What do you think?
Rate this book
Le Roy Fitch: The Civil War Career of a Union River Gunboat Commander
This is the first published biography of Lieutenant Commander Le Roy Fitch, U.S. Navy. Fitch saw action on the Ohio, Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers; fought against Morgan, Wheeler and Forrest, as well as irregulars; commanded an ironclad monitor during the Battle of Nashville; and was renowned for his abilities in counterinsurgency and convoy tactics.
424 pages, Hardcover
First published July 25, 2007
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 7, 2010
Smith's Le Roy Fitch was a major disappointment however I wasn’t let down by Myron Smith as a whole but rather by the publisher McFarland Publishing and this wasn’t the first time I have been let down by this publisher. I was expecting a biography about a little known naval figure but instead had a biography combined with a detailed (a VERY detailed) unit history that combines the high level politics of flag officers (generals and admirals with Secretaries of War and Navy) that is instead a book that is unsure of what it is or what it wants to be. I became unsure if I wanted to finish the book and I finally made the choice not to finish on page 166. It is only Smith’s writing and clear knowledge that allowed to progress to where I could no longer go forward.
The reason the book is such a disappointment has everything to do with Smith's publisher. His publisher is McFarland Publishing which claims to be a publisher of reference and scholarly books. I have read four books from McFarland publishing and found them well researched but poorly edited and two poorly written. That statistic of seventy five percent failure rate means that these books do not meet any standard that I can find for scholarly. The four books I have read are Le Roy Fitch by Smith, U.S.S. Puffer by McDonald, The 26th “Yankee” Division on Coast Patrol Duty, 1942–1943 by Connole and finally To War in a Tin Can by Patric. Of those four I can only recommend Patric's book. The other three suffer from a lack of direction, bad editing and poor writing. Clearly there is a systematic editing issue at McFarland causing books to flounder rather than be excellent scholarly editions.
I will never read anymore of the books McFarland publishes with the exception of the Patric book because they have been a waste of my time. Connole’s and McDonald’s books were both by non Historians and it shows plus they were the worst type of History books, ones done by children searching for their father’s contributions to the war. If well written very interesting but they were not well written. McFarland Publishing charges too much money (the cheapest book was $35.00) for books that are unreadable. Their books do not deliver what they promise.
Smith's lack of direction has already been addressed that the book never seemed to know what it was. The book suffered from literary schizophrenia. It started out as a biography of Fitch the subject of the book would disappear for pages on end. Of all the biographies I have read having the subject disappear for pages on end is just not done. Smith described the tinclads, ironclads, and timberclads construction in a very interesting and well written manner but then when it came to combat descriptions it often boiled to a very simple sentence, "With a few well placed shots the Rebels dispersed." Smith built up with a few pages of suspense and finishes with a sentence like that. It was like going on a date with her pushing her hair and doing the coy pushes on your shoulder then having your date shake your hand at the end of the night. It was very much a letdown and the editors if there are any at McFarland let Smith down.
The book was a History teacher's worst nightmare. What any one writing History should do is relate the significant events of the topic or subject and describe them in a detached analytical manner that makes a book worthwhile to read. This book never meets the criteria because Smith is stuck in the minutia. Many non-Historians believe that the minutia make good History when rather it is the question what is the most historically significant events and why are the significant that makes for a good History book. What makes this book even more difficult is that Smith is a History professor and should know that.
Smith published every insignificant rumor to prove that Fitch (when Smith remembered the book is about Fitch) was pulled many different ways by senior officers. It is a revelent piece of evidence but didn't need a chapter of sixty pages to be established perhaps three pages. Smith needed focus and this is where an editor would have been helpful to Smith.
This book is not a regularly sized book but large pages with small type so at 358 pages it should be even larger. The minutia and lack of focus adds needlessly to the page count. Smith is a History professor he should be able separate the significant pieces of evidence to come up with a succinct interpretation of Fitch’s life. This is where the minutia and lack of focus becomes a debilitating factor to the book. If there is a third edition Smith would do well to have a critical eye look over his work and cut the book down closer to a range between 180-220 pages. Much of the work in the book is just not needed.
