Review of the reviewer
Recently, a rather sarcastic piece was posted on a weblog in regards to one of my book reviews. After spending some time browsing through the site, I found a well written and organized blog with many intelligent insights. Some I agree wholeheartedly with, while others left me either dumbfounded, or totally in disagreement. It seems the proprietor of this blog prides himself on discovering, defining, and exposing "original and accurate" history versus "incorrect common and/or popular opinions". At least I think that is his intent.

Read post here: Grant Book Reviews

Summarily, he posted: "The excesses of Centennial Doctrine have left many readers vulnerable to that kind of information." Not sure I understand? Apparently, he was in disagreement with my "take" on a book about U.S. Grant (I think for either stating the obvious and/or propagating what he feels are misconceptions on "Old Sam"). I find that a bit strange as the author (Mr. Ballard) liked it.

The reviews that I write (for the most part) are geared toward generating interest (within the general public) on books about the Civil War. I like to think that I get paid to produce an honest, but "reader-friendly" critique that may (or may not) convince a "non-buff" to pick up a copy and take an interest into what I consider to be the most important time is U.S. history (minus the Revolution of course!)

I always interview the author as part of the piece and the publishers have been very receptive and generous to my comments. The die-hards (myself included) probably want more, but I like to think I am attempting to bring new "future" die-hards "on board" and my "CW-geek" peers already know much more than I could fit into a 1000 word essay. There are reviewers who take great strides in writing very long-winded, detailed, and technical critiques of books in order to provide the enthusiasts and buffs with a "scientific study." I read them. I love them... in Civil War Magazines - not in the Weekender tabloid of a Sat. newspaper.

I was hired by an editor to write quote: "blue-collar" reviews that will make people interested in something they may know nothing about. The publishing companies send the books and IF I like them, I try to do what I can to help sell some. I have 2 books out myself and we authors need all the help we can get. If I don't like a book, I simply do not review it. Now please do not feel that I am not practicing integrity when I review, I ONLY review the ones I like in hopes of sharing it with others. (I would like to know what he thinks of the other reviews I have done.)

Anyway I wanted to reply to this individual - not to explain, or argue, or apologize, or make any excuses, but to simply thank him for his opinion and ask that he continues to read my work. Unfortunately, after searching high and low, I was unable to find any kind of email or contact link. This does bother me as someone who "critiques" others work, should at least allow us a chance to comment or defend ourselves. That is why I am simply posting this here, hoping he will find it and contact me for a nice discussion and/or debate. (I certainly hope he will find this when "Googling" and contact me.)

As a historian and writer I can always do better, and although I feel he may be misunderstanding the intended audience of this piece, I'm sure his insights might help me grow. I do intend to frequent his blog and hope that he will visit mine. I'm posting his name ONLY in hopes that it will help him to read this.

Dimitri Rotov (Civil War Bookshelf), I'm waiting...

Please contact me via the link on the Pinstripe Press website (see link to left) and we can pleasantly discuss "The excesses of Centennial Doctrine".