On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
Yes, William -- freedom of the press -- everybody gets to publish
anything --
but the issue here is reputation.
I would think that the reputation of a publisher rises or falls on
the quality
of what gets published -- and the reasons attached to the relevant
decisions.
The book that St Martins dumped was the first -- and to date appears
to be the
only -- biography on a major historical figure that was written
after his
extensive diary was made public in 1992. So ... if it were factual,
articulate, and not outrageously reasoned -- it might be considered an
important book for those interested in 20th C. history -- regardless
of its
"tone" and "insinuations".
Irving's scholarly reputation started out dubious since he was in
college in the late 50s and has stayed that way.
He has always been associated with specious historical accounts that
were sympathetic to the Nazis and effectively denied the Holocaust. In
fact, he pleaded guilty to that charge in Austria. At one point, he
first refuted the so-called "Hitler Diaries" when they were first made
public, then reversed himself and promoted them as genuine. His
reputation is that of a purveyor of historically suspicious accounts
of the Nazis and WWII. Why should a good press suppose that maybe, in
this case, since no other account has come out, that his will be
definitive and reliable?
Oop, that damned snake bit me! Why'd it do that?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
