"how low can an author go to sell a book" Topic

I'm not on an ego trip here, I've never been shot at directly, I've never been in hand to hand combat, etc.

But I have had to make on the spot decisions, in operational theatres, involving complex air and waterspace deconflictions, whilst considering complex ROE issues and my 2 up commander's intent.

And that has completely changed my view of what I read about military and naval history, and has made me much more sympathetic to the 'mistakes' that some real commanders have been subjected to by armchair generals.

Sparker,

Very well put and I can see that my very narrow suggestion about combat-only experience was too restricted. Whilst I have been involved in hand-to-hand combat on a few occasions it was not in a war zone and as such I think your experience would easily trump mine. Do you find your teeth grating when you read peole unloading casually on the likes of Berthier, who had to manage without an IPod or laptop?

Also what about Chuvak, Steve Smith, Un ami, nvrsaynvr, John Cook, to name a few, all in Dave Hollins team or vice versa?

All had to leave or did leave TMP because such a lot of rubbish was written about their persons.

Were they MADE to go, School Bully? (Remember that nickname? Bet you don't). The answer is… NO.

VW please don't take my comment too seriously.

as for

Chuvak, Steve Smith, Un ami, nvrsaynvr, John Cook

they would have been in the team, alas they are not allowed to play anymore.

GB – the only two locked out that I know are John Cook
and Steven H. Smith the rest are all allowed here still.

Just to let you know.

Regards
James

What rubbish was written about them and how long ago did this happen? and who's the school bully it's all very puzzling

Steve got banned after a "silencing frenzy" from the Tendency – the others all left voluntarily. They were driven out by the Tendency as it becomes impossible to have a discussion thread without theor idiotic and bullying behaviour, which renders the thread impossible to read. It has been going on for several years, but seems more virulent of late – in the past, it tended to be the repetition of 3rd hand outdated wisdom, rather than the vitriol we see more often now.

It does nothing to forward our understanding and knowledge, but that is what they want. they will not be satisfied until all heretics are drivem from the board and they cam play with themselves, while misleading any new enthusiasts with their sacred myths.

Many authors simply do not venture on to the boards, due to thios behaviour, which is a shame as I think readers can get more from a book if they also have the opportunity to discuss it withy the author. Sadly, the behaviour of the Tendency makes this very difficult or impossible (see my comment about the NSF above).

Dave Hollins

Many authors do not attend some sites because they see the abuse thrown at those who dare to write reviews or disagree with the views of others.

Many authors simply do not venture on to the boards, due to thios behaviour, which is a shame as I think readers can get more from a book if they also have the opportunity to discuss it withy the author. Sadly, the behaviour of the Tendency makes this very difficult or impossible

Oh no. Barnacle Bill the Sailor's getting all unhappy. I've met more than enough professional writers to know that his style of behaviour, like his hero Figes, is treated with disdain and contempt.

Many authors simply do not venture on to the boards, due to thios behaviour, which is a shame as I think readers can get more from a book if they also have the opportunity to discuss it withy the author. Sadly, the behaviour of the Tendency makes this very difficult or impossible (see my comment about the NSF above).

pot and kettle comes to mind here…

I nearly fell off my chair when I read the above paragraph. It amazes and stuns me that hollins can blame others for the abuse and vitriol but yet thinks he is as white as snow and smells of rose petals.

hollins, you sir are one of the worst and it is old bear, gaz and I who are the guys who have the guts to stand up to your bully boy tactics, not the other way round my friend.

I am sure hollins have no mirros in his home.

Written in Colburn's United Service Magazine in 1843,
a correspondent signing himself 'A General Officer' stated that
'When Civilians will write military history, and venture to
advance opinions of their own on technical points of which the
Profession alone are able to judge, they, generally, talk
nonsense',even more difficult must it be for those so removed
from the mores and practices of the period to comment upon the
subject of morale.

Regards
James

@Imperiale

Go and look in the archives – look for un ami – see how badly he ws attacked, only because he disagreed with 10 Marines.

