Duncan Anderson (2)

I've read a lot of books in my lifetime, and I can safely say that this is the worst researched, proof-read, and edited book I have ever read. It is riddled with factual errors (Robert Capa was born Endre, not Andrei, Friedmann; Bill Brandt did not take the famous photograph of St Paul's during the Blitz, it was Herbert Mason; the Nagasaki bomb was not dropped by ‘The Great Artiste’ but by ‘Bockscar’; the Stern Gang did not bomb the King David Hotel, it was Irgun; Iraq did not invade Arabistan in 1980, the region had been known as Khuzestan since 1925; Churchill, in one of the most famous speeches ever made, did not speak of “broad, peaceful uplands” but “broad, sunlit uplands”; Chechen terrorists seized the Dubrovka Theatre in October 2002, not the Moscow State Theatre in spring 2003; neither World Trade Center tower had 110 storeys; Ava was not the capital of Burma in 1885, and hadn’t been since 1842, it was Mandalay).

It has some awful spelling mistakes (it’s Croke Park in Dublin, not Craig; Ruhr dams not Roer) and countless minor ones, and some of the grammar is embarrassing (“The British bomber campaign had began”).

The editing is woeful (“the Gotha, the world’s first twin-engine strategic, which in turn”, the first strategic what?; “the Anglo-landing at Dieppe”, Anglo-Canadian; it was 34 years between Suez and the first Gulf War, not 44; does every reference to someone’s eye patch (I counted three mentions) have to be preceded with ‘piratical’?). And I counted seven examples where spelling, facts, or dates relating to the same thing were given inconsistently in different places (Stewart/Stuart Lockwood; Dickey Chapelle killed in October on one page and in November on another; the subject of a photograph identified as Sir Louis Cavagnari on one page and Maj.-Gen. Frederick Roberts on another, etc).

The author claims to have had access to the English-speaking world’s best military history library. Shame he didn’t have access to better editors and proof-readers. It's not as if this was some self-published thing from blurb.com; it's a Harper Collins book and they should be ashamed of this shoddy piece of work.… (meer)

In the spring of 1982, Argentine military leaders decided to invade the South Georgia and Falkland Islands, which had been under British control for 150 years, and reclaim their former territory. Not wishing to seem too hesitant, British Prime Minister Thatcher immediately sent a retaliatory naval and ground force to re-occupy the Falklands. After 74 days of fighting, the British emerged victorious and British troops held a celebratory march through London for the first time since the Second World War. Duncan Anderson’s The Falklands War 1982 is a whirlwind tour through the background, battles, and history of the quick entanglement.

Anderson’s volume is a slim, but it covers everything rather well. There are plenty of illustrations, photographs, and maps to show how all the events took place. His descriptions and analyses are decidedly biased toward the British; however, the facts are still presented in a straightforward manner. The bibliography is rather sparse, but it was still recent history at the time of publication. To be fair as well, the war was a bit more nuanced than an invasion and a quick counterstrike, and Anderson’s history does at least take a look at both side of the fighting. If you’re looking an introductory, non-academic piece on the Falklands War, then this one will do fairly well.… (meer)

This book is supposed to examine the history of war photography: how war photography developed, and how it influenced public attitudes towards wars and in turn, perhaps, influenced the way wars are fought.

This, it is not. It is merely a thumbnail history of war since the Crimea, with occasional reference to photography and photographers.

Good concept, in other words; disastrous execution. After finishing this book you are unlikely to know anything about the history of war photography that you couldn't have learned anywhere else: first, there were bulky, unwieldy cameras and slow processes; then came the Leica. Sometimes photographers had access; at other times, they did not.

Okay, then.

The book fails to identify and develop any major themes, such as controversies over access and over bias, or the difficulty of photos being taken out of context, or state censorship and self-censorship, or ethical dilemmas. Neither does the book examine in anything but the most superficial way the impact of technology on the nature of war photos, or the impact of those photos on our perception of war. All it does is to list a series of conflicts, as if the author ran into a deadline and couldn't make anything of his notes.

An extremely disappointing book.… (meer)