|
Post by markland on Aug 12, 2011 1:12:03 GMT -6
I am shocked. Shocked I say. Harold dawdling with whom. Say it ain't so Billy. Say it ain't so. Nay, this cannot be. It was a clear case of sun sheild shinning. Captain Carter said it was all the fault of Baron Fredrick the Foul Mouth. I am so confused Confusion is the first step to understanding, Grasshopper. Then will come knowledge to be followed by enlightenment which by its nature leads back to confusion. But, back to the history lessons. The rumor <wink> is that Harold was having a fling with a Norman princess behind St. Elizabeth's back and ignored the battle to follow her north in order to win back her love. While gossip is largely false, it often contains enough truth that the enlightened can fill in the blanks. Additionally, how else to explain Harold's largely peaceful ramblings to the north? Another rumor has it that the Norman princess's new husband, a chieftan of a very large tribal group, took serious offence at Harold's refusal to take no for an answer. And, as they say, the rest is history. LS
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 12, 2011 1:24:31 GMT -6
Uzername, Your sense of humor reminds me of another intelligent,knowledgeable, and articulate gentleman that prowls this forum. Perhaps you will get to know him and can have some good exchanges Be Well Dan Dan, I am afraid that Michael is no longer with us. As I told uzer, he was either in Mexico diddling a bottle of tequila and drinking a chiquita; sitting in a coma in his back yard, or, what I feel is most likely, done away by that terrorist Huckleberryjoe. The last I spoke with Michael, he stated he was close to unravelling who that pschopath truly was. Alas, I never heard from him again. Hoist a bottle of tequila in his memory. LS
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 8, 2011 14:45:50 GMT -6
Unresolved issues have always irked me so I would like to put the issue of my little book effort at rest.
On a number of occasions I have jumped down the throats of people who do not deserve my ire, and I am not sure whether that is a personality flaw or whether it is a result of misunderstandings generated by the impersonal nature of forums such as this.
The issue I have had with this fellow, "kentishman" is a perfect example.
First of all, I want to thank-- once again-- all of you who have come to my defense. That will be forever appreciated. Secondly, however, I have sat down with my wife and discussed this whole thing-- and Dark Cloud, I have used you as the prime example of my explosiveness, so she is aware of you-- and we decided that I owe all of you more than just the impersonal thanks I can give on this board.
Furthermore, "kentishman" came to me originally with an offer to help, and because of miswordings, misplaced words, or just my ego and misunderstanding, I slapped him down. That was uncalled for and unnecessary and I must apologize to him for being so quick to judge. I have corresponded with him again... and I will say this was probably generated more by my wife's doing and "kentishman's" graciousness... and we have reached an agreement of cooperation.
I am not interested in saving face. I have had too much egg splattered over it throughout the years to worry about changing the color to its original luster, but what I am interested in is giving all of you who had so much faith in me and my work here, the best product, the best work, the very best I can put forth, simply because all of you deserve it.
So... I am going to embark on a plan with "kentishman" to try to resolve some... no, all... of these issues. I will, from time to time, contact everyone who has posted here and let them know what he and I have resolved. I do not know what the results will be, but whatever they are, all of you will be the beneficiaries of the best work we can put together.
Please except him as one of us-- or certainly as an equal and highly knowledgeable individual if he posts here again.
I may be away for a while-- starting Tuesday-- and if I am, I look forward to getting back here just to see what further trouble I can cause. <g>
Very best wishes and deepest appreciation to you all, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 26, 2011 19:18:00 GMT -6
Just ordered Fred's book with gift cards I got for Christmas. It's on its way to NY for our esteemed colleague to scribble in it before sending it on to me!
|
|
|
Post by bc on Dec 27, 2011 21:50:54 GMT -6
Here is what McFarland recommends and if you get lucky you may pick the title:
Preparing Your Manuscript Parts of a Manuscript Nearly every McFarland book needs a preface, an introduction, notes, a bibliography and an index. Other components that are common, but optional depending on the nature of the book, are a dedication, acknowledgments, a foreword (written by a third party) and appendices.
Almost every McFarland book needs a preface, which is distinct from an introduction. It serves to answer a reader’s questions about the book itself: what it covers, what it doesn’t, why the subject is important, how you did your research, how the book is organized, etc. It is also an important reassurance to readers and reviewers that they hold a work of mainstream scholarship.
Unlike a preface, a book’s introduction summarizes the book’s subject. So, yes, most books benefit from the inclusion of an introduction. Otherwise, the reader has to go from the book’s title to the first paragraph of Chapter 1 and that might not, mentally, be a perfectly smooth trip.
Many of our books have forewords, although—please understand—they rarely affect sales. You are welcome to include one, with the proper permission, if a person sufficiently well known in the field is willing to write it.
