I seldom read the New York Times Sunday Book Review section these days. I find the selection of books to be reviewed odd (to be kind), and the choice of reviewers somewhere between obscure and obtuse (ditto). But I have to confess that I usually flip through the section while working myself through Sunday’s lox and bagels, and I confess to reading the occasional review.
Alas, this week I stumbled on David Frum’s review of Laura Kalman’s new history of American right-wing politics in the late 1970s and made the mistake of reading it. I gather from the editorial note on Frum that he has written a book on the 1970s, but his “review” of Kalman (a friend and fellow legal historian, I confess) is silly and vicious.
Frum begins by saying that “as a work of history . . . there is nothing seriously wrong” with Kalman’s account: “The facts are accurate, the writing is clear and the point of view is not tendentious. Once upon a time, such a book might have been useful to somebody.”
It was not clear to me where Frum was headed at this point, but then he tips his hand: “What’s the point of this kind of history in the age of the Internet?” I guess this means that fact-based narrative is outdated, since we can find the fact by Googling specific events. The example Frum gives is “Proposition 13″: “I wouldn’t learn more from a Google search than I’d learn in these pages. But I wouldn’t learn a whole lot less either.”
So I Googled “Proposition 13″. There are 8,650,000 results, but of course the first one is the Wikipedia article. I clicked on that link and found a 14-page article written in the usual, stultifying Wikipedia prose. I couldn’t help noticing that the article was prefaced with a Wikipedia alert: “The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009).” I then went to the “talk page,” where I found 16 pages of discussion of various aspects of Proposition 13. I haven’t tried to analyze these 30 pages, but I doubt that they amount to the sort of analysis that Kalman provides.
The only example Frum gives of Kalman’s interpretation of American politics is a reference to her quotation of a characteristically flip statement about the period by Tom Wolfe. I don’t know why Kalman bothered to quote Wolfe, but the quotation hardly goes to the substance of her historical point of view. The issue is not, as Frum asks, whether Wolfe was right—it is whether Kalman is right. And since Frum makes no attempt to tell us what Kalman says, we cannot make a judgment for ourselves. His conclusion is that Kalman neglects to tell us about the “subtle, far-reaching and perverse effects” of historical events in the 1970s. That is a serious and damaging charge, but it is not substantiated in his review. Interpretation is the core of history, and it is not credible to me that as distinguished and experienced an historical writer as Kalman has reverted to the style of the Venerable Bede.
I have ordered Kalman’s book since my local bookshop did not stock it, but I’ll be surprised and disappointed if it does not tell me more than Google, Wikipedia, and David Frum.
11 Responses to Frum History
11293505 - September 10, 2010 at 6:01 am
Mr. Katz: I had the same reaction to Frum’s review. It was a characteristically foolish and stunningly anti-intellectual piece of work that apparently was dashed off with little serious thought and with no evidence that Frum had actually grappled with Kalman’s argument. I would have been surprised that the Times published it if not for the fact that the Review’s very conservative editor seems to enjoy these fraudulent hit pieces. Alas, I can’t say much more than that in favor of your piece, either–or of the Chronicle’s decision to publish it. Would it have been too inconvenient for you to have ordered Kalman’s book (Amazon has overnight service) and read it prior to sounding off…perhaps in next week’s issue? At least then your comments would have had some credibility and wouldn’t have left you open to the legitimate charge that your mini-essay is even less intellectually responsible than Frum’s review.
22074041 - September 10, 2010 at 8:55 am
I’d think that reviews are supposed to stand on their own, and be analyzed within their own context. Most readers of reviews have not read the book – so the point really is: what did the reviewer convey, and does he/she make his/her case for what he/she says…
anon1972 - September 10, 2010 at 9:04 am
To be fair (this in response to Commenter #1), this is a blog post, not a book review. The essence of blogging is quickness — the ability to respond to things as they come up. I would be delighted to read a review of Laura Kalman’s book by Stan Katz, but this clearly isn’t intended to be that review; rather, it’s a quick-fire critique of something read elsewhere (in this case, the NYTBR). Frum, writing for the NYT, has a responsibility to engage seriously and thoughtfully with the book he is reviewing, understanding that his review will represent the official NYT coverage of the book. Katz, blogging about Frum (not Kalman) can say as much or as little as he wants, secure in the knowledge that if anything is unclear to his readers or a follow-up is warranted, he can post again. Unlike the NYT, his blog is (at leasat potentially) an ongoing conversation.
