GRGR: Todorov and Clendinnen on the Holocaust

[rj]

Dear Derek

I still can't quite get it clear in my head what has stirred you up so
much. Your final comments here seem to suggest that it is me, after all,
who you are attacking (for my poor excerpting from the review.) Which is
fine, though I don't pretend to understand why. It seems to me that
you've had to argue that the "language of outrage", "slogans" and
"pleading" are valid and desirable features in historical analysis in
order to make your point against the reviewer. I thought you might have
read the book and so your apparent outrage and rather pointed sarcasm
were based on a considered response to the issues addressed, rather than
what you've perceived as the "snobbishness" of the reviewer, or my
audacity or irresponsibility in posting excerpts from it to the list. I
did provide more than the reviewer's "empty rhetoric" in the initial
post, if you'd care to check, but I did choose to summarise the review
rather than reprint it in toto I admit. This was for the sake of
convenience. I wasn't advertising the reviewer by posting, I was drawing
listers' attention to Todorov's and Clendenning's books. Having checked
the archives I wasn't sure if they had been mentioned previously. I find
similarities in the historiographical approach to the Holocaust said to
be taken in these two books, with that of *GR*.



Derek C. Maus wrote:
> 
> 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.
>