What determines you liking certain writers?

[highplainsdrifter59]

I mention writers based upon some might not be noted historians but more writers or students of the Civil War.
Personally, I like Shelby Foote, D.S. Freeman and Bruce Catton. Those three seemed to bring the war alive in their writings. I'm not sold on everything they do write is correct but for the most part they are.
Pure fictional, I love the father and son combo of the Shaara guys. I have read most of their Civil War books. They are intertwined with fiction and good historical stuff. But great reading to pass a rainy day with.
Also, I never put all my belief in just one writer or historian as any one, they contain plenty of their own opinions they have come to. So I take what I feel is true and look further into what I think wasn't true to find an answer. Sometimes I don't sometimes I find that they were right or they were wrong as I had first thought. But no book is 100% right of wrong.
In today's historians or writers, I have not found that one person who just jumps out with some good new stuff, more rehashing what has already been said. There are some good ones, just they seem to be obsessed with tearing down other writings than building up new facts.
What determines you liking a certain writer?

 

[mofederal]

They're writing style, and how they tell the tale. Not getting technical at the start. Beginning at the start, and not at a midpoint, or using flashbacks, which even historians do. None of the modern bunch stand out much. I like the older (read dead) writers. A lot of these guys were WWII vets, some knew combat pretty well. In some cases I think the war triggered them to look at the past, a different time and place. Some might have a name as a writer, but lack something Writing a lot of books does not make you popular. Stephen Ambrose comes to mind. He wrote good books before Band of Brothers. D-Day was the last book of his I loved. After that no, his G.I. books became rehashes. I had no interests in his others. I also liked Gerald Astor. All of his books, which were about mostly WWII. There again. He was a soldier and an infantryman, and understood his subject. I do read a lot of WWII. I also like so many ACW , but no one writer. Shaara was good, but only some of their books. My favorite writer of all John Jakes. ACW history Foote, Sword, Catton, Freeman and Cozzens. I know I picked a live one.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

A clear style, a strong command of the material, copious annotations (preferably footnotes), and a thorough bibliography. Also really helps if it's a topic that hasn't been covered for the umpteenth time.

Some great examples that spring to mind are Timothy B. Smith (Champion Hill), Craig L. Symonds (numerous titles), and Steven M. Mayeaux (Earthen Walls, Iron Men).

 

[unionblue]

I have to be able to see in my mind's eye what the author is trying to show me with his words.

Bruce Catton does this for me. Reading him put's me in the middle of the action, hearing the guns roar, seeing men fall, and catching glimpses of courage.

There are just a few others who can do such, but he's the man in my 'book.'

 

[shermans_march]

I like authors that put me in the time period and make the events interesting. On the other side of the coin, I don't like when authors try to insert their opinion on everything. An author trying to imagine what an individual must have thought or felt, without any evidence, is quite irritating.

 

[bankerpapaw]

Their writing style. Being able (in my mind's eye) to visualize and imagine my being there.

 

[Deleted User CS]

I have two basic types of thoughts on reading: Number one, Sometimes I read to entertain myself. For example, Brad Melzer's and Dan Brown's books are rather interesting and entertaining at the same time. I love how they weave several plot lines within the main plot line while using real historical figures and situations. Both authors have the ability to keep the reader's interest while moving the story along at a fast pace. In other words, it is very hard for me to put their book down or wait to complete the book later on. One tends to lose the excitement factor. The second type of reading I practice is educational. This is when I completely take my time and analyze ever aspect of the author's book line by line, footnote by footnote. Actually, before I read the first sentence I review the acknowledgment pages and the bibliography. If I don't see certain primary and secondary sources I don't even turn to the first page, because I know that the author did not take the time to do his homework. This practice, once learned, saves the reader an inordinate amount of time and money. I enjoy authors who take great care in the way they articulate their words and how they form these well crafted words into extraordinary sentences with adequate transitional periods into the next paragraph. Several writers who come to mind who are excellent practitioners of this writing technique include Bruce Catton and Alan Nolan but other modern writers such as Gordon Rhea, David Powell, Eric Wittenberg and Richard Sommers also have demonstrated this style of writing in their books and articles. In conclusion, All of these historians and authors allow the individual soldier or unit to tell us their story with the use of their own words without the assistance of additional and artificial information added to the text. I hope this is not off topic. David.

 

[johnsneed]

To me, what makes me enjoy one writer over another is an ephemeral quality. It is like trying to grab hold of a fog. It is like that often repeated quote about internet ****, "I don't know what makes me like a writer but I know it when I see it." But this is an interesting question to reflect on when a person has the time.

