest peeve is when an author references a non-english source, quotes the source but doesn't translate it! There is an expectation that you (as a scholor, since who else would be reading this high-brow tome) can read what ever language the author can.
Karl