Comments on: Human Smoke — Part Four http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/ a blog in ever-shifting standing Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:27:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Top Ten Books of 2008 : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-249240 Top Ten Books of 2008 : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:17:32 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-249240 [...] Smoke roundtable discussion that was conducted on these pages: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five. See also Bat Segundo [...] [...] Smoke roundtable discussion that was conducted on these pages: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five. See also Bat Segundo [...]

]]> By: Kevin Holtsberry http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241515 Kevin Holtsberry Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:54:33 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241515 Jackson West above: "Baker does right to point out that the central conflict between Churchill and Hitler was not one of ideology, but a clash of nationalists — because Churchill and Hitler were both, at their core, fascists." I would be interested to hear the justification for this claim. Jackson West above:

“Baker does right to point out that the central conflict between Churchill and Hitler was not one of ideology, but a clash of nationalists — because Churchill and Hitler were both, at their core, fascists.”

I would be interested to hear the justification for this claim.

]]> By: Human Smoke — Part Two : Edward Champion’s Filthy Habits http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241490 Human Smoke — Part Two : Edward Champion’s Filthy Habits Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:30:00 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241490 [...] of Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke. For additional installments: Part One, Part Three, Part Four, Part [...] [...] of Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke. For additional installments: Part One, Part Three, Part Four, Part [...]

]]> By: Human Smoke — Part One : Edward Champion’s Filthy Habits http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241489 Human Smoke — Part One : Edward Champion’s Filthy Habits Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:29:26 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241489 [...] (This is the first of a five-part roundtable discussion of Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke. For additional installments: Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, [...] [...] (This is the first of a five-part roundtable discussion of Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke. For additional installments: Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, [...]

]]> By: Colleen http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241467 Colleen Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:48:37 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241467 There's more on this discussion tomorrow James and you'll see that a few others had a similar complaint about the book. It is classified as "World War II - Causes" on the copyright page which is an all encompassing classification - in other words it can't just be some causes I think or the author's choice of causes. But aside from that, what bothered me (and what I tried to convey in the conversation) is that Baker emphasizes certain things again and again while barely mentioning or outright skipping others. I have no problem at all with a pacifist history of the war years - in fact I think it would be facsinating. (As I mentioned at some point I'm a very big fan of Vera Brittain's writing.) But to only show the negative side of multiple issues in order to bolster your own argument does not read as nonfiction to me - it's just too slanted by the author's perspective. But hey - that is just my opinion on the book and I'm happy to read yours and others'. There’s more on this discussion tomorrow James and you’ll see that a few others had a similar complaint about the book. It is classified as “World War II – Causes” on the copyright page which is an all encompassing classification – in other words it can’t just be some causes I think or the author’s choice of causes.

But aside from that, what bothered me (and what I tried to convey in the conversation) is that Baker emphasizes certain things again and again while barely mentioning or outright skipping others. I have no problem at all with a pacifist history of the war years – in fact I think it would be facsinating. (As I mentioned at some point I’m a very big fan of Vera Brittain’s writing.) But to only show the negative side of multiple issues in order to bolster your own argument does not read as nonfiction to me – it’s just too slanted by the author’s perspective.

But hey – that is just my opinion on the book and I’m happy to read yours and others’.

]]> By: James http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241466 James Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:32:16 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241466 The comment above is not from me. Someone else used my name. Please don't hold me accountable for what they said. The comment above is not from me. Someone else used my name. Please don’t hold me accountable for what they said.

]]> By: James http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241465 James Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:31:31 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241465 And one more thing: What does anyone using their name, real or fake, have to do with how you approached Baker's book, especially when there are others, besides the anonymous cretin above, who agree that your approach, the way your framed your argument, was inherently flawed? Listen what people are telling you; learn from it. Who knows, it might help you become a better writer. You're never too old to learn, you know? And one more thing: What does anyone using their name, real or fake, have to do with how you approached Baker’s book, especially when there are others, besides the anonymous cretin above, who agree that your approach, the way your framed your argument, was inherently flawed? Listen what people are telling you; learn from it. Who knows, it might help you become a better writer. You’re never too old to learn, you know?

]]> By: James http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241461 James Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:56:00 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241461 I really don't want my comment to be seen as coming from the same place as the first one above, so I hesitate to even make it, but here goes: Colleen, you said "if this was published as something other than strictly a nonfiction history of the causes of WWII . . ." I think that's the source of your discontent. It's an essay, not a treatise. It's about the beginnings of the war, not about the causes. It's provocative, sure, but it's also humble. Those spaces in between the paragraphs leave all kinds of room for doubt. Maybe Hitler couldn't or shouldn't have been appeased, but how many books are willing to take on the notion that the violence of WWII might have been mitigated by a pacifist approach? The British Empire wasn't Hitler, but Canada and the US manage to function about the same today, and only one of those countries went to war with England. I really don’t want my comment to be seen as coming from the same place as the first one above, so I hesitate to even make it, but here goes:

Colleen, you said “if this was published as something other than strictly a nonfiction history of the causes of WWII . . .” I think that’s the source of your discontent. It’s an essay, not a treatise. It’s about the beginnings of the war, not about the causes. It’s provocative, sure, but it’s also humble. Those spaces in between the paragraphs leave all kinds of room for doubt.

Maybe Hitler couldn’t or shouldn’t have been appeased, but how many books are willing to take on the notion that the violence of WWII might have been mitigated by a pacifist approach? The British Empire wasn’t Hitler, but Canada and the US manage to function about the same today, and only one of those countries went to war with England.

]]> By: Colleen http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241460 Colleen Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:36:28 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241460 Nice touch using my last name - still don't want to put your own out there, do you? I said more than once why I had issues with this book. A careful reread of my respones, and everyone elses, shows clearly why I feel the way I do. Nice touch using my last name – still don’t want to put your own out there, do you?

I said more than once why I had issues with this book. A careful reread of my respones, and everyone elses, shows clearly why I feel the way I do.

]]> By: DrMabuse http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241459 DrMabuse Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:58:25 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241459 Again, folks, Colleen is entitled to her opinion. Tomorrow's installment thankfully sees the disagreement becoming more civil. And I do hope that any discussions extending from this roundtable can likewise live up to this standard. Again, folks, Colleen is entitled to her opinion. Tomorrow’s installment thankfully sees the disagreement becoming more civil. And I do hope that any discussions extending from this roundtable can likewise live up to this standard.

]]> By: Ander Mondor http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/comment-page-1/#comment-241458 Ander Mondor Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:56:01 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/human-smoke-part-four/#comment-241458 See, Colleen, it's not only us rabble out here who thought your critique was facile and sophomoric. Next time respect the author and try to formulate some thoughts on what was written, not the fantasy of what you would've written. In other words, it's not about you, or how smart you think you are, it's about the book. See, Colleen, it’s not only us rabble out here who thought your critique was facile and sophomoric. Next time respect the author and try to formulate some thoughts on what was written, not the fantasy of what you would’ve written. In other words, it’s not about you, or how smart you think you are, it’s about the book.

]]>