This is interesting, but for a different reason. I reviewed a set of rules by a Dutch author that were published by Partizan Press. There were all kinds of typos, errors, and sentences that just did not make sense. I then reviewed a different set of rules, also by Partizan Press, but by a German author. Those rules had a reputation for 'bad translations'. As I emailed the author, it turns out that publishers do little more than get a book printed – often outsourcing the project to other printers – and then send it into the distribution stream. Both authors indicated through email that largely *they* were responsible for the translation and editing. What used to be the traditional tasks performed by the publishers. The world of books – at least in our niche – has changed. This is not limited to small self-publishers like Ganesha Games. I would not be surprised if Osprey Publishing were not doing the same and these authors simply do not realize that they are responsible for the quality of their book, not Osprey.
Hi Dale
Yes these are good points you make. I
After seeing DAmatos written replies I can see he is no way to blame for Osprey's product. I think any criticism of the presentatiom is the publishers
fault anf they have let him down. It is a bit shocking but I suspect the
time it takes for proof reading and correction is now saved..and time
is money. These are not academic publishers after all. I was initially very surprised when I looked closely at the texts but now am of the same opinion as you. Authors beware ! Especially if writing in a second language.
Thanks for good comment.
Regards
PV
You: PARTHIAN SHOT
ReplyDeleteThe bibliography is interesting. It is divided between 'Ancient Roman Sources' and 'Scholarship'.
The format of the scholarship entries is odd. The place of publication is given for all, but the publisher only for a few. This is an undergraduate error. This author holds two PhDs. What is more interesting is that the author has an entry which is published at Oxford. Nice. The book is actually published by Osprey, who also published this book, and the book referred-to in the sole footnote in this book. Are Osprey books scholarship ? Does Oxford look better than Osprey ? Why did the author use such an amateur format for his bibliography? Are PhDs worth the paper they are printed on ?
As I wrote at the top. If someone sells me a cake with a dubious filling they should not be surprised to have it served up for themselves. This redresses several hundred kroner and some hours lost.
About bibliography s. my answers before. When I am doing footnotes I just remind Osprey books for the iconography. In my books You will never find the same illustrations, except different details of the same figure, because I am thinking to my readers, who want always more different details and do not want to pay a book with already known illustrations. You will see for example that the details of the ships from Trajan Column are completely different from those of the book of the marines. But if I mention a detail published in the book of the Marines, I need a note reminding to it.
You: The third is a merchant sailing vessel transporting an enormous radio valve as part of the logistical effort on the campaign.Oh no ! Maybe not , we'll deal with that later...
It is well known that this ships is the exact replica of the Oneraria represented on .the Column. It is also easy to understand that the lucerna is hanging from the stern of the Trajan’s, as shown on the Column. If you could not understand it, it means that, after all Your talkative and useless speech on the dimensions of the object on the Column, You do not have even idea of the details of the Apollodorus work...compliments...
You: Actually, on the Column the trireme is only ever shown at sea and not a long way up the Danube.
Really? Then, according to You, Roman Triremes cannot go on the river. A question: have You been in the Danube at the place of the Iron Gates, which is here represented? I was there, and I can assure You that a whole fleet can pass here without any problem. Go to see with Your eyes.
You: The nearest ship is a Three, in Roman parlance a trireme. Oarboxes seem to have been dispensed with by Trajan's time and the vessel depicted on the column has two tiers of oars worked through ports and one over the gunwhale. This kind of hull would have been more stable than when the oar-tiers were canted out over each other. All fine and dandy. Apart from the fact the artist has screwed the upper oars in place under the lattice screen - how could they be moved ?
Useless question. You cannot see the oarsmen rowing through the screen? The presence of oar ports is a system to give more stability.
You: Scale immediately rears its ugly head. The rowers in the ship are like little mice behind bars with their little paws struggling to use the telegraph-pole oars. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteTrajan(?) - presumably, and some sailors look up in wonder at a lamp hanging from the aphlaston which is metres above them. The arched shelter is vast. Why should it be so vast ? It will catch wind. It will block sight. Is it so the Emperor can ride into it on horseback ? It takes up too much room. Or maybe the men are dwarves. The aphlaston itself, instead of being a delicate, graceful display of the carpenter's art is a monstrous thing made of giant timber.
You probably are conditioned in your comments by the imagines of the Column. To measure a real dimension among ships and crews You must look well the frescoes of Pompeii, just realized 30 years before the campaign. You will see the all is well proportioned, the men are not dwarves, the Aphlaston is correct in its dimension, On the column the artist was too under constriction: he represented perfectly all details, but not on scale, and instead the painters of Pompeii did not have such limit. And look by the way also on the Column how much is impressive the stern of the Triremis. But at this point a question: where are your reconstructions based upon the Trajan columns?
At the moment I have answered to some critics I have individuated. When I will have time I will answer to the others. To further future comments I will answer on this site only if the comments will be polite, professional and scientific based.
Raffaele D’Amato