Book Blurb

[Pin]

I'm reproducing an old book on English billiards (Sidney Gillet's 1818 - 1843 The Earlier History of Billiard Tables and Accessories as seen from the sales journals of John Thurston of over one hundred years ago ), and wanted some feedback on my draft 'blurb' (which will be the description on the back of the book and on Amazon's page):

Delve into John Thurston’s sales journals from 200 years ago and see billiards history unfold.​

​

In the early 1800s, billiards developed from a game of maces and tipless cues, wooden table-beds and stuffed cushions into its modern form, and John Thurston was the leading name in innovation and manufacture.​

​

This short tour of the firm’s sales journals chronicles the game’s many changes, as we rub shoulders with Minguard and Kentfield, Samuel Pepys, Napoleon Bonaparte and Queen Victoria.​

​

A rare and sought-after volume, this modern reproduction brings you a book that has itself become a part of billiards history.​

​

​

John Thurston’s company still trades today, and you can write your own name into their sales journals at www.Thurston.co.uk​

What do you think? Does it grab your interest?

An American audience might dispute 'the leading name' (you could make a case for Michael Phelan, and Gillet's book ignores celluloid and composition balls, as it focuses on Thurston's firm and a different time period), but I figure it's pretty mild hyperbole in the grand scheme of things

It might be good to get the buzzwords 'snooker' and 'pool' in ('pool' can sneakily refer to the old game of the same name). But they don't feel like they fit very well.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Mingaud has no R in his last name.

 

[Pin]

Mingaud has no R in his last name.

Oh no! That would have been a bad error. Thank you.

 

[Pin]

Mingaud has no R in his last name.

That mistake was bugging me so I went back and checked the original book, and Gillett has used 'Minguard' (twice). I recall having a vague hunch about that and dismissing it.
I have a PDF of Thurston's version of 'The Noble Game' (1831) which uses 'Mingaud', so Gillett didn't get it from there, but perhaps he picked it up from a misspelling in the sales journals (which refer to a cue with a 'Minguard butt', but no explanation of what that is).

One of the dilemmas when I'm using OCR is whether to correct minor errors in the original text. Generally I try to reproduce the original as closely as possible, and only correct definite minor errors that might interrupt the reader's experience of the book.

I'm inclined to keep Minguard in the main text, so I might make the blurb consistent - at least on the back cover, if not the Amazon listing.
(The original has a blank back cover, so it feels fair game to do something with the space on the reproduction.)

 

[TheBasics]

Pin, Howdy;

Not everyone is a good speller.
When you go back in some of the old English and some of the documents from our Founding Fathers
you'll notice the use of the letter 'f' where we now days use the letter 's'. So, while it may be a spelling
error today, perhaps it wasn't 'back-when'. Also the clerk may have misunderstood the French
pronunciation and made a honest mistake.

hank

 

[Bob Jewett]

... our Founding Fathers you'll notice the use of the letter 'f' where we now days use the letter 's'. ...

That was a different shape of s, not an f. It's consufing, but that's they way they wrote it. Here is a brief explanation:

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I'm inclined to keep Minguard in the main text, so I might make the blurb consistent - at least on the back cover, if not the Amazon listing.
(The original has a blank back cover, so it feels fair game to do something with the space on the reproduction.)

I think it is fine to keep the original erroneous spelling but there may be readers who don't know what's correct. Maybe add a brief note?

 

[Pin]

When you go back in some of the old English and some of the documents from our Founding Fathers
you'll notice the use of the letter 'f' where we now days use the letter 's'. So, while it may be a spelling
error today, perhaps it wasn't 'back-when'. Also the clerk may have misunderstood the French
pronunciation and made a honest mistake.

I remember finding that one in Lucas's 'Lives of the Gamesters' (1600s (from memory) gossip and tall tales, mentioned in Hendricks's History, quite good fun). It caused me a bit of head-scratching at first!

 

[Pin]

I think it is fine to keep the original erroneous spelling but there may be readers who don't know what's correct. Maybe add a brief note?

I was in two minds whether to have a short note at the start, so perhaps I should.

 

[Pin]

I ran my blurb through an AI blurb tool, and patched some of its suggestions together. This is the result:

Journey back in time 200 years and unearth the legacy of John Thurston, the visionary who crafted history on green baize and transformed the game forever.

Through Thurston's sales journals, experience the transformation of billiards from maces, wooden table-beds and stuffed cushions to the game we know today.

Thurston's journals are littered with famous figures of history, from Mingaud and Kentfield to Napoleon and Queen Victoria, painting a vibrant tableau of an era where billiards reigned supreme.

This modern reproduction of a rare and sought-after volume brings billiards history back to life.

 

[Bob Jewett]

You might add first names for Mingaud and Kentfield. That will get people better search hits if they turn to Google.

 

[Pin]

That's a good idea. I hadn't thought about it in terms of search optimisation, but it would help on Amazon too.