Readers react to Naparstack’s review of Bushman’s bio
Today’s Salt Lake Tribune features two letters from readers with critical reactions to Martin Naparsteck’s review of Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith biography, Rough Stone Rolling. I wrote last week that I “expect negative reaction to Naparsteck’s review of Bushman’s book, especially his choice of words in the review’s final sentence ["Bushman thus uses intellectually dishonest methods to give us a dull portrait of an interesting man"].”
One reader from Holladay, Utah, describes the review as “poorly written, mean-spirited and shallow,” expresses his displeasure with what he calls Naparsteck’s “cursory ‘critical analysis’ of the material and his less-than-professional journalistic presentation,” and accuses Naparsteck of the very same failings Naparsteck attributed to Bushman, “us[ing] selective facts to ‘support his views and ignor[ing] many that don’t.’” He says that Naparsteck misses the boat with his charge of intellectual dishonesty. “In fact,” he writes, “Bushman is upfront about the fine line between scholarship and faith he has to negotiate, while Naparsteck’s otherwise cloaked bias is revealed in his biting review. He then has the gall to call Bushman ‘intellectually dishonest.’” He concludes: “This kind of hatchet job has no place in The Salt Lake Tribune.”
The other reader, who lives in Washington, Utah, similarly objects to Naparsteck’s charge of intellectual dishonesty, arguing that “all of Bushman’s claims are backed by extensive research.” He also shares his personal reaction to Bushman’s book: “I can tell you that as a member [of the LDS Church] there was a lot in the book that was challenging for me. It was a fascinating book and what emerges is a Joseph Smith who was human and weak – but still a prophet.”
A recent KUTV story features some other critical reaction to Bushman’s book. The article includes the interesting insights of Mark Scherer, the church historian for the Community of Christ, who thinks that Bushman pulls his punches in places, and BYU professor Steven Harper, who thinks that there “is nothing new” in Bushman’s book, but suggests that “some Latter-day Saints who are ignorant of their own history and their own scriptures” may be a “bit shocked” by what’s presented in the book.
As evident from letter no. 2, what Naparsteck called a “tedious rendition of the known facts of Smith’s life” is not at all tedious for many readers, given how disputed many of those facts are and how unfamiliar many LDS readers are with some of them. Naparsteck criticized Bushman for offering “no new significant information and no new ways of viewing Smith.” That presumes either than there is such information or such ways of viewing Smith that Bushman ignored or overlooked, or that absent stunning new info, no new JS bio should be written. I think he’s wrong on either point.
I actually like the videotapes quote — it highlights a relevant point rather effectively. But, like other parts of the review, it seems almost calculated to tug the beard of Mormon patriarchs and the like-minded. I think the Trib gets more mileage with their readers from a dismissive review of Bushman than from a supportive one, so that’s what they delivered.
Comment by Dave — November 6, 2005 @ 11:14 am
While the facts may not be new, I think that what sets great biographers apart from others isn’t the new information but the quality of writing. Something that hasn’t been discussed too much in most reviews I’ve read. With most biographies it’s pretty rare that there is “new information.” Most biographies are written not to scholars of the figure in question, but to those interested in the figure but not familiar with the scholarship.
I think that the last decade has seen a large number of great biographies of important Americans from the Revolution on up to the period of Joseph Smith. There were two award wining Ben Franklin biographies (both nominated for the Pulitzer and one winning if I recall), there was a John Adams biography, a well received Andrew Jackson biography and the list could go on…
Comment by Clark Goble — November 7, 2005 @ 12:24 pm