“[A] dull portrait of an interesting man”
Since the publication of Richard L. Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling in late September, I’ve attempted to track the book’s reception among critics. Every review I’ve come across thus far has credited Bushman with producing a balanced and well-researched and written examination of Joseph Smith’s life.
Martin Naparsteck’s review of Rough Stone Rolling for the Salt Lake Tribune, strikes a dissonant note, however. Naparsteck states that Bushman “attempts a biography of the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that meets the highest standards of professional historians and reflects his Mormon beliefs,” but “he gives us a tedious rendition of the known facts of Smith’s life, making one of the most interesting men in American religious history sound downright boring. The book requires inspired effort to read. He offers no new significant information and no new ways of viewing Smith.”
Specifically, Naparsteck faults Bushman’s handling of aspects of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, noting that Bushman argues that “no certain evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives who were married to other men.” Naparsteck responds, “A nonbeliever might reply, ‘Duh!’ How about the fact, skeptics might ask, some of those husbands were outraged? Exactly what evidence does Bushman want? Videotapes?” (For some reason Naparsteck does not bother to identify these “outraged” husbands. He also fails to note that Bushman’s footnote cites Todd Compton’s argument that sexual relations were likely a part of these relationships.)
Naparsteck also criticizes Bushman’s discussion of Joseph Smith’s 1832 war prophecy (now canonized as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants), his selective use of Fawn Brodie’s assessment of the Book of Mormon (“Bushman omits that she calls the book ‘dull,’ says it’s ‘fiction’ and accuses Smith of plagiarizing large portions of it from the Old and New Testaments”), and his failure to come to grips with Joseph Smith’s faults, namely, his tendency to react to criticism with anger and threats.
“The result,” Naparsteck concludes, “is procrustean. Bushman selects facts to support his view and ignores many that don’t. Where he can’t ignore them, he explains them with stretched logic. Bushman thus uses intellectually dishonest methods to give us a dull portrait of an interesting man.”
I have never been impressed with Naparsteck’s book reviews, but I must admit that I haven’t read Bushman’s book yet. It may be worth noting that Naparsteck seems to admire Dan Vogel’s biography of Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, although his precise assessment of the book was a bit elusive in the Tribune review. I do expect negative reaction to Naparsteck’s review of Bushman’s book, especially his choice of words in the review’s final sentence.
I’m an oddity; I enjoyed Vogel’s book, but I also really like Bushman’s book. Going in, you have to remind yourself that the two books belong to quite different sub-genres: conservative Mormon historiography, in Bushman’s case, and critical, disbelieving historiography, in Vogel’s. Considering these genre starting points, both authors are in fact surprisingly generous. Bushman addresses some traditionally critical topics, most notably Smith’s folk-magical treasure digging, with a great deal more candor than has been the tradition for conservative Mormon historiography. Similarly, Vogel is much more willing to confront Smith’s sincere religious motivations than have been most critical historians.
It seems to me that Naparsteck’s review fails because he doesn’t recognize the requirements of these genres. I am unaware of any serious instance of Bushman disregarding relevant evidence or drawing an interpretive conclusion that isn’t permitted by the evidence. Certainly, Bushman tends to draw one of the most flattering portraits of Brother Joseph that can fit with the evidence — a portrait which is therefore much less flattering than LDS church members may be used to — but that is his right as a historian, and indeed is the defining expectation of the genre he’s working within.
Naparsteck’s substantive criticisms suggest that he wishes Bushman had written a different kind of book. That’s not an overwhelmingly persuasive critical position, I’m afraid. (I do have some possibly important quibbles with some premises of Bushman’s biography, but discussion of those will come in a post at a later date.)
Also, with respect to the more purely subjective stuff, I think Bushman’s book is beautifully written.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 30, 2005 @ 11:14 am
FWIW, at the Joseph Smith symposium in San Clemente, CA on 10/22, Richard Bushman pointed out the that Jos. Smith had slept with many of his plural wives. He related that this was established while Jos. Smith III was touring Utah to refute this. The Church had these women come forth to confirm it.
Comment by manaen — October 30, 2005 @ 11:53 am
I’m not finished with the book yet, but I think the review is overly-harsh. I wouldn’t call it an inspiring book, which is not to say that it is destructive, it just strikes me as academic– mostly factual and fairly cold. It is neither glowing tribute nor expose’ journalism.