But who is the school bully it,s all very intriguing

James

I know what happened to them, did they jump or were they pushed? but thank you anyway.

so from your 1843 extract, you are suggesting only military service gives one the ability to write military history.
I suspect the opposite is true, but not something I wish to argue about.

So Dave puts up a post about a new book he and others have contributed to, and what do we get? this vicious campaign against him.
I admire the way he is staying calm under this barrage of abuse from 4 or 5 members of TMP, 2 members taking it 'outside' to Amazon to continue their campaign of ??#£$.

So Dave is the bully? and the 4 or 5 TMP members running this campaign are victims? I don't think so.

And people wonder what happened to Un ami, Steve Smith, John Cook, Chuvak, nvrsaynvr……

The stifle button was a great innovation!

As far as Amazon goes, I am only looking for an opportunity to respond, but the authors of those "reviews" went off whining to Amazon, so I think that confirms the silencing agenda.

Billy – If you look at recent posts here, you will see. they are the posters with nothing constructive to say, just full of abuse and vitriol, designed in part to scare off newer members here. They press the ! button and complain, then egg each other on – if you stifle them, you will see whole blocks go grey.

Graf B.

This is a most remarkable thread but the encouraging thing is the lack of support for the 'three stooges'. I haven't read Hollins' review because Amazon UK pulled it but while searching for it I stumbled on a similar thing being perpetrated by somebody called B Walsh who I assume to be Gazolla and Mr Kiley on the Summerfield and Dawson artillery book. Mr Kiley's critical review failed to mention his interest in 'damaging' a competitor in that he had a book of his own on the same subject. He was perfectly entitled to publish the review but an entirely honest person would have stated their interest, as Mr Hollins' apparently did. Mr Kiley's stooges are either entirely unaware of their 'mentor's' lack of transparency or are being a bit selective.

Dave Hollins.

Perhaps you could post you review here so we can all see it. I think it is obvious that at least two of the posters concerned are just hooligans. I tend to ignore them.

Bill

The stifle button was a great innovation!

Yes, it makes a hero out of a coward, doesn't it?

Perhaps you could post you review here so we can all see it. I think it is obvious that at least two of the posters concerned are just hooligans.

What do you know of the term? You know nothing.

General Brock,

Not a unique view by any means. Oman was criticised on the same grounds. The idea that only soldiers can write military history is absurd. Being a former soldier does not make one a good historian and one needs to understand the methods of the discipline as well as having the ability to write.

Bill

Bill

Yes I read them the other day, not very positive reviews are they? Kevin's is typical formula, error-ridden, full of errors, incorrect, treat with care, but still recommended, are keywords used, high praise (twice) for the other authors, there is word for that but can't think of it right now, Dave's Marengo volume got similar treatment 10 years ago.

Interesting, when he has been challenged on the Napoleon series over his opinions on Marengo (Evan did all the work on that), Bricoles, French Staff, anything artillery, white bearskins, east European horsemen, skirmishing, Germans, anything Russian, Gribeauval, converged, medium cavalry, he has very little defence, often leaves it to others to fight his corner, and generally gets a beating by those knowledgeable people on NSF, note his lack of presence there since the argument on sourcing.

I dislike writing things like this about another person, I have nothing against him personally, but his methodology just doesn't match his own opinion when he states things as facts, and he is right you are wrong attitude.

Kevin, have you ever considered writing historical fiction, maybe a French Sharpe series, a kind of Marbot character, your piece on Senarmont shows your writing ability, you could make a good living like Mr Cronwell.

Kevin, please reply if you feel i have got it wrong.

OK on the Marengo discussion I meant Evan did MOST of the defence for Kevin against Dave's claims, coming up with sources and analyzing them the way an historian should, in fact a really interesting discussion, the good old days eh.

Bill, I didn't keep a copy, but it was along the lines of introducing myself and then talking about how the book was targetted on various audiences. Then I noted it was written by various well-known authors, who had various writing styles and looked at issues directly concerning that army, so there was no format as such.

