We are asking for comments from authors, publishers, readers, historians, and others with experience in this subject. Please use the Letters to the Editor section of this post to provide your opinions. The following are a few questions to get the forum going:
Should serious automobile history and biography books and articles include proper documentation such as notes and bibliographies?
Why are the vast majority of automobile books undocumented?
What automotive titles are known to be properly documented?
What kinds of documentation should be used?
Is documenting entirely up to the authors?
What do publishers recommend?
What do readers want?
Does publishing documented works help increase the stature of automobile writers and historians?
Does the lack of proper documentation in automotive history and biography lessen the importance of the work, and author?
Please send comments via the Letters to the Editor box below.
I think that authors should always create an index to any book. (Remember the author cannot write an index on his original copy as he has no idea of the page numbers, it is done once the page proofs are produced.) Also I think that they should include any interesting information relevant to the subject as an appendix chapter at the end. In a recent book of mine I sent something that I felt should include but was not sure if the publisher would include it but he did and I was interested to see that one or two reviewers even commented on it.
Graham Gauld
Hey Pete:
The issue you are presenting is an important one, an issue that we here AQ have discussed. As you know, our readership mainly consists of those automotive historians who consider themselves in a league of scholars. (Many are, in fact, tenured professors!) Two positives for using footnotes (or endnotes for that matter):
1. Footnotes/endnotes attributing sources greatly assist the reader as he learns about the topic. AQ digs a bit deeper than other auto mags, and this assistance is even more a service. With features averaging about 4,500 words, footnotes can greatly enhance the reading experience.
2. As you said, footnotes lend an air of expertise in terms of scholarly reading. Pick up any credible history book and you will always find footnotes/endnotes. Readers of automotive histories and bios expect factual validation, and this is the best way to meet that expectation.
AQ does not, however, use footnotes or endnotes for one pragmatic reason: It throws page design off. I believe our writers would be more than happy to provide footnotes, but the number of footnotes that (potentially) may be included could certainly clutter the page. This may change at a later date (we would like to use them), but it would have to coincide with a large-scope presentation re-design.
Regarding the use of bibliographies, AQ implements this practice in each issue. They are found at the back of the book in the Notes & Commentary section, each under the heading of the working title of the story. This is not to say that every story includes a bibliography — although each author is solicited for one — but we do our best to give readers sources and other avenues to pursue in their own research.
I hope this helps, Pete. Again, this is an important topic for us and worthy of discussion.
Best for now,
Tracy
___________________
Tracy Powell, Managing Editor
Automobile Quarterly http://www.autoquarterly.com
Auto Events Magazine http://www.autoevents.org
Pete:
I am happy to respond to this…a very interesting area.
To take your questions as they come:
1-I suppose everyone who writes an automotive book thinks it’s serious, and thus should take it seriously. Of course, the obvious answer is certainlyfacts and assertions should be documented. The fact is that the bulk of automotive books, especially in the area of motorsport are not. The reason for that is that it is far easier to get a book done without chasing up all the possible facts. The demand for books…especially the pot-boilers on the latest rising star ..mean the book has to be on the shelf and earning for publisher and author. As a former academic I am lucky…referencing and backing things comes easily. I suspect that younger writers are not learning to do this, or seeing that there might be a need for it.
2-Why are most books undocumented…because the world increasingly is less interested in accuracy than a good story. ‘Faction’ is a way of life, in books and on television. I have just watched the 10th ‘Who Killed the Princess of Wales’ docu-soap. The facts of all 10 differ from each other. No one cares but they love a good story.
3-What titles are properly documented? Well, do you mean ever or recently? Look at the work of Laurence Pomeroy. He had evidence for everything he said…to the point that you lost track of the arguement, but on some subjects he remains the authority because he said where his ideas and information come from. I know a popular author today who gives references, but a lot of them don’t exist, or are of the ‘I have from an expert…’ sort…expert unnamed.
