3.9.2004
 
FOR THE NIGHTSTAND And while we're recommending items from the New York Review of Books, I highly recommend the article "The Trauma Trap," which reviews the arguments made in the recently published book Remembering Trauma by Harvard psychology professor Richard McNally. McNally skillfully dissects the evidence and arguments (or lack thereof) presented on behalf of "phenomena" like recovered memory or repressed experience in order to ultimately unmask such pseudo-scientific theories as junk science. Considering the primary role such psychological theories have played in successful rape and molestation prosecutions over the past two decades, McNally's arguments and findings are startling and disturbing.

In the same issue of the Review of Books, however, I was disappointed to find this mess of an essay by Elizabeth Drew, mostly because it doesn't appear to belong in the pages of this otherwise fantastic and admirable publication. Drew's stated thesis -- that the compressed Democratic primary process distorted voters' perceptions of the candidates and robbed them of an opportunity to accurately evaluate their options -- is addressed only glancingly amid a collection of unrelated anecdotes that are never put in context or connected within an overall argument. And again and again, Drew uses the curious device of stating a claim and then immediately presenting evidence that does nothing to support that claim. In just one example, Drew states that "The most troubling aspect of [John Kerry's] campaign is that his appearances often seemed staged, the real person hidden behind a mask." She then explains, "Throughout his campaign—as in his pre-campaign life—he has shown that he can be warm as well as aloof, and his detachment could well cause him problems with voters." I'm confused...how does showing he can be warm make him seem staged?

Jimmy Carter, we read, was inauthentic because "He frequently asserted that 'I love the American people,' or 'I love you all' and that 'I'll never lie to you,' when in fact he could be sour, and, like all presidents, could lie from time to time." So if he's not loving 100% of the time and has the capacity to lie, then he's inauthentic? "He was also," Drew notes,"unlucky, particularly in his failure to obtain the release of the American hostages before the 1980 election." A fact that has absolutely nothing to do with her accusation that Carter was inauthentic. And so on.

I only point this out because I respect the Review of Books so much and aspire to someday, somehow be a writer worthy of being published within its pages. It was therefore jarring to run across an essay so poorly edited -- or unedited -- as this one in the midst of an otherwise highly enjoyable evening of reading.