NF Philip Thomas Tucker

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

My guess is that in the early days a careful press might buy in to the Ph.D.

I would expect a PhD writing in their field to usually be published by a university press.

Earl Hess is probably the most prolific (in terms of unique works published) reputable ACW author and most, possibly all, of his books were published by various university presses. Even though some are rather niche aspects of the war.

 

[Cavalier]

Just an opinion based on my reading experience on military history topics, but the problem with authors being very prolific with works widely spread across many topics is that they are seldom, if ever, knowledgeable about the details that interest me.

Tucker's book on Barksdale's Brigade was a prime example of that in my opinion. That book left such a bad taste in my mouth I doubt I'll ever read another of his books. Being the Custer fan that I am his book on Custer at Gettysburg would be right up my alley however I have no intention of buying it or getting it from the library.

John

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Should the sole basis by which we criticize an author and his work be of his being very prolific and widely spread across many topics?

Earl Hess is almost 70 and has written something like 30 books, many of the subjects dovetailed together which maximizes research value and makes writing easier.

Stephen Ambrose died at 66, haven written a similar amount, but for a more mainstream audience. He was very popular, but very overrated IMO. (To say nothing of plagiarism accusations.)

Can anyone think of someone writing good history books at a higher rate than that?

Peter Cozzens is of similar age and has less than 20.

Tucker is 70 and has allegedly written over 140. 4-5 times more than a normal prolific nonfiction author. That's an enormous red flag.

I bought and read The South's Finest: The First Missouri Confederate Brigade from Pea Ridge to Vicksburg. It was well done. I had no issues with it on any level.

Sounds like a rare example of Tucker writing a book on a topic because it was overlooked, rather than because he's trying to prove conventional understanding is all wrong.

 

[Jamieva]

Earl Hess is almost 70 and has written something like 30 books, many of the subjects dovetailed together which maximizes research value and makes writing easier.

Stephen Ambrose died at 66, haven written a similar amount, but for a more mainstream audience. He was very popular, but very overrated IMO. (To say nothing of plagiarism accusations.)

Can anyone think of someone writing good history books at a higher rate than that?

Peter Cozzens is of similar age and has less than 20.

Tucker is 70 and has allegedly written over 140. 4-5 times more than a normal prolific nonfiction author. That's an enormous red flag.



Sounds like a rare example of Tucker writing a book on a topic because it was overlooked, rather than because he's trying to prove conventional understanding is all wrong.

That book was written in 1993 I think he really ramped up his production in the 2000s. He won a book award for a book he did I the early 90s as well.

 

[archieclement]

I bought and read The South's Finest: The First Missouri Confederate Brigade from Pea Ridge to Vicksburg. It was well done. I had no issues with it on any level.
He has published on a wide variety of topics. Civil rights, African American history, military history and many more.
Should the sole basis by which we criticize an author and his work be of his being very prolific and widely spread across many topics?
I cannot speak to the other criticisms of Tucker.

That's the one I have and have read and said didn't think was bad.

However if one had R.S. Beviers History of the First and Second Missouri published in 1878, it relies heavily on it. And didn't leave an impression of adding alot to me.

But I am frequently left feeling that way about ACW books, the reality is little new comes to light that hasn't been covered in last 150 years. I actually buy less books now on ACW unless a topic i don't have, as been frequently disappointed buying books on my favorite topics, that after reading......are just rehash of other books I allready had.

 

[Lincoln56]

Earl Hess is almost 70 and has written something like 30 books, many of the subjects dovetailed together which maximizes research value and makes writing easier.

Stephen Ambrose died at 66, haven written a similar amount, but for a more mainstream audience. He was very popular, but very overrated IMO. (To say nothing of plagiarism accusations.)

Can anyone think of someone writing good history books at a higher rate than that?

Peter Cozzens is of similar age and has less than 20.

Tucker is 70 and has allegedly written over 140. 4-5 times more than a normal prolific nonfiction author. That's an enormous red flag.



Sounds like a rare example of Tucker writing a book on a topic because it was overlooked, rather than because he's trying to prove conventional understanding is all wrong.

William C. Davis authored close to 40 books, I believe, on the American Civil War. Not certain about the number of years the writing took place; Mr. Davis is 77 or 78 years old now.

I've read many of Mr. Davis's writings, respect him as a writer, and find his works far more interesting and educational than anything I've read by Tucker.

Tried reading three Tucker books and the repetitive paragraphs drove me to donate them to a local library. He is remarkably consistent in his writing style, I was hoping I'd just gotten a hold of one of his poorly written ones and the others might be better. Nope.

