Vulgarity

Yesterday's lonicera pileata brought to mind, and lovers of Švejk will recall, the splendid story about the editor of 'Animal World' and his difficulties with garrulus glandarius (around page 327 of the Heinemann edition of 1973). Hitherto I had thought that the sort of invective deployed here between respected  students of avian life was restricted to the pages of fiction but this week I find its equal in the letters pages of the NYRB.

A short while ago the NYRB published a review of 'The Untold History of the United States', the book and television series by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, not particularly for or against. The main charge against appeared to be that it was no more than a rehash of familiar lefty stuff about how the US started the cold war. Plus there was a lot of material about how things would not have turned out much better had one Wallace (of whom I had not previously heard) become president after FDR, rather than Truman.

Then in the latest issue to reach me there is a bad tempered exchange in the letters page. The reviewed bat first and open with 'In his error-riddled review ...' and then going on to talk about the reviewer's ignorant trumpeting and about the reviewer's talk of Obama's outrageous deployment of racial politics. One presumes that this is a fairly outrageous talk by the reviewer. Then the reviewer 'can be forgiven for getting so much wrong' as the aftermath of the second world war is not his period. 'However ...' and so it goes merrily on. The reviewer writes in his reply that the reviewed 'display the same degree of intellectual integrity and historical accuracy as their disgraceful book and television show.' Then '... their shifty reply [to my review] , compounding their initial distortions ...'. And 'Stone and Kuznick's mangled accounts ...'.

In very broad terms, lefties versus righties, with the NYRB generally being aligned with the lefties, rather as the similarly named LRB. A simple analysis, slightly complicated by the reviewer being a big fan of the Clintons and a big enemy of the Bushes.

On a point of substance, Stone and Kuznick believe that the two-time atomic bombing of Japan was wrong. I might be a long serving ban the bomber (near fifty years now), but I am not sure that they are right about this. And even if the decision to bomb can be argued to be wrong with hindsight, I would still need to be convinced that the perpetrators did not make a reasonable decision on the day.

By way of contrast, in the much shorter exchange which follows, Oliver Sacks is a model of academic courtesy, despite being caught out. But I like the spirit which animates these exchanges in the letters pages following reviews; you get the same sort of thing in the TLS, but in a rather muted form. Perhaps the TLS stands aloof from such grubby goings on - all far too brash and transpondic (transpondine?) - and does not stoop to encouragement.