Chris’s review of Crean: The Extraordinary Life of an Irish Hero > Likes and Comments

Thank you for this review. I have just started reading it but I am already bristling at the "it would be safe to assume .." speculative style of writing - a pet hate of mine. I don't feel I am yet getting any sense of Tom Crean as a person.

J wrote: "Thank you for this review. I have just started reading it but I am already bristling at the "it would be safe to assume .." speculative style of writing - a pet hate of mine. I don't feel I am yet ..."

Exactly! Once I noticed I found it increasingly annoying. How did you get on with the book overall?

I’m delighted that there’s a review platform that allows me, as the author, to respond here, albeit later than I would like as I’ve only just happened upon it.

Firstly, I want to stress that I’m absolutely cool with, and fully expect, scrutiny of my work and, if my words and writing style don’t float your boat then there’s little I can do about that. However, what I have to take issue with, is your use of the word ‘exploitative’.

There’s absolutely nothing exploitative about my work on Crean and to have reached that conclusion you should have expanded upon it to provide readers of your review, an example of what it is you are actually referring to.

As for the nothing-burger you consider my research to have revealed, your amateur sleuthing failed to detect the double big-mac that would have become apparent had you taken the time study my work and to draw comparison with the account that introduced you to Tom Crean back in 2000.

My own interest in Crean’s story was sparked some 20 years before this, after reading an account that was written in 1952 by an author who I provide full credit to in my account.

To satisfy your curiosity with regard to Michael Smith’s account, to have positively referenced it in my biography of Crean would have been to endorse the information that sits within its pages. I would never point readers of my work to an account I know contains a number of inaccuracies and is missing a host of significant events, assignments and stories that took place during Tom Crean’s life and career.
Unsurprisingly, in subsequent editions of his book, he never acknowledged my work or the substantial revisions it brought about.

You cite two examples of errors - Crean’s incorrect birthdate and the death of his mother 20 years earlier than it actually occurred. Inexplicably, you then state these errors already existed in contemporary records. Why would this have any relevance if those errors were never identified and revealed in previous accounts of Crean’s life? Same thoughts apply to the Irish records office that went up in flames in 1922 - what relevance does this have on my work?

You go on to state ‘other examples of errors that Foley cites are relatively minor points of detail’

Allow me to stack up your burger with just a few other examples your sleuthing failed to pick up on:

Crean was not 15 years old when he joined the Navy and, if he had been, he would never have had to lie about it because the Navy were actively recruiting boys from this age. On that matter, it’s a false claim to state: ‘that the lowest enlistment age was sixteen and the assumption is that the 15 year-old lad either forged or lied about his age before signing up’.
Tom never had 5 brothers and 4 sisters. He had 7 brothers and 3 sisters - all named, along with their birthdates, in my work.
On the subject of his siblings, Martin Crean was Tom’s youngest brother, not his elder brother.
HMS Ringarooma, the ship of Tom’s penultimate assignment prior to joining RRS Discovery in 1901, on his maiden expedition to Antarctica, was a ship that formed part of the Australian Station based in Sydney. Up until 1921, there was no New Zealand Squadron or Station, forming part of the British Navy.
Crean purchased the pub in 1916, (not 1913), and he was granted a liquor licence in 1917. The property, after a renovation, would, in 1929, (not 1927), become known as the South Pole Inn.
Tom never visited his two brothers up in the family home at Gortacurraun after his retirement. His eldest brother Hugh had passed away in 1908 leaving only one brother, Daniel, residing at the farm after Crean was discharged from the Navy after being diagnosed with retinitis.

You render these, minor points of detail. Not in my eyes, I consider it poor and sloppy research.

All those missing gaps have now been officially added and to Crean’s story thanks to a 7,000 word, body of evidence and sources that were submitted to the Royal Irish Academy and which gave rise to substantial revisions.

Much as it irritates you, (“he ends the book with a chapter about…himself (!) and all the great work he has done to ensure that Crean belatedly gets the recognition that he deserves”), why should anyone take issue with me for referencing a campaign I created that, with the support of over 30,000 of his fans, secured national recognition for Tom Crean? By the same token, why should I apologise for giving readers a short insight into my background and that of my father and grandfather’s connections to Annascaul? It’s relevant and of interest to readers wanting to learn about my credentials.
In that same chapter, I reference the names of five other people linked to Crean’s story, only one of whom, Shackleton, has been mentioned in previous accounts, so where are you getting off by stating it’s about myself?
The campaign and the new information never suddenly morphed out of the ether headed up by some nameless phantom. It happened to be me and I’m proud of it.

Eyes and minds on the story and raising awareness of Tom Crean are what has always driven me and it still does. I’m no different to any other writer in that I want people to read my work and to discover the subject I write about. If they pick up a copy in a library or from a friend or if they purchase it, makes no difference to me. I deliberately focused my story on Crean and just want people to discover him through my work.

Another reviewer here states, that my work veers towards hagiography and I’m not averse to others stating similar. I make no secret of my admiration for Tom Crean and that lays me open for such an opinion, however, I’m aware that Crean, like us all, had his faults. I just never happened upon any notable examples during my research. If I had, I would have included them.

I remain an eagle-eyed detector of inaccuracies written about Crean and make it my business to politely correct and educate those who authored them whenever and wherever they appear. To that end, I’m pleased to say that far less instances of such falsehoods are continuing to misinform the public.

The consensus from those who have read and digested my work has been overwhelmingly positive so your review here swims against the tide and, despite my best efforts to ignore it, that accusation of exploitation forced me into a response.

I accept that I won’t change your opinion of my work, but hopefully, readers of your flippant review, armed with better detective skills, will not only read my reply here but will want to discover Tom Crean in a very different account of his life and career.

As for your dislike of speculative terms such as ’it seems likely’ ; when no definitive evidence on a subject exists other than to offer an educated opinion, such phrases, in similar circumstances, are the nature of the beast for non-fiction writers. There’s room for such instances of my beliefs and, as a long time student of Tom Crean, I believe readers will put value on it.

To remove opinionated prefixes when there is no proof to the contrary, would be to misinform readers and imply that the author is stating a fact. Certain writers may feel comfortable passing off conjecture as factual but I’m not one of them.

Putting my own amateur sleuthing hat on, I’d say that, if you had read my book, you certainly didn’t digest it, nor did you draw comparisons judging by your poorly studied observations of my work.