In a message dated 12/29/08 9:08:56 PM, [email protected] writes: > Cheerskep: I think most people know that Shakspeare was only telling a darn > good story. (Or presenting a story in a darn good way.) > Mowat leads us to believe he's reporting. I've learned that his story comes > before objectivity. Gladwell's omission of relevant facts is one thing; > claiming observations which re, in fact, manufactured is not a social good > (according to me). > Geoff C > I dislike them both. Mary Renault would despise Farley Mowat. Many years ago I asked Renault to write a piece for me about writing a novel. She had a great reputation as a "historical novelist". In her piece she was very harsh about historical novelists who falsify the facts to make a better "story". She wrote:
"It is inconceivable to me how anyone can decide deliberately to betray [the truth]; to alter some fact that was central to the life of a real human being. . .in order to make a smoother story, or to exploit him as propaganda for some cause." Mowat did that, and not to write historical fiction a la Shakespeare or Tostoi. But it was never clear to me that Renault, who was praised for the rigorous historicity of her novels, would have backed down from criticising W.S. or Tolstoi or a movie like CHARIOTS OF FIRE. I don't think she would have been persuaded by your line, "I think most people know that Shakespeare was only telling a darn good story." To me, Gladwell's performance is despicable on two scores -- his product, and his method. He advances a thesis that is blatantly false, and his "research" is despicable. ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
