tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post115006884158197357..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Hoffer's Past Imperfect split in twoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-82631996122206420392011-03-08T19:40:01.682-05:002011-03-08T19:40:01.682-05:00Thanks for your comments, Peter Hoffer. It helps t...Thanks for your comments, Peter Hoffer. It helps to see how the book evolved.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-85985161566888979622011-03-08T15:35:49.249-05:002011-03-08T15:35:49.249-05:00Sorry to come to this thread almost five years aft...Sorry to come to this thread almost five years after it was spun, but perhaps I can add some perspective. first, I did not decide to write Past Imperfect in response to the scandals, I wrote it in response to the decision of the AHA's professional division (of which I was then a member) to cease hearing complaints about historians' misconduct. I did say that the public was dismayed, but I did not say this dismay was my motivation. Second, Public Affairs (the publisher) wanted an expose, in effect, an expanded version of the second half of the book. I wanted to put those cases into a larger context. If I failed to fully related the first to the second half of the book, it was not because there was no relation. Ambrose was a professor of history at UNO. Ellis was a professor of history at Mount Holyoke. Bellesiles was a professor of history at Emory. Goodwin was trained as an academic. It seemed to me that they had all lived through, firsthand, what I detailed in the first part of the book, and their approach to their publications was in part a response to the attack on academic history. All best, PeterPeter Charles Hoffernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-34786726117329349272006-11-15T23:05:00.000-05:002006-11-15T23:05:00.000-05:00Trade publishing is my business, so I feel I have ...Trade publishing is my business, so I feel I have a good perspective on that side of the Bellesiles saga.<br /><br /><i>Arming America</i> was not a "complete disaster" when it first came out. Its pre-publication publicity, laydown (quantity going into stores), critical reception (e.g., front page of the <i>New York Times Book Review</i>), and initial interest were extraordinarily good for a scholarly book by an author unknown to the public. <br /><br /><i>Arming America</i> sold only about 9,000 copies in hardcover before scholars started to expose its flaws, but for that type of book that would have been a more than respectable performance. Knopf was proud of the book and how it had published it, and was expecting years of softcover sales—the usual pattern for such titles. <br /><br />Then Knopf's people realized they'd been had. Only then, with unsellable inventory and no chance of a long paperback sale, did the book become a financial burden. And for such a big media company, the real hit was the embarrassment. <br /><br />If Michael Korda told you there was no conservative publisher in 2001, he gave you very bad advice. Regnery, The Free Press, and ReganBooks had all been publishing bestsellers from and for the right wing of American politics for <i>years</i> by that point. Who published all the anti-Clinton books of the 1990s, after all? <br /><br />Of course, making a scholarly study into a strong seller is much harder than publishing a man with a national radio following, but that's true no matter what the politics are.<br /><br />Basically, you seem to classify Bellesiles among historians who sought acclaim from the academy rather than the public, who "didn't care what the public wanted." Which might be true. But it undercuts that position to suggest he had "political consequences" in mind. If so, he wanted to reach a wide audience. If he'd set his sights only on academics, and they're already mostly anti-gun as you say, then his writing would have produced no political change. <br /><br />I still think Bellesiles was looking to make a big splash <i>beyond</i> his academic colleagues, that he did care about what the public would think. And in that respect he's quite different from historians who write books that are bound to find little favor with people outside the field because of their viewpoints, topics, methodologies, writing styles, etc. For one thing, the latter group don't make up most of their evidence.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-91223550450727168212006-11-15T19:50:00.000-05:002006-11-15T19:50:00.000-05:00"All four high-profile cases involved authors seek..."All four high-profile cases involved authors seeking big sales through commercial presses or admiration from non-professional audiences."<br /><br />However, Bellesiles's book was almost certainly motivated more by the political consequences he hoped that it would have--not the commercial possibilities. (It was a complete disaster, for something published by a trade publisher.)<br /><br />"Bellesiles's work addressed a controversial topic, but it's controversial because there are large numbers on both sides of most "gun issues," not because one side is unpopular."<br /><br />But one side <I>is</I> unpopular--at least among academics and publishing elites. When I first tried to get a corrective book published on the subject, in 2001, Michael Korda (who ought to know a bit about the publishing business) told me that I was wasting my time trying to get such a book published; the book publishing industry <I>hates</I> guns, and facts and accuracy were really quite irrelevant.<br /><br />In the meantime, a bit of a conservative publishing industry has grown up, and there is now a market for such books (or so I am hoping).Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-47041737722325266952006-11-13T12:09:00.000-05:002006-11-13T12:09:00.000-05:00Your comment makes an assumption that "historians ...Your comment makes an assumption that "historians who didn't care what the public wanted" have exhibited a lack of integrity on the same level as the four authors Hoffer focuses on. But his book doesn't offer evidence for that conclusion. All four high-profile cases involved authors seeking big sales through commercial presses or admiration from non-professional audiences. <br /><br />Bellesiles's work addressed a controversial topic, but it's controversial because there are large numbers on both sides of most "gun issues," not because one side is unpopular.<br /><br />It may sound like John Adams to say so, but integrity often requires not caring about what the public wants if the evidence points in another direction. The first half of Hoffer's book suggests that doing so can lead to popular suspicion—but he doesn't claim those historians have compromised their integrity. That's why I think he identified two separate and barely related phenomena.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-72735967279478347882006-11-13T11:43:00.000-05:002006-11-13T11:43:00.000-05:00You are correct that in one sense, the two halves ...You are correct that in one sense, the two halves don't fit: historians who didn't care what the public wanted, and historians who cared too much. But what these have in common is really Hoffer's point: integrity matters, and it doesn't matter whether it is being done to please the academic elite or the publishing elite. Plagiarism and fraud aren't right.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.com