NF The Gettysburg Companion

[major bill]

Anyone like this book? I like the maps supplemented with photos. But it is a bit long, like 544 pages. Has anyone seen many mistakes in the book?

 

[IrishBrigade]

It's a great resource, full colour maps, photos and drawings. Lots and lots of information, I treat this as a reference book rather than a book that you read from start to finish. It's a bit expensive but there was a tear in the cover in mine so I got it for half price! Same author also wrote a similar book on Waterloo

 

[Mary763]

I agree with IrishBrigade, it's a great resource! I pick it up every so often to look through or to research something. It was one of my first books on Gettysburg.

 

[major bill]

I agree with IrishBrigade, it's a great resource! I pick it up every so often to look through or to research something. It was one of my first books on Gettysburg.

However it does take up a fair amount of shelf space.

 

[rpkennedy]

Looks interesting. But a little pricy for me.

Ryan

 

[Mary763]

Yes it does, so many of the good ones do.

However it does take up a fair amount of shelf space.

 

[Mary763]

Looks interesting. But a little pricy for me.

Ryan

I picked my copy up when Borders was still in business, it was around $40.00.

 

[major bill]

For those thinking of purchasing this part of the cost can be justified by the book have information you might need three or more books to get the same information.

 

[rpkennedy]

For those thinking of purchasing this part of the cost can be justified by the book have information you might need three or more books to get the same information.

I probably already have those three books.

Ryan

 

[infomanpa]

I haven't heard much about this book. I would love to browse it first before considering its purchase.

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

My mailman hated it.

I will note that J.D. Petruzzi wrote the following review on Amazon:

"As attractive as this volume is, there are also many serious problems with it, including what appear to be many examples of the lifting of other peoples' work without attribution.
First, let's discuss the citations. To call them inadequate would be charitable. The Gettysburg Magazine, for example, is listed BY ISSUE, instead of by author, article, and page number. This makes chasing down a particular reference darn near impossible. The bibliography lists about a dozen secondary source books, and perhaps 100 total entries--certainly not nearly enough to substantiate all the material found within this book. And I know this from firsthand experience.
Although I have only read small portions of the book thus far, I have found that two of my articles published in "America's Civil War Magazine" were HEAVILY used in this book, although NEITHER of them was cited, and my name is not mentioned anywhere. Here is but one specific example: In one article, I used quotes from a trooper's letter given to me by a descendant. No one outside the family has ever seen the letters or used them for any purpose. Author Adkin used these quotes in the book without referencing the source (me). In fact, much of the two or three pages that detail John Buford's dispositions on June 30 and July 1 (my central expertise), and the opening of the battle, come from my years of archival and fieldwork--and are found in the ACW articles Adkin lifted from quite liberally. The research in my articles is wholly unique and could not have come from any other source.
This conclusion became even more obvious when I discovered that the map that accompanied one of the articles in the magazine (custom drawn for me by cartographer Steve Stanley of Gettysburg) was also reproduced and not attributed to me, my article, or Steve. After close examination, we determined the author (or the UK publisher, Aurum or the mapmaker) scanned the map straight out of the magazine and used most of it on page 209 of this book without permission. This is a dead giveaway that Adkin consulted and liberally fetched from the article itself to flesh out his own book at my expense. And this is only what I found after briefly browsing the book. I have a copy coming so I can deeply examine it.
Had the author or publisher contacted me, I would have been more than happy to help them. I always am. Since the author lives is in England, however, perhaps he felt that he could lift anything from American books and articles without citation and get away with it. Magazine articles, I have found, are the most commonly ripped off. There seems to be the perception by some authors that they can use material from them, without proper citation, because these articles are more quickly forgotten or less noticeable. Cite McPherson and Coddington, of course, but Joe Blow's article from five years ago needs no citation. I guess Mr. Adkin wasn't counting on the fact that I would see my map and my material in his new book, uncited, the first week it was released. Well, it turns out he was dead wrong.
I think EVERYONE who has written and published anything on Gettysburg should examine this book to see how, or whether their work was used and in what manner.
But wait! (Like a late-night commercial, there's more!) Gettysburg photo expert William Frassanito contacted me over the weekend about this book. He browsed through a copy and found that, after looking at only two dozen photo captions, about one-half of them were factually incorrect.
I note that Mr. Adkin has two other similar books, one on Waterloo and another on Trafalgar. I think authors who have written on those events should pick up a copy and scour the book to see how their original work was treated.
There seems to be a plethora of problems with this book, all of which Aurum and/or Stackpole is going to have to deal with very soon. My guess is that they are going to grow rather unhappy with Adkin over the next few days, if they aren't already."

