08-03-2013, 12:29 PM
I don't "bash" books.
I never have, and I never will.
I once talked about this on BOR. That is how I learned what the art of criticism was really about. That is finding value in someone's work even if the overall product is not good, and mentioning weaknesses even if something is really good. But more importantly, showing why that is the case. In other words, explaining why something is good or why its not. And doing it in an understandable and demonstrable way, with comparisons to other works in that particular field.
When I reviewed the Douglass book, I explained in depth what I thought was good about it. And I mentioned at the end, however briefly, some of the problems with it.
In my review of Horne, I went into depth what I thought was good about it--his x ray analysis, his photo analysis of the brain--and what I thought the problems were.
(It turns out, there were even more problems with it than I thought. And I will be addressing this.)
With Janney, I was very specific about what I thought was wrong with the book. First, it was very derivative--relying on the work of others, even when that work was not really reliable. For example, Tim Leary, and Damore, and, if you can comprehend it, Gregory Douglass. Second, the portraits he drew of the main personages were so skewed as to be unsupportable. And they were skewed in a way to serve an agenda. There simply is no evidence in the record to make MM any kind of foreign policy maven. Janney then doubles down on this by turning JFK into a Horowitz/Collier empty playboy, who has no views of his own on the issue. When in fact, that is simply and completely false. Perhaps no president since WW 2 was as educated and sophisticated about foreign affairs as Kennedy was when he entered the White House. Or else, he would not have done what he did in 1961 BEFORE the Missile Crisis.
And I was not just whistling in the dark about this. Because in my book I am very specific about what JFK did in 1961 that was at odds with the Cold War stasis. Its a difference I had with Douglass also, and I briefly mentioned it there in my review of his book.
So therefore, this idea that Kennedy needed to be wised up by this aspiring painter, is in my view, simply not reflected in the factual record. Just like its not in the record about how she was a budding Sylvia Meagher also about the WC.
When one questions an author's main suppositions--and those two are his main suppositions--and one can back it up with evidence, as I did, that is not "bashing". It is bringing one's experience and knowledge forth in trying to elucidate--either positively or negatively-- the work at hand. To me that is what criticism is really supposed to be. Its helping the reader see something in the work that he could not see on his own. If you don't like it, fine. But what I wrote was factual and footnoted. Plus I actually interviewed and consulted books to further back up what I said.
And I have to say, Tom Scully at Spartacus did some really good work on this also. And it was really gutsy for him to do so. Because, as everyone knows, Simkin was a dyed in the wool Leaeryite and Janneyite from the get go on this. I mean, at one time, they both actually backed up and advocated for--its hard for me to type this name--the late David Heymann! When Lisa Pease exposed the deceased fabricator for what he was, they both backed off of him.
BTW, Scully was the only mod there who tried to enforce rules also. It was Tom who began to move against (among others) Rago. No one else. And if it was not for Tom, Rago--or whoever he was--might still be there. Even after it was exposed that he used a false name. Which you are not supposed to do. But apparently, that was OK with Simkin --and everyone else there..Even though it was breaking a rule.
I would like to know why Tom is gone. Because in addition to being the best mod, he was an interesting poster. He was good at tracking down these hidden relations among the Power Elite. The work he did on the relationship between Allen Dulles and Priscilla Johnson was good. I mean no one ever knew about that before.
I never have, and I never will.
I once talked about this on BOR. That is how I learned what the art of criticism was really about. That is finding value in someone's work even if the overall product is not good, and mentioning weaknesses even if something is really good. But more importantly, showing why that is the case. In other words, explaining why something is good or why its not. And doing it in an understandable and demonstrable way, with comparisons to other works in that particular field.
When I reviewed the Douglass book, I explained in depth what I thought was good about it. And I mentioned at the end, however briefly, some of the problems with it.
In my review of Horne, I went into depth what I thought was good about it--his x ray analysis, his photo analysis of the brain--and what I thought the problems were.
(It turns out, there were even more problems with it than I thought. And I will be addressing this.)
With Janney, I was very specific about what I thought was wrong with the book. First, it was very derivative--relying on the work of others, even when that work was not really reliable. For example, Tim Leary, and Damore, and, if you can comprehend it, Gregory Douglass. Second, the portraits he drew of the main personages were so skewed as to be unsupportable. And they were skewed in a way to serve an agenda. There simply is no evidence in the record to make MM any kind of foreign policy maven. Janney then doubles down on this by turning JFK into a Horowitz/Collier empty playboy, who has no views of his own on the issue. When in fact, that is simply and completely false. Perhaps no president since WW 2 was as educated and sophisticated about foreign affairs as Kennedy was when he entered the White House. Or else, he would not have done what he did in 1961 BEFORE the Missile Crisis.
And I was not just whistling in the dark about this. Because in my book I am very specific about what JFK did in 1961 that was at odds with the Cold War stasis. Its a difference I had with Douglass also, and I briefly mentioned it there in my review of his book.
So therefore, this idea that Kennedy needed to be wised up by this aspiring painter, is in my view, simply not reflected in the factual record. Just like its not in the record about how she was a budding Sylvia Meagher also about the WC.
When one questions an author's main suppositions--and those two are his main suppositions--and one can back it up with evidence, as I did, that is not "bashing". It is bringing one's experience and knowledge forth in trying to elucidate--either positively or negatively-- the work at hand. To me that is what criticism is really supposed to be. Its helping the reader see something in the work that he could not see on his own. If you don't like it, fine. But what I wrote was factual and footnoted. Plus I actually interviewed and consulted books to further back up what I said.
And I have to say, Tom Scully at Spartacus did some really good work on this also. And it was really gutsy for him to do so. Because, as everyone knows, Simkin was a dyed in the wool Leaeryite and Janneyite from the get go on this. I mean, at one time, they both actually backed up and advocated for--its hard for me to type this name--the late David Heymann! When Lisa Pease exposed the deceased fabricator for what he was, they both backed off of him.
BTW, Scully was the only mod there who tried to enforce rules also. It was Tom who began to move against (among others) Rago. No one else. And if it was not for Tom, Rago--or whoever he was--might still be there. Even after it was exposed that he used a false name. Which you are not supposed to do. But apparently, that was OK with Simkin --and everyone else there..Even though it was breaking a rule.
I would like to know why Tom is gone. Because in addition to being the best mod, he was an interesting poster. He was good at tracking down these hidden relations among the Power Elite. The work he did on the relationship between Allen Dulles and Priscilla Johnson was good. I mean no one ever knew about that before.