 

[Belfoured]

I bought and read The South's Finest: The First Missouri Confederate Brigade from Pea Ridge to Vicksburg. It was well done. I had no issues with it on any level.
He has published on a wide variety of topics. Civil rights, African American history, military history and many more.
Should the sole basis by which we criticize an author and his work be of his being very prolific and widely spread across many topics?
I cannot speak to the other criticisms of Tucker.

As I posted, I have two. Neither was, in hindsight, worth buying. I noticed the same significant issues that reviewers of several other of his books have commented on.

Entirely aside from the ridiculous level of self-promotion, don't you question an author's qualifications and research to cover such a wide range of unrelated topics and turn out books on those topics at that pace? I know several qualified authors who have justifiably earned a good reputation. I know how much work it takes to publish a well-researched and -written book.

 

[Belfoured]

I would expect a PhD writing in their field to usually be published by a university press.

Earl Hess is probably the most prolific (in terms of unique works published) reputable ACW author and most, possibly all, of his books were published by various university presses. Even though some are rather niche aspects of the war.

Hess is prolific but his books often involve multiple volumes based on related topics where his base research likely overlaps to some extent. When somebody pumps out books on several unrelated topics I have questions ....

 

[Belfoured]

William C. Davis authored close to 40 books, I believe, on the American Civil War. Not certain about the number of years the writing took place; Mr. Davis is 77 or 78 years old now.

I've read many of Mr. Davis's writings, respect him as a writer, and find his works far more interesting and educational than anything I've read by Tucker.

Tried reading three Tucker books and the repetitive paragraphs drove me to donate them to a local library. He is remarkably consistent in his writing style, I was hoping I'd just gotten a hold of one of his poorly written ones and the others might be better. Nope.

Davis, Longacre, Hess, Smith, Wittenberg, Powell, et al. are well-qualified authors who are prolific but who also "stay in their lane". You've identified one of the several significant Tucker problems I and many others have encountered.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Can anyone think of someone writing good history books at a higher rate than that?

Bill O'Reilly!!!

Oh...wait...you did use the qualifier '...good...' - curses, foiled again...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

H.W. Brands is the first author I can think of who is equally eccentric in his American history output. He writes biographies, political history, military history, narratives about various incidents, etc. He's 70 and has written around 40 books. Brands is rumored to have a lot of research assistants heavily assisting. PTT seems to work alone.

 

[Belfoured]

H.W. Brands is the first author I can think of who is equally eccentric in his American history output. He writes biographies, political history, military history, narratives about various incidents, etc. He's 70 and has written around 40 books. Brands is rumored to have a lot of research assistants heavily assisting. PTT seems to work alone.

That's a good point. One big difference from Tucker is that the overwhelming majority of Brands's books have been published by academic presses or large trade publishers. That says something because both generally exercise a good measure of editorial control and input. In addition, Brands is a better writer - that's more a matter of opinion, of course.

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

That's a good point. One big difference from Tucker is that the overwhelming majority of Brands's books have been published by academic presses or large trade publishers. That says something because both generally exercise a good measure of editorial control and input. In addition, Brands is a better writer - that's more a matter of opinion, of course.

There's no question who the better author between the two is. While Brands has plenty of books with Goodreads ratings under 4 stars and gets flack for oversimplifying/skipping essential details in reviews, he's clearly operating on a different professional level. There is evidence of rigorous quality assurance we don't see with PTT. He's also still written at least 100 less books despite basically putting out at least one per year for decades.

 

[TallTallMan]

Per a comment the Levin article, Tucker used to have this on his Amazon profile:

"CORRUPT RIVALS AND THEIR FAKE NEWS
The author's ground-breaking works have presented hard-hitting truths that have angered old school traditionalists, including one corrupt Civil War publisher/editor and his cronies and authors. By launching fake negative Amazon reviews, they hope to silence the author's fresh "NEW LOOK" historical truths. Emboldened by keyboard courage and anonymity, this good old boy establishment has been behind years of posting negative fake Amazon reviews. Revealing the source and proof of agenda, the editorial (instead of history) obsession of these negative reviews (ironically, repetitive reviews that complain of repetition and emphasize "don't read this book," "don't waste your time" and "needs to be reduced" to reveal the fixated financial and non-historical concerns of a single-minded publisher/editor) that concentrate on mundane editorial minutiae to reveal the true source: an unethical editor/publisher and rival obsessed with making profits and twisting the truth. Just so happens that this publisher's many books (relatively cheap small-sized glossy paperbacks) all have disproportionately inflated 5-star Amazon reviews to reveal the inverse corruption of the attack reviews on the author's books. This corrupt entrenched establishment hides in the dark shadows of cyber space, while attempting to manipulate/abuse Amazon and social media to fool the public."