By coincidence, I just read the passage dealing with the war prophecy. If anything, I thought the discussion made the prophecy look mundane–the newspaper quote notwithstanding.
I think the review says as much about Naparsteck as it does the book. We all read with our own expectations and perceptions. Naparsteck seems disappointed that Bushman did not embrace his (Naparsteck’s) pet conclusions.
Comment by Jared — October 30, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
A lot of the balanced scholarship is buried in the footnotes, where Bushman cites and references “critical” and “orthodox” articles and authors on various points. In the text, he does a much better job of hiding his biases (and, I’d argue, largely overcoming them in the interest of writing honest history) than Givens, who reads like a sophisticated apologiest to me. It’s not hard to see where Bushman is leaning, but I haven’t got the impression he is shading his arguments.
Yes, Bushman gave a straight answer to the “did he sleep with them” question at the San Clemente symposium. Then another participant noted how a few years ago answering a question like that would have been very tricky in LDS circles, but now one can just give an honest response (although those weren’t the exact words used).
Comment by Dave — October 30, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
Naparsteck’s review is totally off-base. Clearly he would disapprove of any Joseph Smith biography which did not conform to his pre-existing prejudices against Joseph Smith. Naparsteck is entitled to his prejudices, but it is a disservice to the Trib’s readers to present a review which unfairly trashes Bushman’s well-written, thorough, and insightful work even if one disagrees with some parts of his approach.
My question is whether there have been letters ot the editor responding to Naparsteck’s review. I haven’t been able to locate any on the Trib’s website. Does anyone know if there has been any reader reaction to Naparsteck?
Comment by JWL — November 1, 2005 @ 11:24 am
No, I haven’t seen any letters regarding the review.
Comment by Justin — November 1, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
Check out the Larry McMurtry review in the New York Review of Books — not very positive. He also doesn’t spend much of the article talking about the new Bushman book. That book would seem to be the ostensible reason for the review, but like many NYRB articles, it reviews it in context with other recent publications as well.
Comment by Bill — November 1, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
Kirkus gave a lukewarm review as well. “More complete but less evenhanded than Robert Remini`s Joseph Smith (2002); some readers may find parts of Bushman`s narrative to be overly credulous.”
Comment by Clark Goble — November 1, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
Thanks for the pointers.
Comment by Justin — November 1, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
I thought that the McMurtry review was particularlly bad. At least Naparsteck seems to have read the book. There is not much evidence that McMurtry has.
Comment by Nate Oman — November 2, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
Could someone summarize or quote the main excerpts from McMurty?
Comment by Clark Goble — November 2, 2005 @ 6:17 pm
Here are McMurtry’s comments on Bushman’s book:
“This history of early Mormonism clearly has two phases, the Establishing phase and the Exodus phase. In the former, it is when we come to the rather baroque business of the golden plates and their translation that the fact that Professor Bushman is a believing Mormon becomes a shoe that begins to pinch a little.”
McMurtry notes that this is Bushman’s second book on early Mormonism. “What is difficult to determine,” McMurtry says,” is where biography ends and apologetics begins. Where does this scrupulous scholar stand on the main points, which he knows must seem incredible to most readers? Does he believe in the angel? Does he think the golden plates were real? Does he read the Book of Mormon as literature or as revelation? At one point he says, ‘Incredible as the plates are, hunting for deception can be a distraction.’”
McMurtry responds: “A distraction? The golden plates? Surely their existence and Joseph Smith’s ability to translate them must be one of the central elements of Mormon belief. Either Joseph Smith was the mouthpiece of God or he was just a clever young man who babbled out a kind of trance-written novel.” McMurtry credits Fawn Brodie with taking a clear stand on these questions.
He writes that Bushman “deals ably and fully with the approach to the Exodus. Scholarship has added much detail to what Fawn Brodie had available, and Bushman gives the story a fair and smooth telling.”
“Nonetheless,” McMurtry writes, “the establishing part of the story is the stronger. Many wars of religion have been fought, some not dissimilar to what the Mormons experienced in their westward travels.”
McMurtry concludes by saying that Joseph Smith’s story has “mutated out of religion into folklore” and that while Joseph never intended to become a folk hero, he has become one. He asks: “How many twenty-three-year-olds with no education can peer through two rocks and a hat and pour out a tale that founds a faith?”
