"Human Smoke"

[dhermann1]

Has anyone seen anything about this new book on WW II called "Human Smoke", by Nicholson Baker? I haven't read it, but from the reviews I've read, it must be one of the most scurrilous pieces of rubbush to come down the pike in a good long while. Curious to see if anyone else has heard of it.

 

[Lulu-in-Ny]

This just came in to the store; I was considering reading it. Where did you read bad reviews? I haven't seen much on it yet. The reviews on the product detail page at BN.com aren't horrible...

 

[Goldfish]

What did the reviews say?

 

[dhermann1]

Here are the two I read. I tend to give more credance to the first one.

http://www.nysun.com/article/72723
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-kurlansky9mar09,0,6763134.story

I've been reading about about the war lately, and I tend to thoroughly agree with the Sun's reviewer.

 

[Lulu-in-Ny]

Wow. I'll have to try and read a little of it on my lunch hour on Monday. Although I'm not a great authority on the war, so i don't know how far beyond basic writing ability I'll be able to comment...

 

[reetpleat]

Here are the two I read. I tend to give more credance to the first one.

http://www.nysun.com/article/72723
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-kurlansky9mar09,0,6763134.story

I've been reading about about the war lately, and I tend to thoroughly agree with the Sun's reviewer.

While it is perfectly valid to agree with the reviewers from the sun's point of view, i don't think he wrote a good review. It looks to me like he is taking his own assumptions about the war and using them as proof the the author is wrong. He is free to write his own book making the case for the war, but he does not make a valid argument against the book because his main point is "we all know he is wrong."

Frankly, I am abstaining from sharing any opinions about the war. But I do not mind sharing an opinion about the review. If he cares to dispute any fact in the book, I am all ears. But to simply argue that it is a bad book because he is wrong does not really accomplish much.

 

[reetpleat]

After reading the second review, I gotta give you credit for presenting both sides of the spectrum. Certainly most people will favor one or the other, but it certainly is interesting to see how two reviewers can have such different opinions on it.

I think that it basically comes down to those who trust the government and the history we have been taught, and those who don't. Two very different world views. It is likely that it is a bit of preaching to the choir though. I find it hard to imagine this book, or a more conservative one, changing anyone's opinion. We seem to have pretty well made up our minds on where we stand at very young ages.

 

[Salv]

Not having read the book either I can't comment on how accurate either review is, but the tone of the first review is a little hysterical isn't it? It tells us far more about the reviewers dislike for Nicholson Baker than it does about his book.

The second review could be for a completely different book. This is an interesting passage from that review:

Baker states that he wanted to raise these questions about World War II: "Was it a 'good war'? Did waging it help anyone who needed help?" His very effective style is to offer the facts and leave readers to draw their own conclusions[Salvs italics].

If this is indeed what Baker tried to do with the book then he is to be applauded for trying to make his readers actually think for themselves. I shall have to find the book and draw my own conclusions.

 

[MrBern]

Has anyone seen anything about this new book on WW II called "Human Smoke", by Nicholson Baker? I haven't read it, but from the reviews I've read, it must be one of the most scurrilous pieces of rubbush to come down the pike in a good long while. Curious to see if anyone else has heard of it.

I posted the NYT review a couple weeks ago.
Its fascinating. The author went thru THOUSANDS of period newspapers to divine the story.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=28565