pchoffer - September 10, 2010 at 11:35 am
Folks: first, what the $%^ is comment number four? Next, and to the point, I looked up David Frum (on Wikipedia of course–sorry Stan!). I got this (notes omitted): “David J. Frum (pronounced /ˈfrʌm/; born June 30, 1960) is a Canadian American journalist active in both the United States and Canadian political arenas. A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he is also the author of the first “insider” book about the Bush presidency. His editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers, including the National Post and The Week.[2] He is also the founder of FrumForum.com (formerly NewMajority.com), a political group blog.” Apparently Frum coined the “axis of evil” term–or maybe not. He is a blogger and will surely find his name in this thread. But what are his qualifications as a scholar–for surely Laura Kalman’s work is scholarship based on those canons. (Yes–I read the book and enjoyed it immensely.) Why would the NYTBR ask a former Bush speechwriter and current conservative blogger to review a work of historical scholarship by a professor of history? Answer: controversy of course. Controversy sells newspapers, and in this time of shrinking print book review magazine numbers (NYT, SFC, and now Wall Street Journal–edited, by the way, by another conservative blogger), bashing the liberal professoriate’s scholarship in print will sell well (though one expects the sales to be underwritten by certain unnamed institutes, foundations, and family funds). Best, Peter
lisalita - September 10, 2010 at 11:45 am
It’s funny to see people complaining about conservatives (if that is what Frum is) writing in the New York Times! You all really insist on an absolute monopoly, huh?
_perplexed_ - September 10, 2010 at 11:57 am
lisalita’s insistence that the media is dominated by the left (“absolute monopoly”) is just tiresome and out of date. Clearly, he/she/it doesn’t read many newspaters or watch much TV.
_perplexed_ - September 10, 2010 at 11:59 am
..but perhaps can spell “newspaper”…
trendisnotdestiny - September 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Frum’s is the clothier to little lord fauntleroy; anything he says should be taken with at least a grain of salt and a gallon of oil!
krawson - September 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Mr. Katz points to yet one more manifestation of the “anything goes” disease afflicting public discourse. We can’t blame kids or the internet when it’s right there in the nation’s “paper of record” on a regular basis. I recently became so exasperated upon reading another half-baked “argument” in the NYT op-ed pages that I immediately wrote to the public editor pleading for the enforcement of a higher standard. I don’t know anymore if journalists and pundits are dumbing-down their discourse… have they been talking down so long it looks like up to them?… and to an increasing numbers of “us”?I try to offer my students the critical skills necessary to form and articulate their opinions into a lucid argument. I try to teach them to think dialogically, to anticipate counter positions and alternative perspectives. I would love to be able to point them to public discourses as models for sound critical analysis and argument. Increasingly I can’t do that. I fear it is starting to look to them like reasoned analysis is just an “academic exercise.” I urge those who feel similarly to pressure their newspapers: ask editors to hold their writers accountable to a standard of coherent discourse worthy of an interested and intelligent readership. Then let’s teach our students to be part of that readership.
krawson - September 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm
On another point, yes, Frum got himself in a little trouble: by not quite towing the right-wing line exactly in step he got himself booted from his post at the Enterprise institute. Gotta make a living so I guess he’s having to slumm a little in the world of journalism. The NYT should be called to task for their choice, just as pchoffer’s above comment suggests.
lisalita - September 14, 2010 at 11:52 am
To Perplexed: you seem to have misunderstood my comment. We’re talking about the New York Times, right? My comment was limited to that paper, which I do, in fact, read. You might not find people tiresome if you take the trouble to figure out what they are saying.