Critic with conflict over conflict forgets to mention conflict
George Packer: Mighta left a few things out
Several months ago, Alice Hoffman made a scene on Twitter after her book received a less-than-rave review from Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe –launching an online discussion that condemned Hoffman’s juvenile remarks and examined the responsibilities of both reviewer and reviewee. (See the earlier MobyLives report.)
Mark Danner seems poised to relaunch that debate, although in a much more thoughtful and professional manner, inspired by George Packer’s review of his new book, Stripping Bare the Body, that appeared in the New York Times Book Review. Packer, alternatively praising the book and attacking it, seemed to have some personal vendetta against Danner, who in turn responded with a 1400-word letter to the NYTBR editors that the paper ran this past Sunday.
In the letter, Danner lays out his previously undisclosed friendship with Packer and the disagreements they had had regarding crucial subject matter in the book: the US invasion of Iraq. Packer, who supported the invasion, had previously debated with Danner, who vehemently opposed it. This pre-existing bias against both Danner and one of the arguments in the book leads Danner to ask the pertinent question: does this conflict of interest preclude Packer from being able to objectively review the book?
Danner believes so, and I agree. The reviewer, in his essay, makes some bizarre claims. Much of the review focuses on Danner’s “voyeurism,” which many might just call good reporting. Danner obsessively documents the extreme violence by which he is surrounded, which Packard believes is “creepy.” He questions Danner’s intention in observing the evidence and asks why he doesn’t look elsewhere. But if Danner didn’t observe and document this graphic violence, who would? Wouldn’t he then be ignoring it? And then what sort of journalist would he be? Danner isn’t a necrophiliac. He’s doing his job. (Although it does lead me to question Packer’s perspective when he calls Danner “lucky” to have seen such violence. Really, he thinks he was “lucky” to see such atrocities?).
There are many more critiques of Packer’s essay on Stripping Bare the Body, but I think the key debate outside of the article really pertains to how the “review” has developed, and where it is going. A good review focuses on the subject at hand both critically and objectively; it doesn’t permit a personal attack. Roberta Silman wasn’t attacking Alice Hoffman–she was writing objectively about her new novel (which Hoffman rejected, and the personally attacked Silman for). Danner deserves that same objectivity and respect, whether or not Packer agrees or disagrees with the book’s political arguments. In an age where more and more readers are writing subjective reviews on their blogs, on Amazon and elsewhere, we must be able to look to professional reviewers and expect an objective opinion.
That said, all reviews are at some level a matter of taste and preference. But that doesn’t excuse Packer’s review, which seemed to me to be a review of Danner himself rather than the book Packer was supposed to evaluate. After reading his piece, I now know more about the man behind the book than I do about the book itself. As Packer stipulated in his rebuttal, I guess I’ll have to read the book myself. But then what was the point of reading the review? Reviewers need to make their own case in order for us to keep reading them and they need to do that by restraining themselves and sticking to objective critique.
Very interesting fight, and one in which I have a dog. I do agree with the overall premise of this piece, that is, if the reviewer has some personal connection with the writer, friendly or hostile, they should recuse themselves from taking on the review.
I find this particular case interesting in that the reviewer seems to be a conservative (or shall we say, someone who supported the war, and therefore President Bush), while the writer opposed that effort. Interesting because I think that there are probably more aggrieved, let us say, traditional, or conservative, writers who believe they have been unfairly reviewed by let us say, liberal reviewers. Why do I say this? Just as there seems to be a preponderance of black players in the NBA, it seems to me that there is a preponderance of liberal folks in the book biz, especially in the reviewing department.
That said, I still believe that people with an obvious bias for or against a subject, should not be reviewing books on that subject. And people with a personal relationship with the writer have absolutely no business reviewing books by same.
On a side note, since we’re talking about books about war, and since this is Veteran’s day, I know my book, Carl Melcher Goes to Vietnam, has, I hesitate to use the term ‘suffered’ so I’ll just say, been ‘treated differently’ due to its subject matter, by reviewers, book store buyers, and readers. The book could hardly be described as pro-war, (I prefer to describe it as ‘as honest an account of that war as I could pen’) However, the cover, which I had no control over, features a soldier with fixed bayonet rushing into the fray. My cousin recently requested a copy for his daughter. She refused to read it because she was put off by the cover. This makes me wonder how many reviewers, book buyers, etc., ‘judged’ my book by its cover and… Oh well, all water under the bridge now.