You can't beat this statement by Cheerskep re the Irving decision. Tops. WC
--- On Wed, 12/31/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Reputations of publishers > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:08 PM > Chris writes: > > "Unless his next play is a big hit -- this controversy > just might be how > Thomas > McCormack will be most remembered on the internet." > > It's true that we are frequently remembered (by the > public) for some > relatively small event in our lives, and it's very hard > to predict what it will be. > Often, if a person has never otherwise made the news, > they're remembered solely > for some connection with another far more famous figue -- > or the person's > pathetic fame may come from, say, the sensational way he > dies. > > Eventually, to all intents and purposes most of us will be > forgotten > entirely. If you Google or Wikipedia my name now, it'll > appear on the first page. In a > generation, I may be on the thousandth page. After my two > children > graduated from my old alma mater, Brown U., I gave some > money to the university to > build a little theater on campus and name it after our > family. I can imagine some > time in the future when a student may ponder that name and > wonder who the > hell they were. > > Even now in those Google entries, my connection with David > Irving doesn't > appear in any of the early pages. The David Irving > Wikipedia entry, though it's > approximately as long as Abraham Lincoln's entry(!), > doesn't have my name (it > does have St. Martin's). > > After I die, I'd be willing to -- so to speak -- > "live with" being known as > the guy who killed Irving's book. You caught me by > citing my vague "tone and > insinuations" reason. In fact there were quite > specific justifications, but > detailed long-term memory of autobiographical info is not > my strong suit, so I > couldn't lay those justifications out now without > rereading the book. The > dominant general memory is of Irving's effectively > exalting Goebbels as heroic > figure, and arguing that the Jews had it coming. > > As for "something valuable to add to the history of > that period", there were, > as I recall, facts I personally didn't know and found > interesting. But that > can be true of any holocaust-denier's well-researched > book. Nevertheless, you > wouldn't publish a book that had 200 pages of > condemnation of the Jews soley > because it had another twenty pages of interesting > historical facts. > > And Irving was a good researcher -- in the sense of finding > stuff. (His first > big book, DESRT FOX, a biography of Rommel, was deservedly > a bestseller. The > problem was his selection of what, from his findings, > he'd publicize and what > he'd suppress. There was a great brouhaha over his > having been chosen to > translate Goebbels' diaries. Eighty pages of original > microfiches evidently > disappeared after being loaned to him. What was in them? > > No, the editor who signed the book up was in no way > anti-Semitic. But he was > at one time a PhD candidate in history, and I imagine he > prized the acceptable > history more than he condemned the many suggestions that > the Jews were an > invidious presence in Hitler's Germany that deserved > what befell them. > > (What follows here is the rest of Chris's posting.) > > The author in question (David Irving) is a notorious > holocaust-denier --- > which is a terrible thing -- whether it's a denial of > what Germans did to > Jews, Turks to Armenians, Japanese to Chinese, or Andrew > Jackson to the > Cherokee. > > But ... as I followed the controversy on the net .. it was > never clear to me > that this involved the actual book under discussion (a > biography of Joseph > Goebbels) > > If it did --- yes --- such thing should only be published > by a Neo-Nazi press > --- but if it didn't --- and if the book had something > valuable to add to > the > history of that period -- then the reputation of St. > Martin's Press > would, > I think, be called into question. > > Especially -- now that Cheerskep is telling us that the > problem was only with > the "tone and insinuations" -- rather than with > invalid historical facts or > unreasonable interpretations. > > Was the editor who approved it a Nazi sympathizer or Jew > hater ? I suspect > that he was quite bright and competent (if Cheerskep had > put his trust in > him) > > What did he have to say in defense of his decision? > > (I can understand if Cheerskep doesn't want to discuss > this any more -- but > he > did bring it up -- and it is a fascinating subject - and > quite relevant to > the > "reputation of publishers") > > > > > > ************** > New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