Comment by Justin — November 3, 2005 @ 5:13 pm
If it is difficult to determine, isn’t that a clear sign he’s not doing apologetics? It’s pretty hard to imagine apologetics that didn’t clearly accept Joseph as a prophet and the real plates.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 3, 2005 @ 9:02 pm
Remini, a fine scholar and no apologist, basically took Joseph’s non-verifiable claims of visions, etc., at face value, then wrote his biography based on sources and evidence — much like Bushman did, although Bushman provided a lot more discussion and better citations (expected, he was writing a more in depth treatment). So McMurtry’s apparent idea that any scholar would sound like Brodie and that Bushman is therefore an apologist seems misguided. McMurtry evidently isn’t familiar with Remini’s book.
So the real question is why is a guy who is so unfamiliar with the literature, and I mean grossly unfamiliar with it (the Remini book was at my small public library, for Chrissake), is writing the review in the NYTRB? Do they think Bushman’s book doesn’t deserve a serious review, so they gave it to a historical hack? Or are they just more interested in entertaining their readers than informing them?
Comment by Dave — November 3, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
McMurtry, as well as being a novelist, is something of an expert on the American West, but this was definitely not his best work. Here is a list of his previous contributions to the Review.
For an interesting comparison, here is the article published by the Review at the time of Bushman’s previous Joseph Smith book.
Comment by Bill — November 4, 2005 @ 1:47 am
Larry McMurtry’s review shows a surprising over-reliance on Brodie. On point after point, he follows her narrative, as though he did not read Bushman or was imaware of the scholarly debate from the New Mormon History of the last thrirty years. For example:
· McMurtry explains why Fawn Brodie entitled her book No Man Knows My History. Nothing is said about why Bushman entitled his book Rough Stone Rolling.
· McMurtry gives personal details surrounding Brodie’s writing—even telling us about her delivering a baby—but gives no personal details about Bushman.
· McMurtry follows Brodie’s “elaboration†thesis of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Bushman’s developmental hypothesis is not referenced.
· McMurtry adopts Brodie’s claim that Book of Mormon witnesses inspired “no confidence.†He makes no mention of Bushman’s more nuanced discussion of the witnesses, nor to the fact that the witnesses inspired confidence in early Mormons.
· McMurtry quotes Brodie’s opinion that the Book of Mormon is best described as Yankee fiction. He makes no reference to the contested nature of that claim, or to the elements from the Book of Mormon that scholars cannot squarely fit into provincial culture, as Bushman does.
· Like Brodie, McMurtry explains away the Book of Mormon by forcing it into a single genre, the lost race novel. Bushman’s discussion of Book of Mormon as epic literature is not mentioned.
· McMurtry emphasizes the Book of Mormon’s awkward English and repetitious phrases, a line straight from Brodie. The book’s fundamentally devotional nature is not mentioned, as in Bushman.
· McMurtry takes four block quotes from Brodie. Two others come from the New Encyclopedia of the American West. No block quotes come from Bushman. Very strange.
In addition to McMurtry’s over-reliance on scholarship 60 years out of date, his review is sloppy. He produces a number of factual inaccuracies. Here are some examples:
· McMurtry confuses the Book of Mormon “Ishmael†for the biblical “Ishmael, son of Abraham,†even though the two characters are separated in time by over one thousand years.
· McMurtry incorrectly dates Joseph Smith’s death. The correct date is June 27, 1844, not April 27, 1844, as the review states.
· McMurtry says that he once dined at a place in Salt Lake City “beyond the spires of the Tabernacle.†The Tabernacle in Salt Lake City has no spires. He is apparently talking about the Salt Lake Temple.
· McMurtry misspells the Church’s name.
We all make mistakes, but most of these errors could have been easily avoided by paying closer attention to the text. The NY Review might want to employ a fact checker. The take home lesson is that readers should be wary of reviews, pro or con, even those written by Pulitzer Prize winners. There is no substitute for one’s own study and concerted effort.
Comment by Orson — November 4, 2005 @ 10:50 am
McMurtry offers a correction of sorts.
Comment by Bill — March 3, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
That’s priceless. Thanks for the link, Bill.
Comment by Justin Butterfield — March 3, 2006 @ 3:40 pm