More than 99 percent of McFarland books need indexes. Authors compile the indexes for their books. It’s done during the proofreading process (after we have typeset the book). Consult our indexing guide for assistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Style & Documentation Recognizing that books have individual personalities, we do not try to impose a single style across all our publications. We do ask that authors follow mainstream, sophisticated style practices consistently.
Documentation is vital in the scholarly market. If you don’t have source notes for your quoted matter and factual statements, we strongly recommend you add them. For most purposes we prefer endnotes (end-of-book) to footnotes (page bottoms), so keep your notes separate from your text and start a new numerical sequence for each chapter. Use any good standard system of documentation (Chicago, MLA, Turabian, etc.) and be consistent. A standard style guide can answer specific questions you have about how notes should be presented.
For our market, nearly every book needs a bibliography. It serves as an indication to readers that the book they hold is a work of serious scholarship based on a broad understanding of the topic, while also providing a starting point for further reading. Follow a consistent style and include all the sources you directly consulted for the book, even if you did not cite the source in the notes. A standard style guide can answer specific questions about how a bibliography should be presented.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Titles When you send your manuscript, please include a title or, even better, several possible titles. We will use your input in setting the title; often the author’s suggested wording becomes the official title. There are definitely some special considerations now and then that authors understandably overlook. If we feel a significantly different title is necessary, we will discuss it with you. We try to finalize the wording soon after the manuscript arrives.
bc
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 14, 2012 14:15:26 GMT -6
I was sitting in my den a little while ago, putting off work that needs to be done and waiting for the NFL playoffs to begin, when I decided to do a little Web searching. Every now and then I type in my own name just to see what vitriol I should be greeted with in whatever new gaffe I have made. A site popped up I had never seen before, called, www.librarything.comSince it mentioned this book of mine I decided to become a "member," just to see the hilarity the damn thing generated. I must tell you all, I was stunned at the reviews (wait... this will be the kiss of death!). Every one of them was decent, fair, and complimentary and I must tell you all, I am not just a little bit humbled by reading them. Whoever does this thing, whoever has contributed, whoever has referred to our Website here: Diane Merkel, by name-- and someone did-- I offer my sincerest, most appreciative, and most humble thanks. I do not know what else to say except the book lovers amongst you all should check out that site... not for me, but just in general. It is a fascinating site. By the way, "Book II" is complete and will be in the mail to the publisher by Tuesday. This is the one with the "time-line." You want controversy? This one will fit the bill. Again... my sincerest thanks. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Jan 14, 2012 20:50:47 GMT -6
You deserve the reviews. The amount of time you put into the research has to be mind-boggling.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 16, 2012 2:26:27 GMT -6
I was sitting in my den a little while ago, putting off work that needs to be done and waiting for the NFL playoffs to begin, when I decided to do a little Web searching. Every now and then I type in my own name just to see what vitriol I should be greeted with in whatever new gaffe I have made. A site popped up I had never seen before, called, www.librarything.comSince it mentioned this book of mine I decided to become a "member," just to see the hilarity the damn thing generated. I must tell you all, I was stunned at the reviews (wait... this will be the kiss of death!). Every one of them was decent, fair, and complimentary and I must tell you all, I am not just a little bit humbled by reading them. Whoever does this thing, whoever has contributed, whoever has referred to our Website here: Diane Merkel, by name-- and someone did-- I offer my sincerest, most appreciative, and most humble thanks. I do not know what else to say except the book lovers amongst you all should check out that site... not for me, but just in general. It is a fascinating site. By the way, "Book II" is complete and will be in the mail to the publisher by Tuesday. This is the one with the "time-line." You want controversy? This one will fit the bill. Again... my sincerest thanks. Best wishes, Fred. I'm incredibly eager for your book to arrive. It's going right to the local used bookstore I frequent to get a Mylar wrapper, then we're gonna spend some good quality time together. Hoping it arrives Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 18, 2012 1:13:37 GMT -6
No Mylar wrapper, as his book does not have a dust jacket.
But his book is phenomenal thus far, and he's even a pro when it comes to signing. I've probably got 150 signed books (for sale!) and he inscribed my book on the first page and signed it on the title page. That's how all books should be signed and inscribed. Most sign and inscribe the same page, and could stand to follow Fred's method.
Great book Fred. Thanks so much.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 24, 2012 17:15:13 GMT -6
I see Fred's Participants book has just been reviewed in the CBHMA Battlefield Dispatch quarterly for the Spring of 2012. The reviewer is Peter Russell. He apparently differs with Fred over a few things and went on a typo hunt at the same time.
bc
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 24, 2012 17:53:33 GMT -6
Britt,
Is there a link to that or do you have to be a member, cant have people speak poorly of one of our own <G>
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 24, 2012 18:27:07 GMT -6
Dan,
No, you need to be a member as far as I know.
