Customer Reviews

Shadow Divers Exposed: the Real Saga of the U-869

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

For days, as I've been struggling through Gentile's book, I've been turning over in my mind what to write in a review. However, I just read the previous reviewer's comments, and he took the words right out of my mouth. This book was juvenile and unprofessional. It could have been done in a magazine article, as the diver who brought the topic to Gentile's attention suggested. I think if Gentile had actually had an editor look at the text and clean up all of his "emotionally-charged" verbage, it might have been worth reading and considering his points. However, he so loaded it with invective toward Chatterton and Kohler that it was indeed more like a first-grader's tattling than a professional writer who boasts about having written "over 30 books on wreck-diving". Got news for ya Gary, just because you've published 30 books, doesn't mean you know how to write.

Kurson's book Shadow Diver's was much better written and a more enjoyable read that actually developed and told a story, whether the two protagonists exaggerated their exploits or not. The fact was, I read Shadow Divers to hear the story of the history and discovery of the U-869, what she's like now, what the diver's saw, etc. I don't give a rip about who performed CPR on who or who performed the primary research at the Naval Archives or who created the gate idea on the Andrea Doria.

Gentile's book was choppy (skipped around a lot and you had no idea where some of the stuff came from or why it was being brought up, except to discredit Chatterton and Kohler in every way that Gentile could imagine), not pleasant to read, and actually insulting to the reader in it's tone and reference.

Although the first half of the book is a waste, the appendicies are pretty interesting. They present current information on the condition of the sub, observations from other wreck-diving that Gentile has done, and info on other U-boats. That material was interesting reading, but it still continues the diatribe against Chatterton and Kohler wherever possible. I do not recommend wasting your TIME on this book, even if you can purchase it for 50c.

I want my $25 and 5 hours of my life back. If you read Shadow Divers, then just assume that other people played a big role in the diving and research and accept as an alternative theory that the boat was sunk by depth charges. You can now skip this book.

The pace is tedious. His style of addressing his "faithful readers" grows tiresome quickly. The appendix detailing "niggling inaccuracies" is just embarassing. Does anyone really care if it's grapple or grapnel, or if Kurson uses "man" instead of "diver" or "person"?

You have the impression that something else drove this book, that somehow Gentile was snubbed and is lashing out. I don't doubt his impressive diving and writing creditials. However, this book was better left unwritten.

I guess basically, someone is lying! This book was written to correct the events that happened in the book Shadow Divers, by Robert Kurson. After reading both, and making the disclaimer that I have no loyalty or affiliation to either author, I will make the statement that I believe the original to be true with the caveat; things get lost in translation.

After reading much of this book, I realized quickly that the author may have a personal issue with the two main divers in Shadow Divers, Richie Kohler, and John Chatterton, because he apparently has an agenda to disprove each and every move they make claiming that certain people who were present for much of the story (as well as him) had a different outlook on each and every situation.

First and foremost, he constantly re-states his opinion of what actually happened to the U-boat , versus what Shadow Divers claimed happened to the U-boat. Since none of the parties involved were present for the actual sinking, I don't doubt either theory could be true, why dwell on something that can't obviously be determined? I am not one to discredit Gary Gentile's wreck diving and historical credentials, but his opinion on how the U-boat sank is just as good as the opinion offered in Shadow Divers. I also don't recall Shadow Divers saying that the U-869 definitely beyond a shadow of a doubt was sunk by a circle running torpedo. That is their `theory', I wasn't the entire basis for the story, and it wasn't dwelled upon. [EDIT: I had the opportunity to ask John Chatterton about this theory, and it IS just that...A THEORY!]

One chapter devotes time and effort to several incidents unrelated to the U-869 case that apparently are only there to provide behavioral patterns or show cause for discrediting the divers in question. My mother always told me that if I didn't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say it at all...my advice to the author is the same. Dragging out skeletons from someone's closet is petty.

The book probably would have been more enjoyable if were another diver's take on the story, as opposed to a "he said-she said" expose`. I think most of the differences of opinion and events are just that, differences in who was looking at the story at the moment. There doesn't seem to be a "smoking gun" item proving that something was so wrong with the original story. It almost seemed like the author stayed to the side while everything happened, and commented to everyone except those that were attempting to find the answers, then came in at the end, and tried to cash in on someone else's good fortune.