Another example of poor Histography on the part of the editor and Smith is the ease he switches tenses. A scholarly work on History is to be in third person. However Smith was as schizophrenic with tense as he was with his focus. Smith often addressed the reader as if the reader and Smith were having a discussion and addressed Smith as our hero. This is almost a mortal sin in writing History. Then often Smith would interject into first person for example once about his commute of about forty minutes to show distance the steamboats would travel. Really Mr. Smith why would I care about your commute when I'm reading a book about a Civil War steamboat commanding officer? This piece of information should have been communicated in a scholarly manner in third person to demonstrate your point. This is something a knowledgable editor should have found and corrected. Does McFarland employ any editors who know Histography and writing conventions for scholarly Historical works?
Lastly Smith often refers to Fitch not as Fitch but as the Hoosier Sailor. This book is 358 pages long in an oversized book which makes the pages longer than the 358 printed pages and he uses that phrase over and over. It almost seemed that he forgot Fitch's name or was reluctant to use his name over and over. If this is book is a biography it is an accepted convention for a biography to refer often to the subject of the book. Not to be a dead horse but this is where McFarland Publishing would do well hiring editors who know something about writing conventions to aid their authors from looking silly. Smith’s book shows promise but reads very much like a poorly edited first or second draft. I left the book not feeling let down by Smith but rather by McFarland Publishing.
There is no doubt Smith is passionate and knowledgeable about this topic. If Smith were to rework the book so that he covers only the most significant events in Fitch’s life this book would shoot from two stars to five stars. His book suffers from the lack of editorial oversight, Smith trying to add too much into the book that is meant for other works. In the past two years he has published two books (both by the editorially challenged McFarland Publishing) about tinclads and timberclads. A good portion of this book belongs there. I have no doubt that with a proper editor focusing Smith these books along with a properly edited Le Roy Fitch would become treasured editions for Civil War historians if not instant classic close to a Shelby Foote heights. As for how the book stands now I feel sad because I had high hopes and the promise for a great book is there but I feel the lack of a good editor at McFarland will never allow Le Roy Fitch to attain the promise it should.
The reason the book is such a disappointment has everything to do with Smith's publisher. His publisher is McFarland Publishing which claims to be a publisher of reference and scholarly books. I have read four books from McFarland publishing and found them well researched but poorly edited and two poorly written. That statistic of seventy five percent failure rate means that these books do not meet any standard that I can find for scholarly. The four books I have read are Le Roy Fitch by Smith, U.S.S. Puffer by McDonald, The 26th “Yankee” Division on Coast Patrol Duty, 1942–1943 by Connole and finally To War in a Tin Can by Patric. Of those four I can only recommend Patric's book. The other three suffer from a lack of direction, bad editing and poor writing. Clearly there is a systematic editing issue at McFarland causing books to flounder rather than be excellent scholarly editions.
I will never read anymore of the books McFarland publishes with the exception of the Patric book because they have been a waste of my time. Connole’s and McDonald’s books were both by non Historians and it shows plus they were the worst type of History books, ones done by children searching for their father’s contributions to the war. If well written very interesting but they were not well written. McFarland Publishing charges too much money (the cheapest book was $35.00) for books that are unreadable. Their books do not deliver what they promise.
Smith's lack of direction has already been addressed that the book never seemed to know what it was. The book suffered from literary schizophrenia. It started out as a biography of Fitch the subject of the book would disappear for pages on end. Of all the biographies I have read having the subject disappear for pages on end is just not done. Smith described the tinclads, ironclads, and timberclads construction in a very interesting and well written manner but then when it came to combat descriptions it often boiled to a very simple sentence, "With a few well placed shots the Rebels dispersed." Smith built up with a few pages of suspense and finishes with a sentence like that. It was like going on a date with her pushing her hair and doing the coy pushes on your shoulder then having your date shake your hand at the end of the night. It was very much a letdown and the editors if there are any at McFarland let Smith down.
