A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/IBMHolocaust_2.htm
It's absolutely amazing when one can find a popular, expensive book for about twenty-five cents. This was the case for "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black. I found it at the SHU book sale, and I've been seeing this book everywhere. I snatched it up but haven't had time to read it yet. This is why I've chosen to find a review for this particular book.
This book, simply through the title, raises an extremely bold question: Was Nazi Germany allied with IBM during World War II? This is the way that Austin Cline begins his review. He asks:
"Was IBM simply an innocent pawn in Hitler's mad schemes? Did they unknowingly make possible what was probably the greatest evil of the 20th century? That is unlikely. IBM employees were around constantly -- the machines were only ever leased to governments, never sold, which means that IBM was always around to service, repair, upgrade, and in many cases operate the instruments of organizing death."
Although Cline catches the reader's attention, I believe that he gives a little too much of the history away a little bit too soon. I've never done any journalistic writing, though, so this is a foreign method of writing for me. If the purpose of a book review is to imitate journalistic style, Cline did this review well. He told us everything he would be telling us and backed it up throughout the review.
As for the actual language of the review, I think that Cline's mention of the history of the company and the history of the Holocaust was borderline too advanced. However, because the review was written for a book lover, the language is allowable. Despite the language, though, the chronology of thought is a little confusing and does not provide a balanced mix of opinion and actual summary. The opinion seems to come of of nowhere almost.
This review does not differ too greatly from other genres I've read. It actually reminds me of an essay of opinion. Cline analyzes the historical events in the novel well, but he reveals a little too much to the reader over the course of his review, beginning with the sixth paragraph when he divulges on other companies that were involved in an alliance with Nazi Germany. I know that he is trying to broaden our mindset as readers, but he could have saved it.
Additionally, I have one more thing to say about this review:
"Edwin Black's book contains a number of important lessons along these lines, though he is a good enough writer not to beat readers over the head with it all. He explains the situation and allows you to arrive at your own conclusions as to the moral culpability of IBM, past and present."
... Well, Cline, I wish I could say the same after reading your review.
It's absolutely amazing when one can find a popular, expensive book for about twenty-five cents. This was the case for "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black. I found it at the SHU book sale, and I've been seeing this book everywhere. I snatched it up but haven't had time to read it yet. This is why I've chosen to find a review for this particular book.
This book, simply through the title, raises an extremely bold question: Was Nazi Germany allied with IBM during World War II? This is the way that Austin Cline begins his review. He asks:
"Was IBM simply an innocent pawn in Hitler's mad schemes? Did they unknowingly make possible what was probably the greatest evil of the 20th century? That is unlikely. IBM employees were around constantly -- the machines were only ever leased to governments, never sold, which means that IBM was always around to service, repair, upgrade, and in many cases operate the instruments of organizing death."
Although Cline catches the reader's attention, I believe that he gives a little too much of the history away a little bit too soon. I've never done any journalistic writing, though, so this is a foreign method of writing for me. If the purpose of a book review is to imitate journalistic style, Cline did this review well. He told us everything he would be telling us and backed it up throughout the review.
As for the actual language of the review, I think that Cline's mention of the history of the company and the history of the Holocaust was borderline too advanced. However, because the review was written for a book lover, the language is allowable. Despite the language, though, the chronology of thought is a little confusing and does not provide a balanced mix of opinion and actual summary. The opinion seems to come of of nowhere almost.
This review does not differ too greatly from other genres I've read. It actually reminds me of an essay of opinion. Cline analyzes the historical events in the novel well, but he reveals a little too much to the reader over the course of his review, beginning with the sixth paragraph when he divulges on other companies that were involved in an alliance with Nazi Germany. I know that he is trying to broaden our mindset as readers, but he could have saved it.
Additionally, I have one more thing to say about this review:
"Edwin Black's book contains a number of important lessons along these lines, though he is a good enough writer not to beat readers over the head with it all. He explains the situation and allows you to arrive at your own conclusions as to the moral culpability of IBM, past and present."
... Well, Cline, I wish I could say the same after reading your review.
10 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Joe-
I was just wondering if
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Aja- I believe that objectivit
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "Was IBM simply an innocent pa
Joe on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "...the author still spoiled y
Aja Hannah on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: From what I've read of your cl
Josie Rush on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Jess- I think something that t
Jessica Orlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Thank you, Karyssa. As I said,
Karyssa Blair on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: That was an easy mistake, Jess
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Thank you for responding, Joe.
Joe on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "...begins his review..." Did
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Aja- I believe that objectivit
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "Was IBM simply an innocent pa
Joe on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "...the author still spoiled y
Aja Hannah on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: From what I've read of your cl
Josie Rush on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Jess- I think something that t
Jessica Orlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Thank you, Karyssa. As I said,
Karyssa Blair on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: That was an easy mistake, Jess
JessicaOrlowski on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: Thank you for responding, Joe.