In summation, there is really no new information worth mentioning from the original book, possibly a minor correction of an event, or a difference of opinion on a certain item from another standpoint, but nothing compelling enough to garner a new novel. The author should stick to writing historical accounts, and leave the exposes` to The Enquirer. I would have enjoyed this more if it were just a pure account of the events through different eyes.

A venomous screed. Not worth the time to read. I suspect Gentile is very good at his diving. He may even have some valid points but they are totally lost in his vendetta to vilify Chatterton and Kohler. The appendices are interesting, except that even there he takes every opportunity to smear C & K. He is far too self-congratulatory. Virtually all of his refer to titles, as proof that whatever point he wants to make is valid, are books he has written. Perhaps if C & K had asked his permission, input and blessing he would not have been so malicious. Most of the points he brings up are, at best, minor details and some of the discrepencies are simply different recollections of stressful matters. Twenty people can give twenty versions of the same incident and all of them are usually telling the truth, from their perspective. One item in Shadow Divers where he berates the author and C & K is the comment that Chatterton "owns" the AD. Gentile goes on and on about it being impossible for Chatterton to "own" the AD. He is so wrapped up in his hate for C & K that he fails to remember that it is an only expression, such as when someone completes an especially difficult project. When you finally reach that 300 pound bench press your friends will say "you own it". I suspect that when a climber reaches the peak of a difficult mountain, his friends say "you own it". No one is stupid enough to mean they actually own it.
Anyone can make misstatements and not being lying, it is simply the way they understand things. An example is on page 257, the second to last sentence of paragraph 2. While being self-congratulatory and displaying what a he-man he is,Gentile says, "Between times, I was wrenched vertically to and fro like a piston rod on the camshaft of a high speed engine". I do not know what kind of engines Gentile is familiar with but I have rebuilt quite a few and have never found one where the piston rods are connected to the cam shaft. In all the ones I have done, the piston rod is connected to the crank shaft. I do not know anyone who has ever seen a piston rod connected to the cam shaft. Maybe it is possible, but I doubt it. The book is filled with such minor mistakes, while trying to denounce C & K. Seems like if a guy is going to throw so many rocks he would at least make sure that he is unbreakable, in case some bounce back. It would have been a good read, without the overwhelming and obvious hate for C & K. However, if he had left out all the hate and invective, it would only have been long enough for a magazine article.
I suspect it is a self-published book, through one of the self-publishing companies, because no normal publisher would have let it slip through with all of it's venom, knowing that demeanor is a killer to any good review.
I had intended to purchase a number of his other titles, but will forego that pleasure. Anything a person that self-absorbed and vicious knows, I do not want to learn.

It is very disappointing to see this level of work from Gary Gentile, who is so accomplished in wreck diving. This book is very petty with the aim being to indict the divers in the original book both personally and professionally. I found this to be juvenile, pitiful, much like a first grader telling on a classmate.

I thoroughly enjoyed Shadow Divers. When I saw this book on the shelf in a dive shop, I immediatley grabbed it. I should have read the reviews first. Even if Shadow Divers is as inaccurate as the author says, it was a GREAT read. This book is not. It strikes me more as 360 pages of rambling, backtracking, and name calling by a bitter man. I have no reason to question the authenticity of the facts he presents, but after pages of his verbal assaults on and disparging references to various people, I really didn't care WHAT the facts were. I skipped the last 2/3rds of the expose but did read about the U-boat sinkings in the appendices. As a naturalized American of German descent, I find his references to German sailors, and Germany in general; insulting, ill-educated, and generally false. Most professional German military had no use for Hitler or the Nazis. If you MUST open this book, find it at a library. Don't waste your money. I gave it one star because there was nothing lower.

I have read (and viewed) everything I can get my hands on regarding this discovery.

With the turn of each page of Gentile's book I couldn't help but think...sour grapes.