4-What kind of documentation- all depends upon the purpose, but any allegedly factual book should indicate where the information came from…or the author could tell you if you asked. I think footnotes are almost unheard of in most automotive work now, but they have a purpose in certain formal documents. For much of the work I do Italk to the people who knew the subject. The widow or business partner can bring great credibility to a subject. On the other hand, biographies are often written with no apparent reference to anyone, but publishers will publish them anyway! It’s commercial.
5-Is documenting up to the author? usually, yes. Some publishers say ‘can you back that up?’ but most don’t. You sign a contract which says you the author takes the blame if you get it wrong, not the publisher. So it really is down to the author. I know someone who writes about race cars and if he doesn’t know a chassis number….makes it up! And he is seen as a world expert!
6-What do publishers recommend? get it done, not too long, not too demanding…make it for average readers…or am I being cynical?
7-Does publishing documented works help? of course…why do you think authors and journalists are held in such low esteem? Maybe we need more well known competitions with healthy prizes for well documented work…that would be a nice incentive.
8-Does the lack lessen? Of course…just that fewer people seem to notice. I have had reviews and responses about my ‘style’. When I chased it up people sometimes said it was ‘too factual’. So now I prefer to write about dead people…they don’t argue, and if someone questions you, you can say ‘well, they were my source…do you want to hear the tape?’
Etcetera- Indexes-I believe in indexes but didn’t include one in the Peter Collins book. Time ran out as did space so the publisher said we will do without. I once said I wouldn’t buy a book without one, but since I have been using them seriously, a lot of them aren’t that useful. Here is an exercise. Pick up a recent book and go through the index, and check the page on which you should find the subject. You will be surprised at how many times they don’t match. These are not useful. I have started to limit the index to proper names and places. I think Brock yates in his Ferrari book had;
Ferrari: his birth page so and so, his schooling, his ideas about Mussolini etc etc.
I like that but I can’t find the publisher who will give another six months to do it!
I think I want to author a photo book with no words, no captions, no credits…let the reader/viewer make sennse of it for him/herself!
Thanks for the opportunity
Ed McDonough
Trying to find out if things are facts or just stories is the hardest thing for any author to do. Even when you eventually find the people involved, they don’t always tell the truth. Often two people involved in the same project have different stories; a perfect example would be Busso and Colombo in regard to early Ferrari history. There are some authors that try to nail things down for 20+ years, and still don’t succeed. I’ll ask a question rather than try to come up with an answer…at what point should something be published???
As a reader and student of automotive history, who is locally considered somewhat expert on the subject, I implore all authors to please include source references. Many of my aquaintanences ask me serious questions which I can not answer with an accuracy I trust myself, solely due to a lack of proper reference in the published works that I devour! An aside to Ed McDonoughs comments above, any reviewer who claims a work to be “too factual” looses all credibility with me. If this discussion leads to more footnotes in Veloce Today, that is adding to the goodness already presented here. Appologies are proffered to the authors who’s work load is increased, but know your effort is appreciated!
1. Absolutely essential
2. Rush to produce title before somebody else does.
3. The ones that I buy!
4. References to other printed sources and documents which the author has used.
5. I don’t think anybody else can do it properly.
6. No idea
7. See above
8. Absolutely
9. Absolutely
I am in full agreement with the comments you reported. Yes, another retired professor here. That said, how else can readers follow-up or pursue related areas of interest? And I endorse the placing of sources used by AQ, which is consistent with the manual of style published by the Modern Language Association, perhaps the best of those now in use. It provides the information expected by researchers without destroying the flow of the text general readers desire. It’s unfortunate that some publishers find this an unwelcome expense. For writers the task is demanding, but much of the joy of reading comes from the ability to follow up new areas of interest.
Coming from an academic background I believe in rigorous scholarship, fact checking and source notes.
Whatever I write I attempt to verify as much as possible by using original source material or talking with people who were there. I have found that publishers do not want copy cluttered up with notes and citations. If I am unsure of a fact or making an educated guess I will note the fact in the text. When I am fairly confident of the facts, they are presented, occasionally weaving in the source. I do not make formal foot notes or end notes, although I do know what my sources are if someone asks.
