I liked several points in Said's review. I only wish I could find a digital version to post here so we could comment about specifics.
The first was his argument that Lewis drew much too large generalities, that the Arab world was far more differentiated than these generalities would permit. Or, barring that, should Lewis wish to generalize at this level, he would need to at least note how he dealt with the exceptions to the rule.
Second, he argued that Lewis lacked evidence for his points. Frequently, Said argued it was lack of footnotes, which is an unnecessarily picky academic point for a general publication. However, he made the much larger and more important point that Lewis advanced arguments without evidence within the text. I've read enough of Lewis' essays to agree. I found that to be true of his earlier work. And, definitely, true of this latter work.
Your point about grand old poohbahs being forgiven these sins is true, but should not be. It's, to my way of thinking, one of the more troublesome things about the academy, that older grandees get away with argumentative murder, drawing on things from their youth that are no longer applicable.
Third, Said argued that the only serious scholarly work Lewis had ever done on the ME was on Turkey; that Lewis knew nothing else, first hand.
All three of these charges are serious.
As for Said's style, that's his style, I don't think it derives from some sort of media jealousy. There are more than a few academics who are sort of no holds barred when it comes to disagreements.
I find it entertaining but look to the serious arguments to see what to take and leave.
Good morning to you. |