 

[thomas aagaard]

Same author also wrote a similar book on Waterloo

Was about to ask if this was the case, since a friend of mine got the Waterloo one and that one have a lot of information... much of it very useful for war gaming.

But I admit I did not at any point track down any sources used.
(Guess I think less on this issue when it is a topic I have not studied as close as the civil war)

 

[major bill]

There is also a World War One Companion.

 

[mofederal]

It sounds a lot like the Titanic headed for an iceberg. I think it would take a class action lawsuit almost to solve the problem. If I was an author uncited. I would make sure the publisher's know it, and either tell them to have it fully cited or remove your information. As a writer, I have had this done before. When I was a writer for a newspaper I had at least two entire articles republished under another writer's name. my words and pictures and I could prove it. Unfortunately it is an all too common event. People really think newspaper articles are fair game to use as they please.

 

[rpkennedy]

My mailman hated it.

I will note that J.D. Petruzzi wrote the following review on Amazon:

"As attractive as this volume is, there are also many serious problems with it, including what appear to be many examples of the lifting of other peoples' work without attribution.
First, let's discuss the citations. To call them inadequate would be charitable. The Gettysburg Magazine, for example, is listed BY ISSUE, instead of by author, article, and page number. This makes chasing down a particular reference darn near impossible. The bibliography lists about a dozen secondary source books, and perhaps 100 total entries--certainly not nearly enough to substantiate all the material found within this book. And I know this from firsthand experience.
Although I have only read small portions of the book thus far, I have found that two of my articles published in "America's Civil War Magazine" were HEAVILY used in this book, although NEITHER of them was cited, and my name is not mentioned anywhere. Here is but one specific example: In one article, I used quotes from a trooper's letter given to me by a descendant. No one outside the family has ever seen the letters or used them for any purpose. Author Adkin used these quotes in the book without referencing the source (me). In fact, much of the two or three pages that detail John Buford's dispositions on June 30 and July 1 (my central expertise), and the opening of the battle, come from my years of archival and fieldwork--and are found in the ACW articles Adkin lifted from quite liberally. The research in my articles is wholly unique and could not have come from any other source.
This conclusion became even more obvious when I discovered that the map that accompanied one of the articles in the magazine (custom drawn for me by cartographer Steve Stanley of Gettysburg) was also reproduced and not attributed to me, my article, or Steve. After close examination, we determined the author (or the UK publisher, Aurum or the mapmaker) scanned the map straight out of the magazine and used most of it on page 209 of this book without permission. This is a dead giveaway that Adkin consulted and liberally fetched from the article itself to flesh out his own book at my expense. And this is only what I found after briefly browsing the book. I have a copy coming so I can deeply examine it.
Had the author or publisher contacted me, I would have been more than happy to help them. I always am. Since the author lives is in England, however, perhaps he felt that he could lift anything from American books and articles without citation and get away with it. Magazine articles, I have found, are the most commonly ripped off. There seems to be the perception by some authors that they can use material from them, without proper citation, because these articles are more quickly forgotten or less noticeable. Cite McPherson and Coddington, of course, but Joe Blow's article from five years ago needs no citation. I guess Mr. Adkin wasn't counting on the fact that I would see my map and my material in his new book, uncited, the first week it was released. Well, it turns out he was dead wrong.
I think EVERYONE who has written and published anything on Gettysburg should examine this book to see how, or whether their work was used and in what manner.
But wait! (Like a late-night commercial, there's more!) Gettysburg photo expert William Frassanito contacted me over the weekend about this book. He browsed through a copy and found that, after looking at only two dozen photo captions, about one-half of them were factually incorrect.
I note that Mr. Adkin has two other similar books, one on Waterloo and another on Trafalgar. I think authors who have written on those events should pick up a copy and scour the book to see how their original work was treated.
There seems to be a plethora of problems with this book, all of which Aurum and/or Stackpole is going to have to deal with very soon. My guess is that they are going to grow rather unhappy with Adkin over the next few days, if they aren't already."