You do wonder about Amazon, when they allow hatchet jobs, but no author is even allwoed to respond, because the reviewers will whinge about it. That DD&S review did Kevin quite a lot of damage. Likewise, he has failed to answer any of the key questions about his own book, mentioned most recently here by A Twiningham.

I have no problem with a sensible debate with Evan and others. We are now closer to discovering what really happened at Marengo and any author should be grown up enough to look at any new evidence or ideas, but even the last big thread was rendered impossible by the Tendency.

One of the things I tried to do was to explain or summarise questions, which often come up on these fora.

We are now closer to discovering what really happened at Marengo and any author should be grown up enough to look at any new evidence or ideas, but even the last big thread was rendered impossible by the Tendency.

Yes, we have a Tendency not to have faith in disreputable authors.

Dave,

Pity about that but as nobody except the stooges seemed to take exception I suppose it doesn't matter. Amazon are not very discriminating when it comes to reviews most of which as far as books are concerned are written by people who are seem unqualified to do so. It only encourages those who need an outlet to satisfy their need for attention. I am afraid I missed the Marengo debate.

Bill

Who is Mr. Hollins trying to fool again!

He could have responded like good authors do to reviews that upset him by using the comments section.

But no, not our Mr Hollins. He is far too full of his own self-importance. He had to write a Vanity Review! Why – because he could award himself 5 stars. NO OTHER REASON.

Good authors can handle negative reviews and let their work do the selling. Obviously Mr. Hollins felt the contents of the book and the gallant work done by some of the authors, some with 75% less space than Mr. Hollins was given, might not be good enough to sell the title.

XV Brigada

One day you will get your facts right.

Amazon are concerned about their reviews. They certainly don't like dishonest ones. They removed Mr. Hollins' 5 star Vanity review because it broke their procedures. Mr. Hollins knew that but obviously thought he was above them and could still get away with it.

And just because the Hollins' followers have not complained about his disgraceful actions on this site, don't be fooled into thinking it hasn't upset others. I can assure you he does not have much of a reputation outside of this site.

As for writing reviews, perhaps you could explain what the requirements are for writing one? I was under the belief that a customer who buys a product has the right to write a review on what he thinks about his purchase.

Pity about that but as nobody except the stooges seemed to take exception I suppose it doesn't matter.

Yeah, not being as significant as you guys is something I guess we are just going to have to live with.

I am afraid I missed the Marengo debate.

If I were you I'd wade in anyway. Evidence doesn't normally seem to be an obstacle to your crowd.

I don't agree than an author can't criticise the book from another author, when both have an interest in the subject. As Stephen pointed there is not so much money involved to justify, as some posters insinuated, a harmful critic to impair the sales of the other author. Nor there is an actual intention of doing so for economical reasons.

The crux of the matter is that if you are an expert in a certain topic, you will spot 'errors' and 'mistakes' (actually, in many ocasions, aren errors, but different ways to interpret the same sources!) more easily than Average Joe.

basileus

If Mr. Hollins just wanted to argue his point, against another author or customers who wrote reviews that upset him, he could have done what good authors do – use the comments section or, by using forums such as this one. But good authors do not write and award themselves 5 star reviews.

And you don't have to be an expert to write a review – you just need to be a customer. If the title disappoints you, you can explain why it disappoints you. This gives potential purchasers of the title a better idea of what they might be considering buying. And I'm sure the sales of any title will not depend entirely on customer reviews – a book, if good enough, will usually sell itself.

As for Mr. Hollins crying poverty – besides the upfront payment, I'm sure authors will get further payments for photocopying rights etc, which could go on for years, depending on how much the book is used.

basileus66

I meant to add that Mr. Hollins admitted that he gave himself 5 stars to 'even out' the rating. He stated this in the outdated/incorrect material thread, bottom of page 2 – 24th March. Sadly, I think that says everything about the man.

Bas – there is nothing ton stop another author looking at a book on a similar subject. However, at the very least, the author should reveal his background, so that readers can judge the remarks appropriately.

Generally, it is not a good idea, just because of the potential for antagonism. One author can also try to puff their own standing in this way, while whinging if theor own book gets a going over.