As far as I'm concerned, Peter Russell is an idiot, the self-appointed expert on any of the European members of the Seventh Cavalry, from DeRudio to Hiley/Forbes.
I have made no secret of this thing from the very beginning: the book was developed from notes I had made over a ten-year period, and almost all of the personal data was taken from enlistment records, muster rolls, regimental returns, and works done by Nichols, Hammer, and Roger Williams. Virtually everything the idiot criticizes is identical with Williams, Hammer, and Nichols, yet Russell failed to pillory them. The work was and is a synthesis of the work of so many others and it contains data-- in one single book-- that you would need dozens to find. In addition, the appendices are completely unique, and much of the stuff about the Indians can be found nowhere. Of course, none of that is mentioned in the review.
And Russell is all bent out of shape because I didn't vet my work with him before I sent it to the publishers, yet if he spent as much time lauding the stuff he couldn't criticize as he did with the picayune claptrap he is so concerned about, i. e., d-o-b, family names, etc., then I would have no real gripes. He even criticized the book's cover and the layout... I guess our little tiff when he first e-mailed me had something to do with filling out the pages for the CBHMA. You'll find it all under the title, "Peter Knows Best."
Quite frankly, I'll stand by what I put in that book. Thank you for all your help, Mssrs Hammer, Nichols, Williams, Smalley, Dickson, et al.
Then, of course, I'll throw up the question, What would you trust more... U. S. Army enlistment records or the mid-19th century parish records of rural England, Ireland, Austria-Hungary, and a disjointed and not-yet-united Italy? I am so very sure the first thing every English and Irish citizen did-- at the birth of their son-- was to run to the local church to "X" down the precise day and time of birth... yep!
Well... talk to me in private about the CBHMA.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 28, 2012 13:41:57 GMT -6
Well Fred I see that the review of your book by the noted British LBH scholar (his words not mine) have been reproduced by the noted American jerk (my words not his). Of course the noted American jerk has not published, so I must assume that he has none of the prerequisites - knowledge, talent, and most of all guts enough to have his claptrap exposed to public scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 29, 2012 10:33:29 GMT -6
Just posted this on the Facebook CBHA web page:
"Mr. Russell in his article also had this to say about John S. Hiley: "Another interesting case is that of Pvt. John S. Hiley (p. 49). The author rightly draws attention to the fact that this trooper's real name was John Stuart Stuart Forbes, but, like many others, fails to recognize that the 2nd "Stuart" was the first half of an unhyphenated surname. His given full names were John Stuart with the other Stuart being added when the baronetcy of Pitsligo and Monymusk devolved to his eldest brother, William, in 1866. In 1871, Hiley rightly styled himself as "John S. Stuart Forbes, San Francisco, Broker." In any event, to include a "Pvt. John Stuart Forbes" on the roster of Company E (p. 205) is misleading when no one of that name is recorded as ever having been enlisted in the U.S. Army. "J. S. Hiley" is, therefore, the correct inscription on the battle monument even though De Rudio had discovered Stuart Forbes' true "civilian" identity some years earlier.
Mr. Russell is correct in that p. 205 does show John Stuart Stuart Forbes a member of Co. E. What Mr. Russell neglects to mention is that in Section I containing thumb-nail biographies of the Seventh Cavalry members, is this entry on p. 39: "Forbes, John Stuart Stuart see Hiley, PVT John S." He also does not mention the entry on p. 49: "Hiley, PVT John S. (aka Forbes, John Stuart Stuart [double "Stuart" is correct])...Apparently left home because of gambling problems and when he enlisted, he used his brother-in-law's last name, Hiley..."
While Mr. Wagner's entry on p. 205 is technically incorrect, the correct false name can be corrected in a subsequent edition. However, Mr. Russell's cherry-picking of one negative point and ignoring two correct entries is to this writer an inglorious deed."
JV
|
|
|
Post by marcabrams on May 29, 2012 10:51:09 GMT -6
I don't know who's information is correct in this instance, Fred's or Peter Russell's. What I do know is that it was irresponsible for the Dispatch editors to print such a loaded and biased review without some additional mediating comments (hope I expressed that correctly). If anything, it should have been made clear that Russell's research has turned up some data that differs with Fred's, but that the jury is still out on who is right. I think that there should be a written apology in the next issue of the Dispatch. But that brings up another problem: It will be several months before the next Dispatch. In the meantime, that review will make the rounds. Maybe there should be a policy to allow the author of a book to read the review early and respond if necessary, in the same issue as the review. On Amazon when a book gets trashed (especially for the wrong reason) someone else, including the author, can respond right away, but this is different. Lastly, will one of you knuckleheads go to Amazon and look up Sioux War Dispatches.
|
|