View Single Post
06-11-2005, 09:58 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
I've read a lot of hockey books and thought some were better than others.
But I find that some criticism that people have with books is because of their image of what the book should be. If you pick up Dryden's book, you have to know its not the usual type of hockey book. It won't be like an Espo book.
'The Game' is thought to have been one of the best hockey books ever written.
I thought it was a great book.

Douglas Hunter's book on Tim Horton was too long. That's a valid criticism but all his books are written that way. He feels he needs to cover all the relevant material and in detail for a thorough understanding of the subject matter. The book was well researched and had very few errors. I thought it was a good book.

The book on the Smythe family was informative and an interesting story. When I read books, I liked to be informed as well as entertained. The only thing about that book is that the subject matter is dated. How many people really know the influence on the Smythe family on the Toronto Maple Leafs? Or care? But, I thought it was a good book.

At least with those books, you know that the accounts are accurate and not fictionalized. That's the way it should be.

The Espo book might have been the most interesting, but how much of it is true?

I read the book '67' by Stellick & Cox. There are over 20 factual mistakes and some misinterpretations (in my view). Otherwise, the book was a good read.

And, authors of hockey books don't make a lot of money. 5,000 books sold is considered 'good'.

ClassicHockey is offline