posted 06-23-2004 07:55 AM               

It's interesting that a lot of stuff in the first chapter of "The Right Stuff" (about Naval Aviators, "Flat hatting", etc.) almost seems to have been written directly from Shephards experiences, based on what's desribed in "Light This Candle". I seem to recall that Shephard denied ever being interviewed by Wolfe, but the source could just have easily been Pete Conrad, who seems to have supplied most of the material in the beginning of the book.

Well worth reading.

posted 07-28-2004 10:44 PM               

------------------
Don

posted 07-30-2004 11:46 AM               

1. Thompson writes a number of times about the "dark" side of the moon, there is no such thing, just the "far" side.

2., and much worse: he states on page 190 or so that "the gravity of the earth fizzles out once you are a few hundred miles up" (this is not a quote but a paraphrase). In fact gravity NEVER stops, it is the GRAVITATIONAL pull of the earth that makes the moon go around the earth. The same mistake is present in another chapter but I forgot where.

posted 08-02-2004 05:29 PM               

As a general principle, this is entirely fair. Everybody makes mistakes, and it is hard to catch all of your own mistakes. However, I think that such errors are important in at least two cases: first, if they are extensive. If there are a lot of errors it darkly implies things about the author--either that he is clueless or sloppy or both. And I think that everyone will admit that a lot of errors simply make it harder to read a book, because you get tired of the mess.

Second, such errors are important if the main themes of the book, or the argument, rely upon the erroneous information. If an author says that something happened on July 2 instead of July 12, that is a minor error. But if the author says that it happened on July 2 and as a result, something else happened on July 8, then that is a major error, because the author has created a cause and effect relationship that was impossible.

"Perhaps that is because I wasn't reading it with the intention of learning anything new about the space program, but rather about the man himself."

This is also fair. However, one thing that we have to keep in mind is that sometimes this will be someone's first exposure to the subject, and first exposures can create erroneous impressions that last forever. A colleague and I have referred to this as historical pollution, or in its more extreme form, historical vandalism.

The problem with extreme sloppiness or unprofessionalism by a historian is that other people then have to clean up after their mess. A couple of years ago there was that documentary going around about cosmonauts who flew before Yuri Gagarin. Sloppy and unsupported allegations with no truth to them. But people saw it and some believe it. As a result, every so often somebody will ask a colleague of mine about it--"What about those cosmonauts who got killed in missions before Yuri Gagarin?" He then has to spend time fixing a misconception that an irresponsible documentarian created.

"The greatest compliment I can pay the book and its author is that after reading "Light This Candle", I found that I appreciated the brief encounter I had with Shepard in 1997 even more than I did before."

posted 08-02-2004 05:55 PM               

That said, its my understanding that the errors that have been identified will be corrected in the softcover edition.

There are authors that set out to (1) tell about history as they perceive it happened, (2) tell about history as they believe it happened, (3) tell about history based on what actually happened, and (4) tell about history based on what they believe should have happened. I would place Candle somewhere between (2) and (3), simply because (by his own admission) Thompson was never there to witness what he writes himself. When balancing one's concern over the historical implications of a new book, I am generally much more concerned about categories (1) and (4) -- both of which we have (unfortunately) seen appear as biographies and memoirs in recent years by space program personnel.

posted 08-02-2004 06:07 PM               

Recently an Air Force magazine ran an account of the early reconnaissance satellite program by someone who claimed to have been involved with it. I was instantly suspicious, as I had never heard of the guy before. He apparently played a minor role, but got a lot of the basic facts wrong. A complete mess.