In looking through the books I have, there are few which are fully documented. Borgeson does an excellent job of explaining the source of his material within the text without resorting to foot notes. He often provides a bibliography. Gerald Rose explains his sources in his introduction.
Charles Jarrott does not cite sources, but reports on events that he participated in so one must credit him as an original source. William Court does foot note his text and has a bibliography at the back of the book. Pomeroy has been discussed already. Mark Dees lists sources in his introduction and provides a chapter by chapter bibliography of his sources. Monkhouse mentions sources and provides a bibliography.
Gordon White provides footnotes and a bibliography.
All of these books have extensive indices.
Scholarly practice in not completely absent in automotive literature, just rare.
I find fully documented monographs to be invaluable and greatly respect the
authors for the care taken in providing readers with citations and sources.
Pete:
Sorry to come back with more!
Went to the launch of the new Mike Hawthorn book yesterday, and noted it only has nine books in the bibliography. But then the book is the tal of the people who knew him, worked at the family garage, etc, and is essentially more about them and the times then about Hawthorn. It is a book for a particular market…Hawthorn fans, and they will love it, but it doesn’t attempt to say much new. New info about his death and Le Mans 1955 are documented and that is important. Nevertheless, nine references is not much and in such a book maybe everything ever written about Hawthorn should be included about him.
I use refences as much to blame others for wrong information as a source for good info!
For a lesson in amassing accurate detail, everyone should study the methods of Janos Wimpffen and his Time and Two Seats. To me he is the world expert on sports car racing because we now know he has done the research…he makes mistakes but admits that and continually chases around for the correct info.
I usually like to admit in a book that I don’t know everything and wish to be corrected. It brings some but not a lot of response. There are however many authors who never admit that. One such well known one says about me that “McDonough admits he doesn’t know anything” which is not quite the same thing but a reason why some authors don’t like to admit their weaknesses and not being omnipotent. To me writing is about finding out, not proving what I know.
Ed McDonough
I am a collector with mort than 500 books ranging from cheapies at Barnes & Noble to the more expensive from quality publishers.
If a book is just more photos of Porsches or Ferraris, I don’t expect it to be written as a serious history book.
I have books on NASCAR’s Busch and Craftsman Truck series where little is provided in the way of tabular information despite the fact that such information is readily available. I think that there is a responsibility to provide this information any time it is appropriate.
If I buy a book from a quality publisher (Dalton Watson, David Bull…), I expect it to be fully documented. There is so much misinformation out there that gets repeated time and again. Serious authors have a responsibility to be accurate and to document their sources.
I totally missed this post on my last read, it is great.
Academia and presses and journals that publish academic scholarship welcome the work of independent scholars. If more auto historians would produce scholarly books and articles–that is, documented manuscripts, whether pure research or research plus theory–they could assuredly get published by academic and/or trade presses. Peer review
is required, and a small community of academic auto historians is available for peer review.
But we want to add more professors and independent scholars to that community, and we cannot increase our numbers until there is more scholarly publication of auto history. University libraries acquire scholarly publications usually by three means:
1) specific requests from individual faculty or graduate students;
2) institutional subscription to an “on approval” service that automatically sends all appropriate books published by scholarly academic and trade presses;
3) subscription to journals.and data bases.
The bottom line is that with scholarly publication more and more auto history would be available to researchers. Just being on the library shelves that university professors and graduate students prowl on a daily basis would inform such prowlers that auto history is a serious scholarly pursuit, not just a “hobby.”
Hi Pete
I really don’t qualify to respond, but I will have a go anyway. I get sent a lot of books by Veloce for review. Some are excellent in that the “grab” you from page 1 like a good novel. They are usually the ones with a lot of input from drivers, co-drivers, mechanics and those who built them when they were new. These really seem to get the colour of the car and imbue it with character. Some you would not be without like to Catalogues Rainonne simply because of the wealth of material. Others are churned out willy nilly just for the sake of doing a book on that particular car and really have little long term merit.