Well, what a pity! Gary Gentile cries on page 17 on what a better author he is, with 30 written shipwreck books and that is supposed to make him a better author. In the same turn he criticizes the author of Shadow Divers with what previous books he has written. Come on! That sounds so childish! In the end it does not matter how many books one author has written, it comes down to quality and writing style. I am disappointed in this book and therefor I say, safe your money!

I've read all three of the books about the U-869 and the efforts to identify the wreck. They are The Last Dive, Shadow Divers, and this book, Shadow Divers Exposed. As a first comment, the divers in these books were diving in the early 1990s and some of their techniques seem dated looking back from 2007. Diving to 70 meters in cold water on air would not be the method of choice today. In fact, it could be argued that diving to that depth on air was a contributing factor in the deaths of Chris Rouse and Chris Rouse, Jr on the wreck.
Gary seems intent on "setting the record straight" and righting a lot of old wrongs. In addition to being a bit on the edge technically, the divers in the Northeast US seem to be passionate about not just their diving, but also about who said and did what to whom. In places this book, Shadow Divers Exposed, seems to degenerate into an argument that would be more at home in a primary schoolyard. That having been said, There are a number of interesting points raised.
A clear difference between diving in the Northeast US and diving here in Melbourne is the differences in diving style. The US divers typically anchor their boats to the wrecks using a grappling hook that is lashed to a point of contact on the wreck. Free-floating decompression is not a method that is in common use there. Everyone ascends along the anchor line. (This certainly explains why Jon-lines are part of their kit.) Another difference is the emphasis on "souvenirs" or artifacts. The people I'm used to diving with generally have a "leave only bubbles - take only photos" approach to wrecks. These guys seem to have a "if it isn't nailed down - take it" approach. Actually, it's more of "if it can be detached in any way at all - take it" approach. Some of the descriptions of the use of hacksaws and cutting torches at depth make the marine archaeologist in me cringe, to say the least.
In a large project that extends over several years, it is important to make sure that the contributors get proper recognition. When attempting to identify a wreck, the people behind the scenes doing research in archives and libraries contribute as much to the effort as the people out diving the wreck. Yes, the diving is the exciting part, at least for those of us who are divers. But the research is essential to the overall effort and seldom receives the credit that it deserves.
The really interesting points raised by this book are the theory for the cause of the sinking of the U-869 and some of the diving methods used. Gary points out that there were two points of hull damage, one near the conning tower and one hear the stern, in the vicinity of the after torpedo room. The authors of Shadow Divers claim that the U-869 was sunk by one of her own torpedoes. Unless there were two torpedoes that simultaneously malfunctioned, an unlikely scenario, there must be an alternate explanation. Gary has tracked down destroyer crew who were in the right place at the right time and paints a much more reasonable explanation involving a depth charge attack.
The diving method in question was the method used to enter the electric motor room. This area was relatively easily accessible from the hole at the stern of the vessel. Instead, John Chatterton chose to use a risky maneuver involving pushing a single cylinder through a narrow opening crowded with cables and other hazards. There is a real question in my mind why this should have been the method of choice in the situation. There is limited margin for error at 70 meters. Maybe I'm lacking in "intestinal fortitude" but as far as I'm concerned, the most conservative method is the best method.
I'd have been happier if Gary had not spent the multiple paragraphs criticizing the language used by Robert Kurson in Shadow Divers. While I am not an English professor, I would have to say that Gary's choice of words and sentence structure also left a bit to be desired, in places. So I believe we could have done without the "pot calling the kettle black" criticisms.
All criticism of the book aside, it does add yet another dimension to the story of an interesting wreck and an interesting era in diving in the US. All three of the books are worth reading for the comparisons that they invite. And, as in any case where we can read about dives that have gone wrong, it is worth reading about the fatalities and near misses to try to learn to avoid similar situations.

After being told by a top local tech diver to read Gary Gentiles books, The Lusitania, U869, blah blah, Gary comes over not as an experienced diver and author, but as a Bitter & twisted little man.
He brings out a few interesting points and good facts(i have no reason to doubt his findings and research)but he seems to be more inline to get some revenge on Chatterton and Kohler here. Come on, if you're going to write a book "ÄBOUT THE REAL STORY ON U869" make it about the topic not some petty little personal vendetta.