Question of the Week: What’s your Civil War writing pet peeve?
Whether it’s using roman numerals for US Army corps, constantlly having to abbreviate things a certain way, or something else, what is you biggest pet peeve when it comes to Civil War writing styles?
Without a doubt. Adding comprehensive, readable and understandable maps that accurately depict the battle action.
Authors who describe very specific details about what an individual is feeling, thinking or doing and present it as fact when they have no record support for their description, and appear to be going for drama rather than accuracy.
Reasonable speculation is fine when presented as such, but there is a key difference between, for example, “the Color Sargent felt cold beads of sweat dripping down his back, knowing he would be a prime target in the coming assault” and “the Color Sargent may (or probably) have felt …”
When 19th century authors used the phrase ” on _the instant”because the reader has to try to figure out the month which can sometimes be a challenge.
Chapters that cover several days yet fail to clearly indicate the day of a particular event. Then there are maps that don’t include locations mentioned in the text
My pet peeve is a lack of maps. I know that adding maps costs the publisher more money, but you can’t understand a battle without maps. The Savas Beatie map books are my go to books when I’m pin the battlefield.
I agree with your comment about the importance of maps. However, you are incorrect that they are a cost to the publisher. It is the author who foots the bill for creation of maps and, yes, maps are expensive.
The and fact and they and use and run and on and sentences.
My pet peeve isn’t so much about writing ‘styles’ or numbers vice Roman numerals, but basic grammar and spelling in articles on sites like this. Lord knows I am not and never have been an English major. I make such errors all the time. I try to proof-read what I write but I often do a poor job of that. Also, ‘tools’ like “Spellcheck” can often do as much mischief as good. I usually don’t discover my own errors on these kinds of sites until after I have posted them.
I have always hoped that an “Edit” function would be added to help participants like myself clean up our mistakes. And why it all gets my attention in my approaching old age is beyond me. It never used to bother me. But it is literally a ‘pet peeve’ now days. What can I say?
Chapter titles in the table of contents that do not help you navigate the book. They are often just flowery phrases such as:
– The bullets flew like hail
– Oh my brother
– Through the smoke
Instead of something useful, such as the Battle of Little Round Top or the Second Assault on Culp’s Hill.
Agreed…thank you!
Jay Winik has a new book out called 1861. He’s a good writer, but 1861 lacks any notes or bibliography. That surprised me.
Pet Peeve? Easy. The continue vilification of General James Longstreet. He’s denigrated for being slow and disagreeable with General Lee’s strategy at Gettysburg. In the end, he followed Lee’s orders, and it destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia’s ability to ever again take the offensive. The perpetuation of the Lost Cause lingers still.
I never denigrate Longstreet for being slow – that was only the least of his flaws. His worst was lying about his actions during the war, especially at Gettysburg. He never, not once, ever had the conversations with Lee he claims he did. First, many of the post-war claims he made are fueled by information he could not have possessed at the time, a classic error committed by those not telling the truth. Second, when he met with Lee, he was not alone – they were surrounded by other Corps and Division commanders, and their staffs, Lee’s staff, etc. – and not a single one recorded, in real time in their diaries and letters or conversations, or soon after the battle, or in their memoirs, a single one of the things Longstreet claims he said. What’s more, my own research for my book has revealed that he lied about Micah Jenkins starting the Battle of Glendale – Longstreet was not in charge of the entire battle, but was in charge of the main part of it, and he bungled it, and therefore passed blame onto the deceased Jenkins, just as he blamed the deceased Lee for not listening to his impossibly brilliant arguments at Gettysburg – which never occurred – and recent archaeological discoveries at Glendale have confirmed the documents I uncovered. Longstreet was a fine combat general when under Lee’s close supervision, but he had serious problems with the Truth.
Good points – and you can add Longstreet’s May 31 – June 1 1862 performance at Seven Pines to the list. He told many lies there and got away with telling them. A good rule of thumb for Longstreet is – “Whatever Longstreet said, it’s likely a lie”
Dangling participles
Continuity in battle names for Northern and Southern armies, instead of just referring to it one way and sticking with it.
Mine is when people reverse the number and state in regimental designations: “Wisconsin 1st” versus the proper “1st Wisconsin”.
no maps or bad maps.
Maps that don’t correspond to the narrative.
Pet Peeves: Writers using numerals for US Army Corps instead of Roman numerals as they should; and writers who are so lazy in their research that they accept James Longstreet’s debunked memoirs Gospel without bothering to even question them, let alone seek out primary sources that hold the truth.
Historians whose biases are obvious. It begets the question of objectivity and credibility. Further, innuendo and overt superlative descriptions. Finally, like a previous post stated, unless the individual himself made the statement all else is speculative so please don’t put it forth as fact.
As others have said, a lack of maps, a lack of maps, … I do believe that this is where Savas Beatie and its authors stand out from the crowd. The other issue is typos. Nothing is perfect and it’s inevitable that there will be a few scattered about. But I frequently come across some in books published by major presses and wonder how on earth they got through. I’m reading the book for content, but some hit you in the face.
Repeating the old line about George H. Thomas that he was “slow but dependable” or something similar. There are a lot of good insights to be garnered from Grant’s Memoirs, but this has been one of the most frustratingly long-lasting historiographical impacts from it.
Overuse of state nicknames when describing troop units (the Keystoners, the Hoosiers, the Empire Staters, the Suckers (that one is unfortunate), the Tarheels, the Nutmegs – the Nutmegs? I have actually seen that in a Civil War book; it seems ridiculous that people would refer to themselves like that, but maybe it’s authentic….)