Historian's wife and her poison pen expose dark side of literary criticism
The use of libel law by academics to threaten the press has been condemned by a leading literary figure. Sir Peter Stothard, editor of the Times Literary Supplement, spoke out against Orlando Figes, the historian and author, after Figes's wife confessed to writing several reviews for Amazon.com, praising her husband's work and trashing that of his rivals. After Figes's legal advisers had accused the TLS of defamation for first raising the issue, Stothard said: "When academics start using the same techniques as John Terry or other celebrities to try and kill legitimate press comment on issues of general importance, the intellectual life of this country is seriously compromised."
Two centuries after John Keats nearly gave up writing poetry after a damning review of his first collection was published in Blackwoods magazine, an anonymous online review is at the centre of this poison-pen scandal. Among the people involved are a dozen authors and academics, several professors of history at the UK's top universities, one distinguished academic lawyer, two libel lawyers, two literary magazines and a fictional character called Natasha from Tolstoy's War and Peace.
The story concerning the mystery of the reviews broke last week in the Times Literary Supplement, the scrupulously ethical journal of book reviews and cultural evaluation. In his back-page notebook, "NB", James Campbell discussed a review that had appeared on Amazon, of Molotov's Magic Lantern by Rachel Polonsky. It wasn't crazy about the book. In fact it gave it a good kicking: "This is the sort of book that makes you wonder why it was ever published... Her writing is so dense and pretentious, itself so tangled in literary allusions, that it is hard to follow."...
The TLS was published on Thursday. On Friday, the Figes story was picked up by the London Review of Books, which revealed that "orlando-birkbeck" had also rubbished The Suspicions of Mr Whicher by Kate Summerscale, which topped the bestseller
charts in 2008 and won a prize ("Oh dear, what on earth were the judges thinking when they gave this book the Samuel Johnson prize?" "orlando-birkbeck" wrote) for which Orlando Figes had been coincidentally shortlisted....
It was an extraordinary turn of events, and continues to beg several questions. How had Mr Figes known nothing until the day before? How had Ms Palmer kept quiet about being the author of several reviews that praised Figes's books and damned his rivals'? How could a high-flying lawyer, with a reputation for work in human rights, be involved in such underhand behaviour?
And should Amazon continue to allow anonymous reviewers to snipe at authors unchecked, when they could be pursuing a similarly malign agenda? "What possible justification can there be," asked the novelist and Independent columnist Philip Hensher yesterday, "for a blog of book reviews, or the reviews on Amazon, to remain anonymous, unless to conceal improper interests?"
Except, of course, that anonymity used to be the norm in literary assessment. "Anonymity doesn't necessarily produce bad behaviour," said Sir Peter Stothard. "Reviews in the TLS used to be anonymous and it was often argued that reviewers could be more honest if their work was unsigned. But the real issue is – and I feel very strongly about this – the willingness of some writers to use legal intimidation in order to suppress comment." Professor Figes is currently stranded in Italy, and is unavailable for comment.
Read entire article at Independent (UK)
Two centuries after John Keats nearly gave up writing poetry after a damning review of his first collection was published in Blackwoods magazine, an anonymous online review is at the centre of this poison-pen scandal. Among the people involved are a dozen authors and academics, several professors of history at the UK's top universities, one distinguished academic lawyer, two libel lawyers, two literary magazines and a fictional character called Natasha from Tolstoy's War and Peace.
The story concerning the mystery of the reviews broke last week in the Times Literary Supplement, the scrupulously ethical journal of book reviews and cultural evaluation. In his back-page notebook, "NB", James Campbell discussed a review that had appeared on Amazon, of Molotov's Magic Lantern by Rachel Polonsky. It wasn't crazy about the book. In fact it gave it a good kicking: "This is the sort of book that makes you wonder why it was ever published... Her writing is so dense and pretentious, itself so tangled in literary allusions, that it is hard to follow."...
The TLS was published on Thursday. On Friday, the Figes story was picked up by the London Review of Books, which revealed that "orlando-birkbeck" had also rubbished The Suspicions of Mr Whicher by Kate Summerscale, which topped the bestseller
charts in 2008 and won a prize ("Oh dear, what on earth were the judges thinking when they gave this book the Samuel Johnson prize?" "orlando-birkbeck" wrote) for which Orlando Figes had been coincidentally shortlisted....
It was an extraordinary turn of events, and continues to beg several questions. How had Mr Figes known nothing until the day before? How had Ms Palmer kept quiet about being the author of several reviews that praised Figes's books and damned his rivals'? How could a high-flying lawyer, with a reputation for work in human rights, be involved in such underhand behaviour?
And should Amazon continue to allow anonymous reviewers to snipe at authors unchecked, when they could be pursuing a similarly malign agenda? "What possible justification can there be," asked the novelist and Independent columnist Philip Hensher yesterday, "for a blog of book reviews, or the reviews on Amazon, to remain anonymous, unless to conceal improper interests?"
Except, of course, that anonymity used to be the norm in literary assessment. "Anonymity doesn't necessarily produce bad behaviour," said Sir Peter Stothard. "Reviews in the TLS used to be anonymous and it was often argued that reviewers could be more honest if their work was unsigned. But the real issue is – and I feel very strongly about this – the willingness of some writers to use legal intimidation in order to suppress comment." Professor Figes is currently stranded in Italy, and is unavailable for comment.