John Sneed

 

[johnsneed]

I see a word of my reply has been starred out. The word was taken from a quote at the United States Senate hearing. I meant no offense and will view that deleted word as a learning experience on the forum. I apologize if any offense was given. If any was given, I plead temporary ignorance and beg for forgiveness.

John Sneed

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Most of my post have more red in them than my original post.......

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I have to be able to see in my mind's eye what the author is trying to show me with his words.

Bruce Catton does this for me. Reading him put's me in the middle of the action, hearing the guns roar, seeing men fall, and catching glimpses of courage.

There are just a few others who can do such, but he's the man in my 'book.'

Bruce Catton I believe may be the first writer most of us started with. I remember reading...mostly looking at those great battle maps in the American Hertiage paperback book Catton wrote in. From there his paperback books I bought, I could not afford hardbacks then. My first hardback series of Catton was his trilogy of the Army of the Potomac.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I like authors that put me in the time period and make the events interesting. On the other side of the coin, I don't like when authors try to insert their opinion on everything. An author trying to imagine what an individual must have thought or felt, without any evidence, is quite irritating.

I agree, I guess that why I wrote they really just rehash things and attempt to tear down other writers and insert their own opinions to make it new and refreshing. I'm not anti something new......heck, I've learned so many new things and items I had no clue about from members here.
But how many times can you rehash Hood?

 

[shermans_march]

I agree, I guess that why I wrote they really just rehash things and attempt to tear down other writers and insert their own opinions to make it new and refreshing. I'm not anti something new......heck, I've learned so many new things and items I had no clue about from members here.
But how many times can you rehash Hood?

That is why I really like James Lee Mcdonough's new bio on Sherman. A lot of good information that provides new perspectives on Sherman.

 

[unionblue]

Bruce Catton I believe may be the first writer most of us started with. I remember reading...mostly looking at those great battle maps in the American Hertiage paperback book Catton wrote in. From there his paperback books I bought, I could not afford hardbacks then. My first hardback series of Catton was his trilogy of the Army of the Potomac.

Mine too.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

As I writer myself, I REALLY appreciate great writing. I'm in the midst of reading Stephen W. Sears' latest book at the moment, and I often find myself saying, "I really wish I could write that well."

I work at it every single day. I've improved over the years with practice, but I doubt I will ever have the gift for the written word that Steve has.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Bruce Catton was the first "serious" writer about the Civil War I read, and his style is very engaging. I liked him, and I wouldn't mind rereading one of his books again. William Lee Miller's "Arguing About Slavery" with its dry, ironic wit made a book basically about a bunch of politicians talking a fascinating read.

Many historians I have learned from and respect aren't as good as writers, so I can't say I have the same level of affection. Eric Foner's unsentimental "Fiery Trial" is very good, but I have a hard time getting through his other books. Stephanie McCurry's "Confederate Reckoning" was very uneven, with academic speak about "the Confederate project" but I learned a lot. Gary W. Gallagher, funny and vivid in person, is measured in his prose. Its more respect than liking.

William Oates' "Scorpion's Sting" was a revelation. It finally made clear the events of the late 1850s in a way that made sense, and made the various actions of groups and individuals understandable.

Joseph Harsh's "Taken at the Flood" about the 1862 war from the Peninsula to Antietam is, IMO one of the best books about Civil War generalship, and the how and why generals made the decisions they did. It eschewed the lazy stereotypes and tropes. No clichés about dumb Pope, Lee's blood being up, or gutless McClellan. It put you in Lee's boots and made you realize exactly how high the bar was to be a good army commander, let alone a great one.

 

[CW3O]

I want well researched history and a enjoyable and readable style.
Pet peeve "end notes" Vs. "foot notes" I want to see the source where I am reading the text not having to shuffle to the back of the book and back. I only read actual books and have never read a history book in any on-line format.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Pet peeve "end notes" Vs. "foot notes" I want to see the source where I am reading the text not having to shuffle to the back of the book and back.

Definitely my preference as well, but sometimes it's not up to the author.

Certainly agree on the preference for a physical book. I'd noticed for a while that I seem to absorb material better from a printed page. I asked my ophthalmologist about it, half-jokingly, but he gave me a serious answer: there's a distinct difference in the visual contrast between words on a screen and on a page, and apparently some people can adjust to it better than others.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Definitely my preference as well, but sometimes it's not up to the author.

It's almost never up to the author. The publisher makes the call.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

It's almost never up to the author. The publisher makes the call.

Puzzling. Once upon a time, I could see that endnotes would be easier to typeset, but nowadays I'd have thought there'd be more flexibility there.