Hold on. I deliberately went to Norway in order to interview the last survivors of the campaign, all of whom were privates at the time. Their living voices, aged 97-100, are a counterbalance to the actions of the few dead leaders I concentrate on and whose decisions caused so much damage. So I beg to take issue with your criticism of this "glaring flaw". There are many other flaws I could name, I am sure the book is wriggling with them; but not that I concentrated on the elite.
First, I want to state that it is an honor to hear back from the author of a book I reviewed. It doesn't happen often, and it helps me to appreciate just how much they value a reader's opinion.
Second, I do appreciate your point, and I'm sorry if you feel that I was unduly harsh in my assessment of that part of your book. I felt that I acknowledged your efforts there when I qualified my observation about your focus on the officers and members of Chamberlain's government. While those accounts from your interviews did indeed enrich the text, after going back and reviewing those chapters I still think that there was too much of a focus on the anecdotal and not enough on the analytical in terms of recounting the Norwegian campaign. If you feel that this is a fairer way of phrasing it I am happy to rewrite that portion, but I stand by my underlying judgment.
I am curious, though, as to what other parts of your book you think are flawed. Any other issue I might have had with it boiled down to subjective nit-picking; I think overall its a fine read and one that I've already recommended to a couple of people.
Second, I do appreciate your point, and I'm sorry if you feel that I was unduly harsh in my assessment of that part of your book. I felt that I acknowledged your efforts there when I qualified my observation about your focus on the officers and members of Chamberlain's government. While those accounts from your interviews did indeed enrich the text, after going back and reviewing those chapters I still think that there was too much of a focus on the anecdotal and not enough on the analytical in terms of recounting the Norwegian campaign. If you feel that this is a fairer way of phrasing it I am happy to rewrite that portion, but I stand by my underlying judgment.
I am curious, though, as to what other parts of your book you think are flawed. Any other issue I might have had with it boiled down to subjective nit-picking; I think overall its a fine read and one that I've already recommended to a couple of people.