The only problem is – that the reviewer believes by self delusion – that he knows more than the author.

It seems to be enough to self style oneselves to be an expert to wage a vicious campaign against another author.

Otherwise well said Dave Hollins.

Yes, hence the need to say who you are, as a hatchet job can then be viewed for what it is. The other tactic used is not a hatchet job as such, but to declare there are errors in the book – this is only designed to put a reader off or at least make them sceptical of what they read. It is of course the sort of thing, which comes from authors, whose own works have been found out for what they are.

I just want to know why hollins felt it ethical behaviour to write his own "5" star review???

c'con dave don't hide behind your stifle button and ignore what is a very serious and underhanded thing you did.

Did you read the review Mr Devries? In the very first sentence the despicable Mr Hollins cunningly revealed that he was one of the authors of the book. Curiously Mr. Kiley did NOT reveal that he has a long-standing feud with Hollins in his totally fair and unbiased in any way review.

Anyone who places any value at all in an Amazon review will get exactly what they deserve. An old saying about foold and money springs to mind. Please continue to bleat away though.

von Winterfeldt

You are talking absoloute rubbish and you know it! Your are trying to fool people just as Mr. Hollins is.

Authors do not write themselves 5 star reviews. It is a simple as that. Mr. Hollins should have let off steam in the comments section, but, of course, as I keep saying, he couldn't have awraded himself 5 stars then, could he?

You might think you know more than the author when you write a review, but most customers do not. They write them because they either like the book they bought or were disappointed with it. And do remember that your hero Hollins is only one of ten, so have the reviewers got anything against the others? It is a feeble excuse by you and Mr. Hollins and really, you'd think the book just contained his work the way he and followers go on.

Tell your hero to stop sulking, move on and let the book sell itself or not, whatever the case may be.

A Twiningham

And why do you think he did that? Because he knew it was wrong to write his own 5 start review. It was utter vanity. And he has already admitted on this site that he gave it 5 stars to 'even out' the rating!

And you should not be so quick to put down Amazon reviews. They can be very helpful and often reveal aspects of a product that potential purchasers might not be unaware of.

And I don't don't know why Mr. Hollins is contining to moan and whine anyway, and why people are desperately trying to defend him. Most buyers of books look beyond reviews. I'm sure many try to see the books in bookshops etc before parting with any cash. In other words, the book, if good enough, will sell itself, or not, no matter what sort of reviews it gets.

I'll repeat the actual (IMO) under-handed part of this entire affair for you Gaz. It also answers why I am so quick to write off as worthless any reviews on Amazon. "Curiously Mr. Kiley did NOT reveal that he has a long-standing feud with Hollins in his totally fair and unbiased in any way review."

What is the feud about and who is the shool bully no one seems to know

It is not a feud – it is a frankly rather bizarrre campaign against new work, waged by Kiley and a few others for the last 11 (yes, 11) years. It may even be longer as I only got on the Net in late 1999 and there had already been trouble on the NSF sites. In my case, it began with discussions about Marengo and the Guard. It spilled over into reviews of my Ospreys and the denouncements of anything new, which went against the works of St. John of Elting. There were many bad-tempered exchanges – I will not plead innocence, but when you have done new work, helped by a lot of kind people, who expected nothing in return, it is enough to make you short-tempered. Steve Smith (late of this parish) reviewed my artillery Osprey and noted the use of the bricole by Austria in 1757. The trashing review followed and soon after, it emerged that Kiley was working on his own artillery book and considered himself something of an expert on the subject. We had the "offer of peace" at this stage, but it was soon obvious that his own output was pretty shoddy stuff and over the last 6 years, steadily more and more has appeared. Right from the first question about the bricole, he and his acolytes have thrown up regfualr smokescreens and torrents of abuse in the hope that you will not realise the actual paucity of his own work. On it went and I think many people thought I was being oversensitive – until his review of DD&S (comments about his own book were of course whinged about). So, it ahs gone on and we have now reached Armies of the Napoleonic Wars, eleven years later.