 

[TallTallMan]

That's a good point. One big difference from Tucker is that the overwhelming majority of Brands's books have been published by academic presses or large trade publishers. That says something because both generally exercise a good measure of editorial control and input. In addition, Brands is a better writer - that's more a matter of opinion, of course.

There's no question who the better author between the two is. While Brands has plenty of books with Goodreads ratings under 4 stars and gets flack for oversimplifying/skipping essential details in reviews, he's clearly operating on a different professional level. There is evidence of rigorous quality assurance we don't see with PTT. He's also still written at least 100 less books despite basically putting out at least one per year for decades.

I only have Brands's Dreams of El Dorado and its just so-so; not a great, comprehensive history. The Grant book has bad reviews. I prefer the Castel is West, Sears is East type of history you both mentioned before.

 

[TallTallMan]

And while relying on Amazon ratings too much is a fool's errand, looking at the *** and ** ratings for several books shows a strong pattern of editing problems, big and small.

No it doesn't! It's Wittenberg sockpuppeting!!

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

I only have Brands's Dreams of El Dorado and its just so-so; not a great, comprehensive history. The Grant book has bad reviews. I prefer the Castel is West, Sears is East type of history you both mentioned before.

I've read three of his books. His Woodrow Wilson biography was basically just a First World War-era book but I thought Heirs to the Founders was good for what it was. I got halfway through his John Brown vs Lincoln book before I got bored with it; he made his point (Lincoln = smart to patiently seek change when the time was right, Brown = crazy) and the analysis was basic. The best thing I can say about Brands is that it is printed heavily so it's easy to find his books on clearance - that is how I got all three of the titles I mentioned. I have read reviews of more but never felt like I needed to get any.

 

[TallTallMan]

I've read three of his books. His Woodrow Wilson biography was basically just a First World War-era book but I thought Heirs to the Founders was good for what it was. I got halfway through his John Brown vs Lincoln book before I got bored with it; he made his point (Lincoln = smart to patiently seek change when the time was right, Brown = crazy) and the analysis was basic. The best thing I can say about Brands is that it is printed heavily so it's easy to find his books on clearance - that is how I got all three of the titles I mentioned. I have read reviews of more but never felt like I needed to get any.

His Lincoln/Brown book interested me. I'm also nuts about the West--the CW's sequel event--but his book is mostly the pre-CW era and is kinda all over the place. Also, the Spanish-American War was not West.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Per a comment the Levin article, Tucker used to have this on his Amazon profile:

"CORRUPT RIVALS AND THEIR FAKE NEWS
The author's ground-breaking works have presented hard-hitting truths that have angered old school traditionalists, including one corrupt Civil War publisher/editor and his cronies and authors. By launching fake negative Amazon reviews, they hope to silence the author's fresh "NEW LOOK" historical truths. Emboldened by keyboard courage and anonymity, this good old boy establishment has been behind years of posting negative fake Amazon reviews. Revealing the source and proof of agenda, the editorial (instead of history) obsession of these negative reviews (ironically, repetitive reviews that complain of repetition and emphasize "don't read this book," "don't waste your time" and "needs to be reduced" to reveal the fixated financial and non-historical concerns of a single-minded publisher/editor) that concentrate on mundane editorial minutiae to reveal the true source: an unethical editor/publisher and rival obsessed with making profits and twisting the truth. Just so happens that this publisher's many books (relatively cheap small-sized glossy paperbacks) all have disproportionately inflated 5-star Amazon reviews to reveal the inverse corruption of the attack reviews on the author's books. This corrupt entrenched establishment hides in the dark shadows of cyber space, while attempting to manipulate/abuse Amazon and social media to fool the public."

It's not possible to do what our pal Ph.D. Phil claims. You have to have purchased the book from Amazon to leave a review. Nobody in their right mind would spend that much on his crappy books to do as alleged. I've been the target of some of his lunacy, and I can attest that I lack the time or desire to do as he alleges; I would have to spend all of my time on his garbage to do as alleged.

 

[Library Lady]

Bill O'Reilly!!!

Oh...wait...you did use the qualifier '...good...' - curses, foiled again...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

I'm not sure how much of the Killing series he actually writes and how much is written by Martin Dugard. The Bill O'Reilly's Legends & Lies: The Civil War book was written by David Fisher according to the dust jacket.

But while we're talking vast output, I have no clue how James Patterson does it. He's all over the library: Adult fiction (he has his own shelving units), Kids Room, Teens, and Adult nonfiction (true crime books and a book about the Kennedys). And then there's Danielle Steele, Nora Roberts/J. D. Robb and Debbie Macomber in the fiction section. I'm exhausted just thinking about it!