Coming from J.D., that cinches it for me. That is an ugly situation.

Ryan

 

[IrishBrigade]

There's a couple more interesting comments for Petruzzi's initial review. I won't be burning my copy either way, also seems like there's more to this than missing citations.

"On behalf of Mark Adkin
As Mr Petruzzi has made his final comments on this matter it is incumbent on me to do likewise. Firstly, on the matter of the map which I allegedly copied from his article, though he now tells me I got it all wrong, so I obviously did not!

In his review, posted on 8 October, Mr Petruzzi wrote: `After close examination, we determined the author (or the UK publisher or the map-maker) scanned the map straight out of the magazine and used most of it on page 209 of this book.'

In his posting of 15 October he writes: `I didn't allege you reproduced a scanned copy of my map.'

Mr Petruzzi, it seems, reads his own reviews with as much care as he examines other people's books.

Secondly, on the positions of the vedettes. Mr Petruzzi's map shows them evenly spaced over a distance of some eight miles, often in positions that have no apparent regard for the topography: some are on reverse slopes, others in the middle of roads and one is even in a streambed, by definition the lowest point in the surrounding landscape and therefore the very opposite of a vantage point. Since the sole purpose of the vedettes was to give warning of an approaching enemy all this appears highly unrealistic and makes no tactical sense.

Finally, Mr Petruzzi does not appear to have bothered to look at page 155 of Andre Trudeau's book published several years before his article; for if he had he would surely have seen the map showing Buford's vedettes, in my view, a lot more realistically than his map.

Mark Adkin"

JD's response

"I didn't allege that you reproduced a scanned copy of my map. It appears, however, since my mapping of Buford's videttes and reserve positions was entirely unique, and nearly exactly reproduced on your map, it appears suspect. Many of those positions are based on primary sources only in my possession (such as trooper letters and an unpublished manuscript) and are available NOWHERE else. Aurum told me the map was based on the books of Martin, Pfanz, and Trudeau. Strange, though, that not a single map in any of those books bear even a modicum of resemblance to mine, and nowhere in any of those books is enough information available to produce one.

Here in the US we take rubbish where it belongs - out on the curb.

Now I will address some of those "differences" in the maps you point out. Your mapping of the Hanover Road vidette is WRONG. Bad guess on your part. Sure, it would be nice to place him atop Benner's Hill, but in a letter written by the trooper (given only to me by a descendant) he states he was in the low ground across from the DANIEL BENNER farm. Know where that is? It's in the LOW GROUND east of Benner's Hill, about 1/3 mile. If you take the time to go out there and look at the ground, you'll see that you can see up the road twice as far as you can from Benner's Hill. THAT'S why I put him there on my map. I'm right, you're wrong.

As for your other different placements, they're spurious. An examination of the regimental histories of the cavalry units involved (hhmm, that's right, none of them are listed in the bibliographies) as well as primary accounts in the form of letters written by contemporary residents of Mummasburg and Hunterstown show that my placements of the videttes are correct. Again, I'm right, you're wrong.

But again it all come down to citation. Your publisher has chosen to list the shortest amount of citations, and as others here have posted, it leads to nothing but questions.

As I wrote a representative of Stackpole, I've had enough of this. I'm currently finishing up my next book, and I'm finished wasting time on this. I've been getting emails constantly from folks who are recognizing others' works in this book without citation, so its reputation is being formed by folks other than me.

If you can live with, fine. That's, ah... your problem. Even though I've never been thanked by you, you're welcome for the help.

J. David Petruzzi"

 

[thomas aagaard]

is the issue un-sourced use of other peoples work?
or who is right/wrong about the placement of men?


Anyway, using other peoples work, without giving them the proper credit. (by at least using proper footnotes) is not OK.
And if relying heavily on something, actually acknowledging this should be done.