For serious works, however, which will be lasting and which are intended to be serious treatises on the subject, full references to sources and annotations are essential.
As a lawyer, I sometimes have to turn to books written for laymen (? – not laypersons surely) on subjects not covered by legal writers. These can be some help and might remind you of those overlooked or not considered and thus have some value. However, a proper book will cite the authorities on which views are based and are invaluable as a result. These are the ones which last the distance. I am totally with Ed – none of us knows everything and it is a fool who considers otherwise. One of the most knowledgeable people anywhere on his particular subject/s is John de Boer and John constantly seeks comment and updates on the material he publishes. Consequently, one has confidence in it being the best there is at the time it goes to press.
It all boils down to a reasonable analysis of the market for the book and the degree with which it is intended it be taken seriously.
Cheers and please continue with the great work.
Adrian
Hello!
Yes, in general I include accreditations in the text, such as a magazine reference, book or individual whom I’ve quoted, plus a bibliography and specific credits in the acknowledgements. It’s essential for veracity and only polite.
One or two publishers haven’t wanted to credit photographers in the captions but hopefully those days are in the past.
JT
Thank you for arising this vey important discussionl Let me first introduce myself before I answer the questions. I am the author of a book on the Opel Kadett A, several articles and websites, inlcuding http://www.pietro-frua.de.
Should serious automobile history and biography books and articles include proper documentation such as notes and bibliographies?
Definitely yes.
Why are the vast majority of automobile books undocumented?
Because the vast majority of automobile books are from non-scientific authors for non-scinetific readers.
What automotive titles are known to be properly documented?
E.g. books of the German author Peter Kurze.
What kinds of documentation should be used?
– Proper copyright information for each photo
– Citation of all sources at the particular text passage with footnotes or endnotes.
– Acknowledgements of all people who helped
– An index is not a means of documentation but a navigating tool like the table of content. Anyway, I do not like books without an index.
Is documenting entirely up to the authors?
Unfortunately yes.
What do publishers recommend?
(German) publishers do not care about proper documentation and leave it completely to the author.
What do readers want?
– Amateurs don´t care about documentation
– Professional/scientific readers (as myself) want a proper documentation
Does publishing documented works help increase the stature of automobile writers and historians?
I hope so.
Does the lack of proper documentation in automotive history and biography lessen the importance of the work, and author?
Yes, definetely.
To my observation there is a big lack of scientific methods in automotive history. The field is completely occupied by non-scientific authors like journalists (which do not document but keep their sources secret; especially when they write off) and amateurs (which love the subject of their writing, which lacks the scientific distance).
I would love to see more scientific approaches in automotive history. The scientific method can be characterized by:
1. Intersubjective verifiability; i.e. other researchers can check the same sources (because they are documented) and can come to the same conclusions.
2. The process of stating hypotheses and trying to falsificating (!) them. The resulting knowledge is only knowledge limited in time until new documents or facts falsify it.
Best regards,
Stefan Dierkes
http://www.pietro-frua.de
I agree with much of what has been said but am trying to talk my book publisher into a different approach and that is an
ANNOTATED version.
I have one nice example I paid $50 for, the book The Annotated Alice. Wikipedia describes it as
“The Annotated Alice is a work by Martin Gardner incorporating the text of Lewis Carroll’s major tales: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass as well as the original illustrations by John Tenniel. It has extensive annotations explaining the contemporary references (including the Victorian poems that Carroll parodies), mathematical concepts, wordplay, and Victorian traditions (such as the snap-dragons) featured in the two books.”
The way I want to do it is take one of the books I’ve written, reprint the pages exactly as they were originally but then leave ample margins on the outside edges and bottom for tiny type footnotes (maybe 9 pt.) written maybe by a panel of experts who would add things like
“In the search for a firm to work with, Ford ignored Lance Reventlow, who also had a mid-engined design, the Scarab, powered by an aluminum block Olds-Buick engine, which Ford could have glommed onto but as Reventlow’s F1 car had fallen so flat, any technology he had was no doubt thought inferior to what European automakers had to offer.”
