New book about the first Indy 500

[BloodandSmoke]

Hi, this is Charles Leerhsen, the author of Blood and Smoke: A True Tale of Mystery, Mayhem and the Birth of the Indy 500, to be published on May 3 by Simon and Schuster. It's a deep and hopefully exhilarating dive into the early car culture, the origins of auto racing and, of course, the first 500-mile sweepstakes, conducted 100 years ago this spring. "History comes alive," says Kirkus Reviews, "a fascinating tale." You can learn more about the book at my website, but I'd be happy to try and answer any questions here.

[Don Capps]

"Drivers sometimes threw wrenches or bolts at each other during the race in order to gain an advantage. The night before an event the racers would take up a collection for the next day's new widows. Bookmakers offered bets not only on who might win but who might survive. Not all the participants in that first Indy 500 lived to see the checkered flag."

This does not seem to be very encouraging.

"...the first track in the U.S. built expressly for auto racing."

That is, of course, assuming one chooses to ignore the Lakeside track in the San Diego area that was opened in April 1907.

Out of curiosity, did you read Fastest of the First (Belcher Foundation, 2008) and, if so, how does your account differ?

[BloodandSmoke]

Why not encouraging?

I read the Fastest of the First and found it to be quite a good book, as I say in Blood and Smoke. The question of how my account differs would take a book to answer, but it focuses on the car culture circa 1910 and the early auto racing scene, as well as that first 500-mile race. It also has much more detail than the Belcher Foundation book, much less about Fred Belcher and is considerably funnier.

[Don Capps]

First, I have ordered the book, although I have done so despite some reservations that I might have gotten based on what seems to be emphasized in the blurb that I read on your site. Of course, I usually have reservations when journalists attempt history and usually come up with something more akin to a chronicle, one often lacking in any real substance. However, see comment number four.

Second, did you have an automotive historian familiar with racing during the era vet the book? If so, who was it?

Third, any documentation for this? "Drivers sometimes threw wrenches or bolts at each other during the race in order to gain an advantage." Or this? "The night before an event the racers would take up a collection for the next day's new widows. Bookmakers offered bets not only on who might win but who might survive." Are those antecdotal, retrospective rememberances, examples of journalistic imagination? How often was "sometimes" and are specific, substantiated examples provided? Being somewhat familiar with automobile racing during this era, just curious as to what I seem to have overlooked, missed or simply did not pay attention to in myresearch.

Fourth, while I am obviously skeptical, especially given the usual fare that somehow gets printed, if this will create an interest in the era and then possibly lead a few hardy souls to begin studying the history -- the History and not the legends, folklore, and mythology -- of automobile racing during this era, then all to the good. At any rate, looking forward to reading the book if for no other reason than seeing what groans it will solicit along with the head nods of approval.

[BloodandSmoke]

While there just may be a third category of information in this book--besides things you know already and things you don't believe--I applaud you being open-minded enough to buy a copy.

What more interesting is there in this book prior from the books published by the author..

[BloodandSmoke]

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[Don Capps]

While there just may be a third category of information in this book--besides things you know already and things you don't believe--I applaud you being open-minded enough to buy a copy.

Whenever possible, I am more than willing to support any effort to put a book on automobile racing history on the bookshelves of as many folks as possible. Given the inherent problems of getting much of anything into print these days, good to see anything on this topic being published these days by someone other than a micro-press.

Ignoring the fact that you avoided answering any of my questions, I have another one: Who thought up the title for the book? You or the publisher?

[ShiftingGears]

I'd be happy to try and answer any questions here.

Heh.

[BloodandSmoke]

Mmm...the prosecution doesn't rest. The sources of all the information in the book are noted in the book. The utterly intriguing story of how the title came to be will be revealed in my memoirs.

[Don Capps]

(a) Mmm...the prosecution doesn't rest. (b) The sources of all the information in the book are noted in the book. (c) The utterly intriguing story of how the title came to be will be revealed in my memoirs.

(a) Point taken, but you did make the offer to answer questions, which also implies discussion regarding issues relevant to your book. I simply took you at your word. If you were merely being polite and it was not your intent to answer questions or comment on your book, I offer my apologies.

(b) Footnotes, chapter notes, annotated bibliography or what....? Seriously, I do have an interest in this given that despite my long research into this era I still find things that surprise and enlighten me. Over time, some of the things that puzzled me have been resolved, but other mysteries or questions either still persist or are missing a number of the dots that would allow me to more clearly discern the pattern. New research resources and interpretations are always welcomed.

(c) I am standing by, utterly intrigued, of course, for the answer to this question to be revealed.

[BloodandSmoke]

I understand the difference between questions and prejudice festooned with question marks. However, the answers are that sources are identified in the text and in a note on sources at the end; there were footnotes at one time, but we (the editor and I) decided to fold them into the text. The title is something that was hashed out in the usual way, over a series of discussions between me and the editor.

[D-Type]

Gentlemen,

Calm down please!

[BloodandSmoke]

Sorry, you're right. I will.

[Don Capps]

Well, I guess this means Mr. Leerhsen will not be writing a nice inscription in my copy of his book.....

[D-Type]

Don,
Behave yourself!

[Don Capps]

The Leerhsen book arrived last Friday afternoon. I read it over the weekend and while doing so I highlighted relevant items and made margin notes. I also considered what was written by Leerhsen against both previous discussions and examinations of the 1911 race as well of automobile racing during the general era covered in the book. Based upon what Leerhsen states in the acknowledgements and his notes regarding sources, as well as what one finds in the text, it is evident that there was a great deal of research conducted for the book, to include the use of two college research assistants (one at Indiana Univ. and the other at Columbia Univ.), as well as discussions with Donald Davidson and Mark Dill, to say nothing of the research that Leerhsen personally conducted. I am familiar with the majority of the material that Leerhsen cites in his notes on sources, as well as other materials which cover much of the same ground.