Joe on A Slightly Angry Review of Another Review: "...begins his review..." Did
"...begins his review..."
Did you notice that the HTML link has a "2" in it? Did you notice that on the linked-to page, it says right at the top "continued from page 1"?
That's right, you "reviewed" page 2 of a two-page review as if that were the entire thing.
"I wish I could say the same after reading your review."
The purpose of books and book reviews are different. There's hardly any reason to be "angry" that an essay differs from the book it is reviewing.
Thank you for responding, Joe. I suppose that I shouldn't have used the word "Angry" in my title, but I had to catch the eyes of my classmates somehow. Also, with all due respect, I did not see the "2." I merely began to read the review, and I didn't realize that there was a page one. Upon examining the first page, I find that the review makes a bit more sense. That being said, though, do you see where I was coming from? My mistake aside, the review made little sense.
That was an easy mistake, Jess. Regardless of whether it started on the previous page or not, the author still spoiled you with information that you would otherwise prefer not to know until reading the book. This kind of technique can sometimes be acceptable in a review, though, based on the resources Dr. Jerz provided us. It all depends on what the boss wants from his reviewer. I, personally, would prefer not to be spoiled by the reviewer so this such review is not one I would want to read. However, he was justified in writing it the way he did. I'm sure his boss approved.
Thank you, Karyssa. As I said, it was definately my mistake, and upon examining the first page, the author did a pretty good job. I just missed it the first time.
Jess- I think something that threw me about the review you read was that Cline made statements I *assumed* were textually based, but the way he wrote them made it seem possible he was just airing his own opinions. For example "What people need to understand is that from an organizational standpoint, the Holocaust was herculean task of unprecedented proportions."
Is this something the author of the book stresses the reader must understand, or something that Cline believes must be understood in order to appreciate the book? While such differences seem trivial, and it may admittedly seem too repetitive to constantly qualify each statement with "the author says___" in some instances it is necessary.
In Cline's defense, as far as the claim that he gave too much away goes, I think some background information is needed, since this is not as popularized as other pieces of Holocaust knowledge. This is a case where the reader is reading the review to find out what the book is about, and in order to explain what the book is about, the reviewer has to provide some background information. Where did you feel he shared too much?
From what I've read of your clips the reviewer did seem a bit angry about the book. Using phrases like "beat readers over the head" or "good enough writer" makes the reviewer seem more upset or as if he disliked the book. It's interesting because I feel some objectivity has been lost, but like I debated on Josie's blog, how much objectivity is in a review.
"...the author still spoiled you with information that you would otherwise prefer not to know until reading the book..."
This makes a lot of sense with novels and you don't want the ending given away; it makes a lot less sense with non-fiction books.
A history book is trying to explain something about historical events. Good ones make good use of evidence and argument to justify the position or conclusions; bad ones do the opposite.
A review of a history book should tell you what the position/conclusion is (or, if there are many, maybe just the most important ones), some idea of the evidence and arguments used, and some idea of how well the evidence and arguments are used to justify the author's conclusions. A good review might also tell you about novel and interesting arguments/evidence being used or really atrocious arguments/evidence being used.
So an in-depth (as opposed to superficial) review will, in some ways, be a bit of a summary of what the book says. If it's not a subject you care much about, then the review alone might be sufficient to add a little bit of interesting information or trivia to your background knowledge. If you do care about it, though, then the review can't be sufficient because even a short book should have a lot more details than a review can summarize. The book in question here is pretty massive, so even a two-page review is going to leave out a ton of evidence and arguments, not to mention interesting anecdotes and references.
If the review in question really does give away so much information that a person no longer feels any need to read the full book, then reading the whole book just to get the info that was in the review would have been a colossal waste of time - and thus the review was actually doing a huge service for that person.
"Was IBM simply an innocent pawn in Hitler’s mad schemes? Did they unknowingly make possible what was probably the greatest evil of the 20th century? That is unlikely. IBM employees were around constantly — the machines were only ever leased to governments, never sold, which means that IBM was always around to service, repair, upgrade, and in many cases operate the instruments of organizing death. "
Josie, This "opening" paragraph really irritated me for some reason. It seemed as if Cline was telling us exactly EVERYTHING to expect in the book. I agree with you, though, in that there needed to be some background information for those who are not well-read in Holocaust history.
Aja- I believe that objectivity will inevitably influence our work. However, it should not escalade to an extreme level. The reviewer of my article was a little bit too objective, but he also did provide the necessary summary and analyzation. It's hard to know where to draw the line, though.
Joe-
I was just wondering if you've read the book. I haven't yet (because of its massive size). If so, do you think that the review accurately portrays this book?