| |
|
Before I address some of your points, Kit-Kat, I'd like to admit I have only read the first two interviews so far, (I plan to have the thing finished within the next two days), but as I read quite a few Chomsky interviews both during the period covered by this book (roughly from 9-11 to the beginning of October, before the bombing in Afghanistan started, if anyone is confused), I think I feel safe in commenting on a few things.
First off, I would actually say that 9-11 is a misnomer for this book, as the content thus far (and in everything I've read by Chomsky about the issue) seems to focus not on the events of 9-11 and what they will subsequently mean, but on the historic legacy of "american atrocities", repeated by chomsky if by rote over the course of several interviews, with as Kit-Kat points out, no scholarly apparatus to back up his contentions. My feelings on this lack of sourcing are roughly identical to yours, Kit-Kat, in that I think it bespeaks an intellectual arrogance that can be off-putting to anyone expecting a sober analysis of facts. As far as the repetition goes, everyone who is familiar in the slightest with Chomsky knows that he has his hobbyhorses, which in the case seem to have only the slightest bearing on the events of 9-11 (What exactly is the tortuous logic he uses to connect U.S. actions in Nicaragua to the events of 9-11?). Granted, some things need bringing up again and again so that people won't forget about them, but it turns what appears to the reader as a topical book into a more abstract tome. And these weighty considerations if the U.S. will be seen on the right side of history (free Chomsky answer: no) are distracting because of the even more weighty practical concerns (in the time period covered by the book, what action in Afghanistan should look like; now, what the process of nation-building in afghanistan should look like) are not really addressed.
Repetition is also a sign of boredom on the part of the speaker/writer. Being charitable, we can attribute this to fact that Chomsky was no doubt beseiged by interview requests during this time frame, and had to deal with interviewers who asked stupid questions (ie, the one about U.S Secret Service collusion with the attacks in the first interview). However, what it adds up to is a picture of a Intellectual Cassandra, the ignored prophet who is tired of preaching his word when the world is obviously not listening. There is a sense of "Don't you people get it already"? implicit in his tone and again, the rote repitition of facts.
Haven't read The Captive State (don't think it is available here), but I think No Logo is far more successful using a limited body of evidence as in that case, the evidence IS the polemnic; it almost speaks for itself, whereas Chomsky has to take his limited body of facts and logically connect them to a thesis he's already come up with. Perhaps I'm not explaining that well. Well, it is easy to see how "McLibel" fits into Klein's overall message about globalization and consumer culture; it is less easy to see how U.S. actions in Nicaragua fit into an explanation of the events of 9-11. |
|
|