I think if I were really brave and could take the slings and arrows, I would even allow the footnote writers to contradict what I said in the main text, though it might undermine the credibility of the text, with comments such as “In point of fact, because some cars were counted twice, there were only 998 Cobras built, etc.”
I think if this approach were used, the commenters could have their bios in the back of the book to establish their credibility to comment.
Anyhow I haven’t sold my publisher on this yet but the guy who wrote The Annotated Alice has sold millions of books by making the original so much more enjoyable once you know the background story.
Pete,
here the answer.
1) Yes, it is essential. But often for the writer, if he is writing some old story, is difficult have a true notice.
2) Because the writer do not use a scientific study about the story
3) For example I like the book write from Bill Oursler, Paul Frere or Ed McDonough.
4) It is essential to know the rigth people ( the driver, the designer, the planner, the mechanic etc) and than confirm the references of the printed sources.
5) Yes
6) How many words ( for example 4500) or the page 2, 3..20 ecc.
7) The readers want? A dream. The scientific readers want all data and story.
8) I Hope
9) Yes I think so
Regards
Roberto
On the Subject of Obfuscation
More adequate documentation (I like the way AQ does it, at the end of the book with comments on the articles) will help but I have come across several instances of automaker or personality obfuscation for various & sundry purposes, hoping to ensnare unwary (or lazy) journalists.
For instance, take Ford releasing in 1962 a picture of the Mustang I show car but there’s two cars in the picture, making you think “Gee, if there’s two there could be even more…” but it turns out one was the perfectly identical clay model (or maybe fiberglass). Nobody using that picture ever bothers to explain one of the cars is a “pushmobile” (not running).
Another case I remember is in a Corvette book written by a Motor Trend writer who captioned the Corvette SS race car tubular frame pictured in his book as “copied from a Mercedes SLR.” I put this one down as “lazy journalism” because everyone who knows Mercedes knows that they wouldn’t have been dumb enough to give their state of the art race car to a rival automaker in ’56, so it turns out on my own investigation to have been just a 300SL frame, a far different car
mechanically (no desmodromic valves, etc.). Ironically though, a giveway did occur a few years later when Mercedes traded a SLR to Ford for the secret of “floating glass” and got the best of the deal since the secret was worth millions and by then the SLR was just another obsolete race car.
DeTomaso, about whom I have written two books, was a famous prankster always trying to look more progressive in engineering than he was. Some of his prototype engines shown at auto shows were suspected of being carved of wood and painted silver. Once someone called his bluff when he had a motorcycle in his office but he thereupon started the engine up, filling the room with noise and smoke! I have longtime suspected that the early DeTomaso that Ollie Schmidt raced in the Midwest was a rebadged Lola–DeTomaso thinking no one knew about Lolas then so he could get away with it, looking like a venerable automaker. I hope Michael Lynch or some other writer following the Fifties racing trail eventually solves that mystery.
Another case you could categorize in the “Wasn’t I smart?” department. This was when I heard a reporter who often writes about old cars ask a venerable racer in his ’80s about one of his cars that just sold in the millions at an auction. The old racer accepted the congratulations but didn’t mention that, in fact, that particular car had been out of his ownership some 40-plus years. By not mentioning that fact, he looked like a great businessman, having had the foresight to salt away that car all these years until it was worth millions…if the reporter knew this was a “Little White Lie” he probably didn’t call him on it that moment for fear the interview would end right there. But maybe by the time you reach your ’80’s you should get some license to be a little loose on history. I have a friend who is 83 who admits that, likewise, he uses the “old man card” often , kind of like a WWII veteran who was in the Normandy invasion but was, in fact,landed on the soil of France on, say D-4 (D-day plus 4 days) instead of in on the initial assault itself, but likes to tell people he was in on D-Day and let them assume he was there Day 1.
So, in sum, it is not only the reporters who make mistakes on their own but the sources reporters go to are sometimes prevaricating, misleading, obfuscating and sometimes just plain outright lying to look more innovative than they actually are…