Acts of War by Richard Holmes

[Guest kaisa]

I just finished this and I was very curious as to the system of referencing he used. In Tommy the footnotes are adequate but in this one, I'd say 9 footnotes per chapter leaves a bit to be desired, doesn't it? This book is obviously meant for a wider audience as a popular read, yet I do not think it was any worse than An Intimate History of Killing by Joanna Bourke (I understand that this was hailed as a masterpiece).

As I'm not British and am not too familiar with the traditions of academic writing in England, could you please explain what makes a reference? And how acceptable is it to use books like Acts of War (that are not properly referenced yet contain some interesting points) in your thesis for example? I find this lack of references higly annoying for two reasons. First, as a reader I'm keen to find out more about some points, especially when there are interesting and memorable quotes from soldiers themselves (Denis Winter's Death's Men was by far the worst in this aspect - a fascinating book but ...).

Secondly, there are severel books that lack references but contain interesting information (that you cannot check ) and are allegedely the only ones on the subject. Boy Soldiers is one and when I was writing my thesis on the Christmas Truce of 1914 I ran into a similar problem. Malcolm Brown isn't a trained historian and wasn't too fond of references either. What I think of Stanley Weintraub, I've already expressed under the topic "Worst World War One books" Where I come from, the lack of references usually makes the book unusable in academic writing. So that leaves one with very little.

All right, will end the rant here. All thoughts appreciated, though!

[Guest]

I think that Holmes' output is such that he just does not have the time to reference the work properly and in Britain, due to his TV appearances, he is probably well enough known to expect the majority of his sales to be to non-acedemic readers who think references are a waste of space.

There is a point where you cross the line from historian to popular writer and he may have crossed it.

Personally, I like to see footnotes, but there has been a move to endnotes and there is a move now to show the page number without a reference number in the text. All supposedly so as not to hinder the reader. Don't like it.

[Kate Wills]

There is a point where you cross the line from historian to popular writer and he may have crossed it.

Personally, I like to see footnotes, but there has been a move to endnotes and there is a move now to show the page number without a reference number in the text. All supposedly so as not to hinder the reader. Don't like it.

Regarding footnotes, I think this is a new international standard, which may have been set by American univerisities. A lecturer told us a couple of years ago of new rules for submitting academic research papers, which essentially required everyone to submit according to US spellings and procedures.

Reagrding Prof. Holmes, the way he is churning-out titles, I'm surprised he has time to eat and sleep, let alone undertake in-depth research.

[Bob Mitchell]

A lecturer told us a couple of years ago of new rules for submitting academic research papers, which essentially required everyone to submit according to US spellings and procedures.

What a nightmare, I have an alergic reaction to adding ize to pretty much anything. If it can be "ised" it will be when I'm writing. Apologies in advance to anyone from the US but I can't stand the bastardisation of English that is American English. Color is something a cat wears around his neck.

Seriously if you're going to pronounce is like you say it spell it culluhr. Rant over.

As for referencing, I've been taught to cite my sources for facts and quotes. Generally it's up to the disgression of the historian. All my thesis contain vast amount of referencing per page, but that's generally because I have to cram a lot of info into a small space. As for Richard Holmes, regardless of other duties I personally think that if he's using sub-standard referencing then the book is incomplete and thus, should be delayed until is accurately and adaquately referenced. Nevertheless I'm sure there's a million and one reasons why this hasn't happened.

[salesie]

As Angie says, he's probably crossed the rubicon. There is a world outside the ivory towers of academia and the vast majority of the world's population live in it - if they didn't, what would the academics find to write about?

Most readers read for pleasure, not to carry out further research (otherwise fiction would be dead). Holmes (and his publisher) probably decided his work needed a new focus, a new market? Good luck to him.

Cheers - salesie.

[DirtyDick]

I agree with the belief that it is a deliberate decision on the part of the historian and/or publisher to make the book more 'mainstream'.

Thinking about it, on the back of his TV series' and books, if Holmes wrote a book on any historical subject there would be people willing to buy it.

As to the format. I would dislike it if I was using his book for research as opposed to a general read on the subject. However, lots of qualifying footnotes, end notes and appendices could put off many purchasers, who would - perhaps - accept verbatum what was offered on the page and possess little inclination to research further any specific point. (In the same manner as many fiction books are written in an extremely simplistic style to appeal to a wider audience.)

The main focus is surely to sell as many books as possible to as many people as possible: if a lack of footnotes put off perhaps 5% of potential purchasers, I am sure more than this would buy it for this very reason.

BTW: this is not the first book of this kind by Holmes. Holmes and Keegan's 1987 work 'Soldiers' contains no footnotes or acknowledgements whatsoever.

Cheers

Richard

[Paul Hodges]

And how acceptable is it to use books like Acts of War (that are not properly referenced yet contain some interesting points) in your thesis for example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely fine to use Acts of War etc in your thesis, as long as your referencing makes the source clear. I've often used stuff from Lyn Macdonald's fully unreferenced texts in my thesis and footnote it in this sort of fashion - Private Bloggs, memories / oral interview concerning circa 2nd July 1916. Quoted in Macdonald, Somme, pp. 86-7.

For Brown and Winter, by the way, nearly all the sources are IWM, so circa 8 times out of 10, just put the surname quoted into their internet document catalogue search and, bingo, full reference.

[Guest kaisa]

For Brown and Winter, by the way, nearly all the sources are IWM, so circa 8 times out of 10, just  put the surname quoted into their internet document catalogue search and, bingo, full reference.

Well, I can see the logic of your suggestion but it makes me feel a bit iffy nonetheless. I know the system works since I did trace some info from Brown in IWM and found the right parts all right. But with Holmes and Winter that isn't always possible, because they usually just quote point blank, without really mentioning where it came from (makes it difficult to even place it in the bibliography).

I've been taught to quote everything that isn't encyclopedic knowledge - e. g. that WWI lasted from 1914 to 1918, stuff like that. So that tends to force my hand into not using books like Boy Soldiers of the Great war in academic works, although it does seem a great waste to dismiss all those interviews Emden has made.

Thanks for all the posts all the same !

[DirtyDick]

Depending on the level of the thesis, it should be fine if the source is clearly identifiable as a first-hand account and included in a bona fide history book. For a PhD (especially) or Masters they might be very fussy and want you to get the entire source for yourself rather than rely on abridged versions of primary sources.

In cases where footnotes are omitted, most authors tailor the text to ensure that the witnesses' surname or other pertinent details are present to place the quote in context - then merely look for this surname in the bibliography. If they have done their job correctly this should be made evident (if not, it is a problem). One could always credit it as "X (original source) as reproduced in Y (book in which it is printed)"

A google also helps, because it might have been published elsewhere or be in a university reading list, giving fuller details.

Best to talk to your tutor about this.

Richard