While I am certainly not the audience to which the book is being directed and marketed, I can easily anticipate that there will be very positive -- and even enthusiastic -- reviews of Blood and Smoke. If I were pressed as to whether or not I would recommend this book, my very mixed feelings about the book would give me great pause before replying.

This is a book written in the "sportswriter" style with all the pluses and minuses of that genre. That is part of my personal reservations regarding the book, one that may not be shared by many others, of course. Lurking within all the information and research that Leershen conducted is a good book. This does not seem to be that book, in my opinion. Yet, neither is certainly not it a "bad" book by any means, simply that being quite familiar with the same ingredients that were used by Leerhsen to write his book, mine would have been quite different. Of course, Leerhsen has a book being marketed and which will be sold at the IMS Museum store for years to come and I don't, so full credit to Leerhsen.

I was interested to note that Leershsen cited the absence of any any clear cut rules to what was a "stock car" and what was not on the part of the AAA. Given that by 1911 the Contest Rules there had been three previous seasons where the Contest Board had given great attention and had taken pains to define the requirements for what constituted a "stock car," this was something of a puzzle to me. As to the question regarding as to how some interpreted those rules, there are clear suggestions that there were occasions where there were question regarding the implementation those interpretations.

Be advised that Leerhsen is very coy about the primary issue within the book, who won the first 500-mile race at Indianpolis in 1911. As to whether it was Harroun or Mulford, Leerhsen takes measures to equivocate on the question, retreating to the notion of its enduring ambiguity, yet clearly indicating that Mulford may have a good case. This notion is suggested with a number of references to the relationship between Carl Fisher and Howard Marmon as well a other references to the roles of others involved in the controversy and the final outcome.

While I certainly agree with the idea that there will continue to be a level of ambiguity regarding the outcome of the race -- for many of the same reasons given, I found that while in general agreement Leerhsen's conclusion as written, I expect that clearly advocating Mulford -- or Harroun, for that matter -- as the "true" winner of the race would have been at odds with the nuanced approach that he clearly took pains to achieve.

If for no other reason than there have been many other books written on the "500" that cannot compete with the book Leerhsen has written, especially regarding the research, most here and elsewhere will find it worth the read. For better or worse -- and it is a bit of both, it is not a historian's book, but then a gain it is very doubtful Simon & Schuster would publish a book on this event that was written by an automotive historian in the first place. Give credit where credit is due, this is a much better book than it what could have just as easily been produced -- the sort mindless, poorly-researched, and incoherent sort of book that many "enthusiasts" produce.

At any rate, Mr. Leehsen gets the royalties for at least one book -- and I will not begrudge him a single penny of it given the challenges that were faced to get this book into print.

[escargokie]

Gents,

I have purchased "Blood and Smoke" by Mr. Leerhsen.

I have gotten through the first six of 18 chapters - I am not a fast reader, and I am checking out every offering of information against my own.

At this point I give the book five stars out of five. It is well written, and has obviously been well researched. It has some great humor, and provides some excellent historical perspectives. The book can be equally enjoyed by racing fans like us, as well as general readers of history.

I have been building my own information base on the 1911 Indy 500. It can be found here:

http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/LWFWIW/focusLWFWIW.php?db2=LWF&db=ct&n=306

It is far from complete, but everything I have presented is fact checked for accuracy. Be sure to click on the pages of individuals. If you can help with any names which are not clickable, it means that they are still subject to completion of my research. Unfortunately, a few pages were done by others in MM whose methods of research are not compatible with my standards.

Any of you can contact me directly at [email:22fqqy9h]erkelly2@cox.net[/email:22fqqy9h] if you have useful additions to my work on this page in Motorsport Memorial's "Lest We Forget" section. I have been a researcher with MM for more than seven years, and strange as it may seem, I am the only "power dude" who has actually raced (SCCA) and have a pilots license (very inactive). I stick to American subjects, and do a lot of work in the Air Racing section. I also work closely with Jason Bach's champcarstats.com.

I recommend this book without reservation.

There are several "inaccuracies" - for example, Gil Anderson's true surname is Andersen. He had better things to do than correct every reporter's error.

The story of Ned Crane's "last words" after his crash are impossible - he was killed "instantly" with a broken neck. I found this story to have been authored by Barney Oldfield. Either he was quoting the wrong driver, or he was "being creative". He was generally a blow-hard self-promoter, so I lean toward the second possibility. Ned Crane had broken several of Oldfield's records. (The notes in Ned Crane's page in MM are to be re-written. I found his place of birth and other information that has not been readily available to date.

Those are minor quibbles. I am thoroughly enjoying the book - so far.

More after I finish it.

Rick Kelly (aka as E. R., Piloto Peaches and Escargokie.
Oklahoma City

[Don Capps]

Rick,

Apparently we read different books. You read the fan's book and I didn't -- a very big difference. It is always good to have different perspectives. I think most here -- and elsewhere -- will lean in your direction, which is not a surprise.

If I awarded stars, which I don't of course, I would probably give it maybe three on the five star scale, a lukewarm recommendation. I had no problem keeping my enthusiasm for the book under control.

Given the very level of the effort that Leerhsen wished to be known that went into the book, it is not much of a surprise, as noted, that the errors are relatively few and that there is not much of the usual "creativity" that usually plagues these efforts.

HDC

[Don Capps]

"Knowledge breeds doubt, not certainty, and the more we know, the more uncertain we become."
-- A.J.P. Taylor, "What Else, Indeed?", The New York Review of Books, 5 August 1965 (Volume 5 No. 1)