- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
	Sean McMeekin responds: Yes, it is true that there was never a mythical fairy-tale land where facts were always facts and fictions were always fictions. Herodotus made innumerable factual errors, and Thucydides made up his speeches. But this should not obscure their heroic achievement: They distilled the essence of historical investigation, which is to evaluate contradictory sources and stories told by different peoples and to try to arrive at a balanced and truthful rendering of what really happened. This is not the goal of structuralists, poststructuralists, semioticians or literary critics. These and other theorists currently striding the groves of academe have disparate goals -- evaluating "cultures" through linguistic practice, discovering patterns in the organization of knowledge, finding cultural "signs" in every nook and cranny of human existence, deconstructing literary texts for political or ideological bias -- but recording the truth about past events is not conspicuously among them. Neither Windschuttle's book, nor my review, aimed to disparage the genuine scholars who have greatly expanded the scope of historical research and writing over the past few decades. In fact, both of us make note of significant achievements in scholarship, from E.P. Thompson's great work on the birth of the English labor movement to Charles Rowley's path-breaking study of Australian aboriginal history, which could hardly be characterized as Whiggish "just the facts" positivism. What we impugn is the charlatanism so rampant in elite universities today, where the meaningless wordplay of arrogant, out-of-touch academics masquerades as serious historical study. If Windschuttle's critics believe "traditional" historians have neglected important elements of past human experience, then by all means let them take up the banner of empirical scholarship and hit the archives. The muse of history does not discriminate by race, class or gender; and with all the quack Ph.D.s running amok, she needs all the help she can get.
_______________THE BIG DEAD ONE BY CHARLES TAYLOR (01/08/99)
	After reading Charles Taylor's review of the "The Thin Red Line" I have to wonder if we saw the same movie. Was he hallucinating? Was I? First he slams Malick for "dispensing with plot, dramatic structure and emotional payoffs." He did? Since when does dramatizing a major military maneuver in the Pacific not constitute a plot? They prepare, they fight, then they ship out. Sounds like a plot to me, and in case you're having problems with the math, in three acts, which is also pretty standard. As far as the dramatic structure is concerned, each set piece seemed to flow into the next, and seamlessness is generally accounted more a virtue than otherwise. As for emotional payoff, I guess the stunning central scene where a pretty straightforward battle to achieve a clear-cut objective morphs into a slaughter of soldiers in a field hospital and shots of terrified combatants who don't know whether to keep shooting or surrender because they don't know whether the battle is over or not isn't emotional. Seeing your enemy of five minutes ago kneeling in a fox hole begging for his life -- not emotional? Holding your dying enemy in your arms while he speaks his final words in a language you cannot understand -- not emotional? Gee, I thought so, but maybe it's just because I'm a chick with estrogen-enhanced tear ducts or something. Last but not least, our fearless reviewer, not content with giving the big finger to the overall execution of the film, decides he doesn't even like the voice-overs, describing them as "fortune cookie profundities." Well, guess what, when you're facing death your brain is singularly ill-equipped to formulate thoughts in a syntactically complex manner, especially when you're a 20-something private. Even Shakespeare has Richard II say nothing more than "My kingdom for a horse" in his big death scene -- not exactly Heidegger, but at moments of high emotion people tend to think in pretty basic ways, clichés even, as anyone who has attended a wedding or a wake can tell you. Was the film perfect? No. Were there some constructive critical comments to be offered? Sure. Problem is, they weren't on offer in a review that was as sloppy and unfocused as the film was alleged to be. -- Rebecca Clark

R E C E N T L Y+| WORKING CLASS HERO? BY MICAH L. SIFRY

Do you want to respond to a letter to the editor? Join the ongoing discussion in the Welcome area of Table Talk If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at letters@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.