All we have seen have been campaigns of shouting down and claims of error, not because they have any expertise, but they wish to divert your attention from new work, so the third hand mythology can survive. Ask a question about their own eforts and nothing is forthcoming, while off they go to amazon.

As I said, don't grace it with the name feud – it is a rather bizarre campaign against new research, which says much about their attitude to the ordinary enthusiast too.

@billyking

Just read the reviews and form your own opinion.

Good grief, is this still going on ?

Guys, get a grip.

We're talking amazon reviews here – no-one in their right mind would pay that much attention to them (no offence meant to those who write amazon reviews…but really they aren't that important)

BTW : has anyone commenting on the validity or otherwise of reviews actually read this book ?

Maybe the bit Mr Hollins didn't write is pretty good and deserves the 5 stars he gave it.

Just a random thought.

At the start this was actually quite funny, but now 290 postings later it's gone totally stale.

How to resolve it? Set both factions around a table in a locked room, and give them a damned good starving until they resolve their differences…

SIMPLES!!!

@Dave

Yes, totally. The first rule in any review is that the background and credentials of the reviewer are clearly stated. Only then the reader can know how much dependable is his/her review. I'm subscribed to several scholar journals and have wrote some reviews myself, and I know for a fact that you won't be published if your review doesn't clearly states which are your credentials.

I'm not agree is not a good idea. In my view, that's the only way to advance in our knowledge, i.e. that you submit your work to the criticism of your peers. If any author believes he has written the definitive history of anything, he will be being delusional, and making laughing stock of himself.

@Gazzola

At places as Amazon, you are right you don't need to be an expert… but the opinion of an expert is, to my mind, more valuable than that of a regular guy with just a passing knowledge of the topic. Thus the reason why I try to look for the opinions of those persons that I know, or at least I believe, they have an actual expertise on the field.

Any customer can say: hey, I have been mislead by the title! I expected something else! I didn't want a book that was nothing more than an introduction! I expected more scholarly debate! Well, in this particular case it reveals a certain grade of naivety. The description of the book stated clearly which was its intention: to provide the readers with an overview of the principal players of the Napoleonic Wars. Nothing more, nothing less. Just by seeing that the book included 15 armies, and was only 280 pages long, you would know (at least, I did) that it was an introduction, not a thorough analysis of the armies included.

I am truly sorry if I sound patronising. That is not my intention, be certain of it.

However, I understand why Dave did write a counter-review. You know as well as anyone else that the comments in Amazon aren't visible, except if you deliberately click on them. Actually, they are almost hidden from view -I have been buying books at Amazon since a long time ago, and only recently realized that any review can be commented by other readers!- I've worked in advertising and marketing companies, and where the comments to the reviews are located, and the soft colour they have, put them where at marketing you call a 'cold spot', i.e. a place where only some customers familiar with the store will go to pick something they already know is there.

But the reviews aren't. They are highly visible. All customers, even with a passing familiarity with Amazon, will know where to look. If you want something you wrote being readed, where would you put it? In the reviews? Or in the comments to the reviews?

Dave didn't fool anyone. He clearly stated who he was and that he had an interest in the book. Maybe some people would buy a novel just based on the number of stars or in the extract from the back of the book. But here we are not talking about a million-copies best-seller. We are talking about a book that has a small niche of readers, who usually have at least some knowledge on the topic and whose self-image won't allow them to commit to buy without, at least, reading the reviews first.

Sorry, Gazz, but this time I can't agree with you.

Best regards

PS: If you believe that Dave did wrong, why you didn't state in your review of the book that you don't see eye-to-eye with Dave Hollins? And that you have had several angry debates with him at forums like TMP? Only then those who readed your review would have had all the relevant information to make their minds, don't you think?

Twiningham, continue to bleat away

One last thing: I don't think that revisionist history is good in itself. The quality of any research depends in something more than using new sources. It's also the way you use them what counts.

basileus66

Firstly, I am not waging a war against Mr. Hollins. That, sadly, although not unexpectedly, is what Mr. Hollins and his followers want you to believe. The review was about the book, not Mr Hollins. He is just one of ten authors but he also happened to be the one given the most pages, 41 in this case. His chapter would obviously be compared to the other authors, some of whom were given only 10 and 13 pages.

