[ad_1]
Considering that nautical jargon can be esoteric, a few basic commandments have ruled the English language for at least 500 years. One: “You shall not confuse ships with boats.” Ships carry boats, but not vice versa, and any surface vessel large enough to carry its own boats is a ship. When a layman confuses terms, correcting the mistake may seem like terminological pettifogging – but in a study of maritime history, the standard is different. Calling a heavy warship a “boat”, as is often done in these pages, is a big mistake. All classes of battleships and aircraft carriers were introduced, for example “Iowa class boats”, “Yorktown class boats”, “Grand class boats” and “Bismarck class boats”.
A quick glance at Kennedy’s earlier work found no references to boats for ships. The examples in “Victory at Sea” correspond to a 70-page section of the book in Chapters 8 and 9. The question arises: After decades of using the terms correctly, did Kennedy spell out the wrong statements in this book? Or has he lost control of the editing process? In his thanks, he named eight research fellows, seven at Yale and one at King’s College London. He takes sole responsibility for the final product, “warts and all,” and he is, in a strict sense, right. But with enough research assistants to start a basketball team, one wonders if better coaching is needed. At the very least, some of the collective effort could be directed towards identifying and correcting errors, for example, by searching Wikipedia.
As a testament to his confidence as a scientist, Kennedy does not cover his confidence in this online encyclopedia. He quotes Wikipedia freely in the main text, cites more frequently than any other single source, and regrets not being able to accept so many “beautiful if not anonymous” authors. And indeed, Wikipedia does not deserve much of the slurs directed against it. It is a useful tool as a “first look” reference; this reviewer even consulted him while writing this review. Wikipedia’s articles on military history have improved in recent years, and many contain information not easily found elsewhere on the web. However, by Wikipedia’s own account, studies measuring its accuracy and reliability have been mixed, and its crowdsourcing model means any page can be edited anonymously, at any time, by anyone. As such, Wikipedia “does not consider itself a reliable source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.” Many college professors would jot down a student paper with unverified Wikipedia citations. It may be unprecedented for a major university press to include more than 80 in one volume. What’s going on in New Haven?
Kennedy’s professional legacy is based on 50 years of outstanding scholarship. He is legitimately a great historian. A single faulty critique aside, no book could dull such a shining reputation. As the preface suggests, “Victory at Sea” was first conceived as an art book. After Ian Marshall’s death, the project gradually evolved into something much bigger and more ambitious. If Kennedy’s purpose in reimagining the book was to pay homage to a dear friend after his death, it lends the venture a noble character; then the critic is a scammer who deserves to be ashamed of the criticism presented here.
But what’s true about shipping is just as true in the history profession: If you book the pass, you have to pay the freight. Scholarship progresses inexorably. Ten years later, the cost of updating one’s expertise could be 20,000 pages of new reading. Researching and writing history is like a spinach-eating contest where the only possible prize is another helping of fresh, steamed vegetables. In a farewell passage in the acknowledgments, Kennedy seems to acknowledge that some spinach is left uneaten: “I’m sorry if I failed to accept the work of another scientist; It was a pleasure to refer to much earlier papers and research (in the endnotes).” The feeling is generous but surprising. Apologizing seems like a bit too much – perhaps better to call it a feeling of regret? A lack of consciousness? But if the point is to admit that “Glory at Sea” is based mainly on outdated science, isn’t an apology more owed to the reader than to neglected scholars?
[ad_2]
Source link