cuchulainn
February 23, 2003, 09:55 AM
Maybe someone should tell Mr. Sandstrom about the inserts that people were planning to put in the books.
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/104590984475790.xmlEntertainment News
Disarming truth on how lies hurt the written word
02/23/03
Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America" came out more than two years ago, arguing that, contrary to popular wisdom, early Americans were not gun-happy. Reviewers loved the book. Gun-control opponents accused Bellesiles of shoddy work. Historians took notice, and a panel of scholars investigated. They concluded that Bellesiles falsified research.
He lost his job at Emory University. Columbia revoked his Bancroft Prize for distinguished work in history. Knopf stopped publishing his book.
So should we burn "Arming America"?
This spring, Northeast Ohio librarians urge us to read Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451." The novel will prompt discussions about book burning. Reading will be declared inherently good. We lit-lovers delight in that argument. We can conduct it in our sleep.
But in a harder conversation, we would cop to how we tell kids "reading is good" without ever mentioning that buying into lies is bad, or that some writers only pretend to make us smarter on important topics.
Last week, Soft Skull Press said it will issue a "revised" edition of "Arming America." Publisher Richard Nash told the Associated Press, "We believe in allowing readers to evaluate for themselves."
Of course, the principle of letting readers evaluate for themselves is an underpinning of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers trusted folks to do just that, though perhaps they did not foresee a time when Stephen Ambrose would crib work, or when authors would encourage their children to compose bogus reviews of their books for Amazon.com. "Let readers evaluate for themselves" is a useful philosophy, but it is also the fall back position of those who disseminate damaged goods.
Short of suggesting that readers conduct their own research, how exactly are they supposed to "evaluate" assertions made by an author who conceals the truth?
When Bellesiles falsified research (he claimed documents were lost in a flood), he forfeited our trust. A mea culpa would have minimized the damage, but if he wants to see a new version of "Arming America" hit shelves, he probably hasn't gotten to "sorry" just yet.
It might be time to acknowledge the disconnection between our pseudo-religious attitude toward literature and the reality that the world contains ever more authors and publishers eager to deceive on behalf of their own bank accounts or egos.
In our country, insincere claims and poor research rightly get the same protection as "Fahrenheit 451" - which, like all fiction, employs the paradox of telling the truth by lying. Still, to those of us raised on the notion that "reading is fundamental," willfully deceptive volumes seem somehow less deserving of being called books.
My First Amendment loyalties run deep. There is no question that the free exchange of ideas remains worth its risks. I would denounce a government that tried to seize a single volume. I don't want other kids' parents deciding which books my kids can borrow from the library. And I would never stand between you and your right to read "Arming America."
But I grow weary of the relentless assault on the good reputation of the printed word. And if I ran out of kindling on some bitter night when I wanted to sit by the fire with a Blake or a Bronte or a Bradbury, it would not pain me in the least to toss in a Bellesiles, revised or otherwise, and listen to the flames chew through its meaningless pages.
Sandstrom is book editor of The Plain Dealer.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
ksandstrom@plaind.com, 216-999-4410
© 2003 The Plain Dealer.
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/104590984475790.xmlEntertainment News
Disarming truth on how lies hurt the written word
02/23/03
Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America" came out more than two years ago, arguing that, contrary to popular wisdom, early Americans were not gun-happy. Reviewers loved the book. Gun-control opponents accused Bellesiles of shoddy work. Historians took notice, and a panel of scholars investigated. They concluded that Bellesiles falsified research.
He lost his job at Emory University. Columbia revoked his Bancroft Prize for distinguished work in history. Knopf stopped publishing his book.
So should we burn "Arming America"?
This spring, Northeast Ohio librarians urge us to read Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451." The novel will prompt discussions about book burning. Reading will be declared inherently good. We lit-lovers delight in that argument. We can conduct it in our sleep.
But in a harder conversation, we would cop to how we tell kids "reading is good" without ever mentioning that buying into lies is bad, or that some writers only pretend to make us smarter on important topics.
Last week, Soft Skull Press said it will issue a "revised" edition of "Arming America." Publisher Richard Nash told the Associated Press, "We believe in allowing readers to evaluate for themselves."
Of course, the principle of letting readers evaluate for themselves is an underpinning of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers trusted folks to do just that, though perhaps they did not foresee a time when Stephen Ambrose would crib work, or when authors would encourage their children to compose bogus reviews of their books for Amazon.com. "Let readers evaluate for themselves" is a useful philosophy, but it is also the fall back position of those who disseminate damaged goods.
Short of suggesting that readers conduct their own research, how exactly are they supposed to "evaluate" assertions made by an author who conceals the truth?
When Bellesiles falsified research (he claimed documents were lost in a flood), he forfeited our trust. A mea culpa would have minimized the damage, but if he wants to see a new version of "Arming America" hit shelves, he probably hasn't gotten to "sorry" just yet.
It might be time to acknowledge the disconnection between our pseudo-religious attitude toward literature and the reality that the world contains ever more authors and publishers eager to deceive on behalf of their own bank accounts or egos.
In our country, insincere claims and poor research rightly get the same protection as "Fahrenheit 451" - which, like all fiction, employs the paradox of telling the truth by lying. Still, to those of us raised on the notion that "reading is fundamental," willfully deceptive volumes seem somehow less deserving of being called books.
My First Amendment loyalties run deep. There is no question that the free exchange of ideas remains worth its risks. I would denounce a government that tried to seize a single volume. I don't want other kids' parents deciding which books my kids can borrow from the library. And I would never stand between you and your right to read "Arming America."
But I grow weary of the relentless assault on the good reputation of the printed word. And if I ran out of kindling on some bitter night when I wanted to sit by the fire with a Blake or a Bronte or a Bradbury, it would not pain me in the least to toss in a Bellesiles, revised or otherwise, and listen to the flames chew through its meaningless pages.
Sandstrom is book editor of The Plain Dealer.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
ksandstrom@plaind.com, 216-999-4410
© 2003 The Plain Dealer.