I have the same interests as Mr. Hollins – the Napoleonic Wars, the French vs Austrians actions etc. So we are obvioulsy going to be attracted to the same topics.

But if postings appear with topics I am interested in, should I ignore them because Mr. Hollins might have written something? Or in case he might get upset if I disagree with him or spot something in his posting that might contradict with what he says in his own books? I'm sorry but I am not a yes man.

The problem is that Mr. Hollins, unlike good authors, can't take criticism and has to find fantasy reasons for people disagreeing with him. I was disappointed with the book, so I wrote a negative review explaining why. A book giving one author 10 pages and another 41 is not going to be able to cover or offer an equal 'overview, introduction' or whatever you want to call it, on the various 10 armies, is it? It is not rocket science! And funnily enough the pre-sales hype never mentioned that! I wonder why?

Mr. Hollins is only one of ten authors. But on the basis of Hollins' silly reasoning, I must dislike all of the authors! That's how absurd his excuses are. I've been in touch with one of the other authors for some time and have communicated on several occasions on Napoleonic matters with another.

And really, come on, Amazon is a place for reviews by customers. It is about the books, not the authors or the reviewers. Their aim is give potential customers a better idea of what the book might contain, which only someone who has bought and read the book will know. It is, after all, their opinion, nothing else. And as a past student I am well aware of academic reviews, which are different so have no relevance to Amazon reviews.

And I never said the comments were visible. Why do you think Mr Hollins decided to write a Vanity Review, as well as writing in the comments section, which have now been removed? Many of them were pure abuse. But Mr Hollins wanted everyone to see the 5 Star rating he gave himself. Amazon removed it as any good publisher would. So well done them.

If you want to support an author that gives himself 5 star Vanity reviews, that's entirely up to you.

A Twiningham

The Amazon reviews are for potenial customers to find out more about the product they may be considering buying. They offer the chance for those who have bought and read the books to express what they like or dislike about a title. You get apsects of a work, positive and negative, that you will not find in the pre-sales hype.

Potential customers want to know about the book, NOT the reviewer. The Armies book contains the work of 10 authors, not one, so should the reviewer describe his or her relationship with all 10?

Another thing that crosses my mind as I scan through the pages of "discussion" – there are a lot of really very long contributions. Ones that would have taken the author 10-15 minutes (or more) to put together. This single thread represents tens, maybe hundreds, of hours of effort.

And I also get the impression that this "difference of opinions" has been going on for years across multiple threads.

Really ?

Chaps – you have 1 life, are you sure this is how you want to spend it ?

20thmaine,

Yes there are some quite long ones some of which are more thoughtful than others and there is actually a sensible discussion trying to emerge on one part of the thread interspersed with repetition of the original point and disrupted by numerous inane one-line interjections from one or other of the usual suspects directed at anybody who disagrees with them.

Even though they are seemingly isolated from majority opinion I expect they will continue with their spoiling tactics but it is encouraging to note that nobody has risen to the bait.

Bill

The only thing that all this proves is that Gazzola is a pompous eejit who needs to get a life. He was biased against this book before ever reading it, as is clear from his posts prior to its publication, and his criticisms were predictable. After following this, previous and related threads for what seems like an age now I have just stifled him and what a relief! And no, Old Bear, it's not a coward's way out: it's an intelligent respose to a repetitive, obsessed irritant.

Newsflash****** David Hollins has released a book about Napoleons clothing. The first ten purchasers get a free pair of Napoleon's underpants.

Pre-release comments by Gazzola: I am hoping that this will be a fantastic book, however I feel I may be dissapointed.

Review after purchase by Gazzola: The book was agreat disappointment after all the (imaginery?) prerelease hype by the author. I feel that in the four pages of the book more information could have been supplied and that a full set of clothing should have been provided for all readers. A bigger volume covering the clothing of all the French Marshals as well and costing £5,000.00 GBP would have been better. Therefore although this book is exactly what it says it is I am going to give it a low star rating.