Terrible Review
Reader comment on: War Games

Submitted by Max Greene, Mar 18, 2008 11:21

Surely there is a case to be made against Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke," but Adam Kirsch has not made it here. Kirsch's review relies on rhetoric rather than reasoning, and assumption instead of argument.

In particular (as commenter rhbee pointed out earlier), Kirsch begins by assuming that the involvement of the Allied forces World War II was just, and condemns Baker's failure to conform to Kirsch's own assumption. Kirsch offers no facts or evidence to back his assumption, relying instead on the rhetorical technique of appeal to tradition--because most people assume that the Allied position was just, this position requires no support. "Human Smoke," however, calls this position into question, and mere reliance on a common assumption is therefore not a proper rebuttal. The entire review is a perfect example of the fallacy of "begging the question."

Kirsch relies on another popular fallacy (also hinted at by commenter rhbee) to make his case against "Human Smoke"--the ad hominem attack. By devoting a portion of the review to attacking Baker's credentials as an historian, Kirsch relieves himself of the effort of actually rebutting any of the content of "Human Smoke." This is again an effective rhetorical technique, but an academically lazy one.

Finally, Kirsch mischaracterizes Baker's treatment of Goebbels as a "moral authority." Baker's excerpts relating to Goebbels are ambiguous at best, and hostile at worst. For those with access to "Human Smoke," consider as an example the excerpt on pp. 37-38 of Goebbels presiding over a book-burning. Even without resorting to the Nazi treatment of human beings, Baker casts Goebbels as an anti-intellectual monster. The referenced excerpt revealing Goebbels's dislike of Churchill is hardly rehabilitative of Goebbels's character, nor is it evidence of Baker accepting Nazi propaganda at face value.

This review is either the product of an unchecked emotional response to "Human Smoke" or a lazy reviewer. A review is not "great," "well-said," or "brilliant" just because one agrees with it.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.