As reported in the Guardian,
Cambridge-based academic, Dr Rachel Polonsky, noticed among the many favourable (Amazon) reviews of her book on Russian culture, Molotov's Magic Lantern, one condemning her efforts as "dense", "pretentious" and "the sort of book that makes you wonder why it was ever published".
It turned out that the negative reviews on this book, and in fact many other books on the same subject, were placed by the spouse of an academic rival. And in an odd bit of censorship Amazon has "removed the offending reviews." Yet how offending were these reviews, really? Here's one:
"Oh dear, what on earth were the judges thinking. The book is not nearly as good as its many plaudits in the press and book prize judges think."
It's not exactly the most vicious bit of hate-speech on the Internet. I understand authors' concern that reviews on Amazon and elsewhere show their books in the best light, but is it right that certain biases-- such as being married to a rival academic-- result in censorship, whereas others-- like not having read the entire book, or lacking an understanding of the language of publication, or being full of bullshit in some painfully obvious way otherwise-- are allowed?
Robert Service, a biographer, wrote an email to 30 British historians saying, "How to expunge the practice and expose the practitioners of malign electronic denunication in countries of free expression is, I think, a matter for debate."
I agree. In fact, I believe that in the interests of remaining countries of free expression we must debate whether we should even bother.
If we don't allow free speech how do we decide where to draw the line. A slippery slope I think.
ReplyDeleteI agree (maybe obviously!) Well said.
ReplyDeleteThere are, of course, certain subjects that I think, ARGH, should that person be allowed to say that? I say "of course" because most people say they believe in freedom of speech and then someone brings up some absolutely hateful, debased thing and it challenges your "easy" conviction re: freedom.
ReplyDeleteBut it's exactly what Marion said. We either have free speech, thus can discuss the whole gamut of what people say, ideas in general, etc . . . or we _don't_ have freedom of speech at all and then who gets to decide who gets to speak? A scary idea entirely.
Free Speech with just one leg shackle, finger trap, or a gag that only has to go on for a few hours a day is just not free.
Um, last post wasn't meant to be anonymous. Apparently my free fingers got click happy!
ReplyDeleteI like that even anonymously I can recognize your distinctive ARGH. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe free speech issue seems as simple as that to me, but it seems like it never goes away. Someone always finds some way to bend it to their aims.
One of our columnists at Write Anything recently got the blogging equivalent of a bad review.
ReplyDeleteThe person in question wasn't hateful, wasn't personal and in a way I'm glad it wasn't removed from the comments - because everyone has the right to express an opinion.
I remember my partner having his first academic paper reviewed by a relatively prestigious journal in his field. One of the reviewers comments came back with "Well, its hardly rocket science." And went on to trash the research in light of his own un-published research. It was certainly a case of bad eggs! The editor in question, attacked a letter to the review, apologising and against editorial guidelines, only went with one review to publish the paper.
My only caveat on that any of this is - critique the work, be as harsh as you want, but keep personal attacks from it. There is nothing like being turned off a serious debate, or a completely valid point being made, by someone who wants to dig below the belt.