GRGR: Todorov and Clendinnen on the Holocaust

[Derek C. Maus]

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, rj wrote:

> Derek accuses the reviewer of "implying that there's something
> inherently wrong in applying the language of outrage" to which I'd say
> that this is his inference rather than the writer's implication.

>From your earlier excerptings (emphases mine):

> "_Facing the Extreme_ is distinguished by admirable intellectual rigour,
> ***not*** by special pleading, or by appealing to abstractions or
> slogans, ***or indeed by the language of outrage***. ... 

Let's see, if it is "distinguished" by a lack of "the language of outrage" 
(and since "slogans" and "pleading" both carry fairly clear negative
connotations in this context) that sure seems to imply to me that it is
not a desirable quality for the reviewer's opinion. Sorry if that's too
outrage-filled for you, but it doesn't exactly seem too abstract to me. 

> As to what the "language of outrage" is, well, I guess Derek's post
> pretty well exemplifies it for me.  

My oh my, that was scathing stuff wasn't it? I think I even used all caps
to emphasize a word once or twice.

> Riemer makes no disparaging comments about any other books written on
> the subject, as Derek infers, nor is writing that a historical text is
> "distinguished by intellectual rigour" a "dig", as is also accused.

He doesn't name any explicitly, but the quote above "distinguishes"
Todorov's from others, does it not? I used an ancient and mystical device
called the "rhetorical question" to call this claim of his into question
by using examples which I believed to have merit without fitting the model
he seemd to be putting forth from what you quoted.

> Neither Riemer nor Todorov refer to Pat Buchanan or Steven Spielberg in
> their texts.

And neither Pat Buchanan nor Steven Spielberg refer to Todorov or Riemer
(that I know of). Gosh, I guess that means there's no connection
whatsoever. Thanks for setting me straight there.

> I'd like to assume that Derek has actually read the book, even if he is
> only taking the reviewer to task, as Doug suggests. 

Having never made any other claim than to take issue with what I perceived
to be the somewhat snobbish tone of the review, I have no idea why you'd
like to assume anything about my experience with Todorov at all (in the
interest of full disclosure, I'll tell you know I've read his book _The
Fantastic_ about five times, but I have not read this new volume). 

The sections you quoted in your most recent message shed a considerably
greater light on what the reviewer is seemingly trying to say about
Todorov's book, relying less on empty rhetoric like "intellectual rigour"
and "the language of outrage".  

> best

hardly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek C. Maus               | "What am I opposed to tell my customers?"
dmaus at email.unc.edu         | Swearingen said. "'Sorry, Washington says
UNC-CH, Dept. of English    | no more fanny packs for you; time to spend
http://www.unc.edu/~dmaus/  | your money on great works of literature'?
                            | It doesn't work that way."   --THE ONION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------