Is the 9-11 Report Worthy of a Nonfiction Award?

Heidi Benson, in the SF Chronicle (Nov. 12, 2004):

"The 9/11 Commission Report" -- which chronicles the government's handling of terror threats and is a finalist for the coveted National Book Award -- is drawing criticism from historians and writers who say it does not deserve a literary prize.

Critics call the best-selling report an inappropriate choice because: (1) it was written by committee, (2) it avoids placing blame and (3) it tells the story of the Sept. 11 attacks in an inappropriately dramatic and entertaining narrative.

These are precisely the features for which the report has been lavishly praised. What some see as strengths, others call flaws.

Controversy over the report, published this summer, has only increased since a panel of judges headed by San Francisco author Diane Middlebrook plucked it from a field of 400 nominees and named it one of five finalists for best nonfiction book of the year. (Judges are sworn to secrecy; Middlebrook declined to comment for this story.)

Over two years, the Sept. 11 commission and staff interviewed 1,200 people in 10 countries, reviewed 2.5 million pages of documents, conducted 19 days of hearings and heard testimony from 160 witnesses.

The most vociferous critic of the resulting 567-page report is Benjamin DeMott, author and Mellon Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Amherst College. On hearing the report was a finalist for the award, DeMott said, "I have to be blunt. It's a political and a literary outrage."

DeMott launched his first strike against the report in Harper's October issue, with a controversial essay titled "Whitewash as Public Service: How 'The 9/11 Commission Report' Defrauds the Nation."

"On its face it's a narrative and easy to read, like any pop story of a murder or a catastrophe," DeMott told The Chronicle.

"It's a piece of writing meant for an audience that wants to be entertained. But that's not the purpose of this. The function of this report was to tell us how such a thing could happen and where blame should fall. The idea of getting rid of the concept of blame -- which looks on the face of it very prudent -- is a betrayal of the natural concerns of the people who suffered the losses. They deserve to know how this happened."

The report has plenty of defenders, among them Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who called the report "a tour de force."

A previous winner of the National Book Award's nonfiction prize, Schlesinger told The Chronicle: "It's a first-class public document, well- written and exhaustive. I think it's an admirable candidate for the National Book Award."

Since 1950, the National Book Awards have been given by the National Book Foundation to recognize the best literature published each year. (A government report has been a finalist only once before -- "Attica," in 1968.) This year's winners will be announced at an awards dinner on Nov. 17 in New York.

The report was nominated for the award by its publisher, W.W. Norton.

"All along, we've had great respect for what the commission accomplished, " said Louise Brockett, publicity director of Norton. "We felt that this was a book of great and enduring relevance on an important nonfiction subject. It exhibited excellent writing, and those are the criteria that we think about when we submit nonfiction books to the awards committee."

Philip Zelikow, chief architect of the report and executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, is gratified by the nomination. "It shows that one of the major book award organizations is willing to spotlight group writing as a craft worthy of attention," Zelikow said. "It is a distinctive craft." ...