The book was a History teacher's worst nightmare. What any one writing History should do is relate the significant events of the topic or subject and describe them in a detached analytical manner that makes a book worthwhile to read. This book never meets the criteria because Smith is stuck in the minutia. Many non-Historians believe that the minutia make good History when rather it is the question what is the most historically significant events and why are the significant that makes for a good History book. What makes this book even more difficult is that Smith is a History professor and should know that.
Smith published every insignificant rumor to prove that Fitch (when Smith remembered the book is about Fitch) was pulled many different ways by senior officers. It is a revelent piece of evidence but didn't need a chapter of sixty pages to be established perhaps three pages. Smith needed focus and this is where an editor would have been helpful to Smith.
This book is not a regularly sized book but large pages with small type so at 358 pages it should be even larger. The minutia and lack of focus adds needlessly to the page count. Smith is a History professor he should be able separate the significant pieces of evidence to come up with a succinct interpretation of Fitch’s life. This is where the minutia and lack of focus becomes a debilitating factor to the book. If there is a third edition Smith would do well to have a critical eye look over his work and cut the book down closer to a range between 180-220 pages. Much of the work in the book is just not needed.
Another example of poor Histography on the part of the editor and Smith is the ease he switches tenses. A scholarly work on History is to be in third person. However Smith was as schizophrenic with tense as he was with his focus. Smith often addressed the reader as if the reader and Smith were having a discussion and addressed Smith as our hero. This is almost a mortal sin in writing History. Then often Smith would interject into first person for example once about his commute of about forty minutes to show distance the steamboats would travel. Really Mr. Smith why would I care about your commute when I'm reading a book about a Civil War steamboat commanding officer? This piece of information should have been communicated in a scholarly manner in third person to demonstrate your point. This is something a knowledgable editor should have found and corrected. Does McFarland employ any editors who know Histography and writing conventions for scholarly Historical works?
Lastly Smith often refers to Fitch not as Fitch but as the Hoosier Sailor. This book is 358 pages long in an oversized book which makes the pages longer than the 358 printed pages and he uses that phrase over and over. It almost seemed that he forgot Fitch's name or was reluctant to use his name over and over. If this is book is a biography it is an accepted convention for a biography to refer often to the subject of the book. Not to be a dead horse but this is where McFarland Publishing would do well hiring editors who know something about writing conventions to aid their authors from looking silly. Smith’s book shows promise but reads very much like a poorly edited first or second draft. I left the book not feeling let down by Smith but rather by McFarland Publishing.
There is no doubt Smith is passionate and knowledgeable about this topic. If Smith were to rework the book so that he covers only the most significant events in Fitch’s life this book would shoot from two stars to five stars. His book suffers from the lack of editorial oversight, Smith trying to add too much into the book that is meant for other works. In the past two years he has published two books (both by the editorially challenged McFarland Publishing) about tinclads and timberclads. A good portion of this book belongs there. I have no doubt that with a proper editor focusing Smith these books along with a properly edited Le Roy Fitch would become treasured editions for Civil War historians if not instant classic close to a Shelby Foote heights. As for how the book stands now I feel sad because I had high hopes and the promise for a great book is there but I feel the lack of a good editor at McFarland will never allow Le Roy Fitch to attain the promise it should.
March 15, 2012
Myron J. "Jack" Smith, Jr. is well on his way to occupying the preeminent position among historians of the Civil War on the western rivers, a field sadly neglected until comparatively recently. His recent flurry of books include works on the USS Carondelet, CSS Arkansas, the "timberclads," the "tinclads," and an upcoming work centers on naval operations near Vicksburg on the Yazoo River. While usually concentrating on vessels and operational histories, he makes a foray into biography with "Le Roy Fitch: The Civil War Career of a Union Gunboat Commander." It's also mostly an operational history, though; Smith admits as much in its pages, noting that there's not a lot of material about Fitch's life other than his career during the Civil War. However, that still leaves a lot to talk about, since Fitch was an extraordinarily active and effective middle-level officer during the war on the rivers. Even though I've been interested in Civil War naval operations, particularly on the rivers, for a long time, I still found plenty of new information here; and as one may expect from librarian and bibliographer Smith, the research sources and annotations are first-rate and quite thorough.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews