Anthony McIntyre savours a prize winning moment.

Patrick Radden Keefe's atmospherically haunting book, Say Nothing, has won the Orwell Prize 2019 for literature. It is an amazing achievement, coming as it does at a time when the bore factor that keeps step with the pity party that the peace process has long descended into, has all but suffocated interest in the politics of the North. Nothing guaranteed to work quicker for inducing first a yawn then a deep sleep than the plaintive moan that the peace process is in crisis … again.

Judge Ted Hodgkinson in his assessment of Say Nothing offered this:

This haunting and timely portrait of the Troubles opens with the disappearance of a mother of ten and radiates outwards to encompass the entire conflict, giving voice to characters and stories often shrouded in silence, and leaving an indelible and nuanced impression of the human cost of this unstable chapter of history.

The award of such a prestigious prize will not have gone unnoticed in a part of Louth where currently a predatory eye is being cast over Phoenix Park with a view to transforming the presidential  residence into the Aras hole of Ireland in 2025. The idea that there is a serpentine-slithering in that direction is not as far fetched as it once seemed.

One columnist suggested that:

As long as Adams might be a candidate, anyone who cares about protecting the presidency should fight this referendum to prevent him getting to the Aras.

All of it is contingent on the predator getting his ducks in order, with people sufficiently bullied in the customary manner into silent acquiescence, thus refraining from mentioning secret graves and other unsavoury things that never seem to feature in marches for truth.

Say Nothing more than any other book in recent years has been the diamond cutting blade hewing into the plastic surgery that Gerry Adams has performed on his past IRA persona. It has drawn huge amounts of interest, particularly in the USA, with Radden Keefe persistently claiming on air that the killing of Jean McConville was a war crime ordered by Adams during his tenure as O/C of the Belfast Brigade.

If the diaspora in the US secures the constitutional right to vote in any future Irish presidential election, it will have in its possession a narrative that the former Sinn Fein president and erstwhile IRA chief of staff, would rather not see the light of day, preferring that it remain disappeared in its own secret burial place. Presuming the diaspora wins the right to vote, its preference will be an informed choice based on the supply of - rather than the demand for withholding - information. In such a scenario the Adams plans for an extension of his political career risk becoming unstuck.

Not everybody will welcome the Orwell Prize going the way of Radden Keefe. A few months back, Irish Voice editor, Niall O'Dowd, launched a swingeing attack on myself and Ed Moloney, effectively blaming us for having carried out the heavy digging at the coalface from which, in his view, was extracted the incendiary fuel that powered Say Nothing and ignited widespread public interest. At one level, I took it as an unintended compliment. At another, I understood that it was a diatribe saturated with resentment and bile, crafted for no reason other than to discredit the refusal by either Ed Moloney or myself to succumb to the patently false narrative of the peace process or defer to the mendacity of the career politician he shills for. It would have been better for his own credibility had Niall O'Dowd chosen to Say Nothing.

One man's meat being another man's poison, I confess to enjoying the succulent taste of a well-done Orwell Prize, truly a culinary delight.

Orwell Prize Says Everything



Anthony McIntyre savours a prize winning moment.

Patrick Radden Keefe's atmospherically haunting book, Say Nothing, has won the Orwell Prize 2019 for literature. It is an amazing achievement, coming as it does at a time when the bore factor that keeps step with the pity party that the peace process has long descended into, has all but suffocated interest in the politics of the North. Nothing guaranteed to work quicker for inducing first a yawn then a deep sleep than the plaintive moan that the peace process is in crisis … again.

Judge Ted Hodgkinson in his assessment of Say Nothing offered this:

This haunting and timely portrait of the Troubles opens with the disappearance of a mother of ten and radiates outwards to encompass the entire conflict, giving voice to characters and stories often shrouded in silence, and leaving an indelible and nuanced impression of the human cost of this unstable chapter of history.

The award of such a prestigious prize will not have gone unnoticed in a part of Louth where currently a predatory eye is being cast over Phoenix Park with a view to transforming the presidential  residence into the Aras hole of Ireland in 2025. The idea that there is a serpentine-slithering in that direction is not as far fetched as it once seemed.

One columnist suggested that:

As long as Adams might be a candidate, anyone who cares about protecting the presidency should fight this referendum to prevent him getting to the Aras.

All of it is contingent on the predator getting his ducks in order, with people sufficiently bullied in the customary manner into silent acquiescence, thus refraining from mentioning secret graves and other unsavoury things that never seem to feature in marches for truth.

Say Nothing more than any other book in recent years has been the diamond cutting blade hewing into the plastic surgery that Gerry Adams has performed on his past IRA persona. It has drawn huge amounts of interest, particularly in the USA, with Radden Keefe persistently claiming on air that the killing of Jean McConville was a war crime ordered by Adams during his tenure as O/C of the Belfast Brigade.

If the diaspora in the US secures the constitutional right to vote in any future Irish presidential election, it will have in its possession a narrative that the former Sinn Fein president and erstwhile IRA chief of staff, would rather not see the light of day, preferring that it remain disappeared in its own secret burial place. Presuming the diaspora wins the right to vote, its preference will be an informed choice based on the supply of - rather than the demand for withholding - information. In such a scenario the Adams plans for an extension of his political career risk becoming unstuck.

Not everybody will welcome the Orwell Prize going the way of Radden Keefe. A few months back, Irish Voice editor, Niall O'Dowd, launched a swingeing attack on myself and Ed Moloney, effectively blaming us for having carried out the heavy digging at the coalface from which, in his view, was extracted the incendiary fuel that powered Say Nothing and ignited widespread public interest. At one level, I took it as an unintended compliment. At another, I understood that it was a diatribe saturated with resentment and bile, crafted for no reason other than to discredit the refusal by either Ed Moloney or myself to succumb to the patently false narrative of the peace process or defer to the mendacity of the career politician he shills for. It would have been better for his own credibility had Niall O'Dowd chosen to Say Nothing.

One man's meat being another man's poison, I confess to enjoying the succulent taste of a well-done Orwell Prize, truly a culinary delight.

21 comments:

  1. ORWELL PRIZE DOESN’T SAY EVERYTHING.

    I too enjoyed reading Patrick Keefe’s book Say Nothing. He is a skillful writer and story teller. But I would no more nominate him for the Orwell Prize anymore than I would Gerry Adams or Ian Fleming, a former British Naval Intelligence Officer, also skillful writers and story tellers.

    Patrick Keefe
    A graduate of Columbia College, he holds masters degrees from Cambridge University and the London School of Economics, and a JD from Yale Law School. In 2010-2011 he was a special advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Policy), where his work focused on illicit networks, global threats, and rule of law issues. During 2012-2013, he is a resident fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, researching a new book about the dynamics of systemic corruption.
    Membership: Truman National Security Project Fellow Chapter: Washington, DC

    http://trumanproject.org/home/team-view/patrick-keefe/

    (Emphasis added)

    (All thanks to Ed Moloney for highlighting this information!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. One man’s meat is more than just Niall O’Dowd’s poison:

    An American Reporter in Belfast: How a New Yorker Writer Got So Much Wrong in His Bestselling Book On The Troubles by ED MOLONEY May 2, 2019

    The writing thus flows uninterrupted, appearing to the untutored reader – or reviewer – as being the work of the author when it may not be. It takes hard work and determination to discover how much of this book is truly original reporting and how much is taken from other people’s work. A ‘more commercial narrative’ indeed.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/02/an-american-reporter-in-belfast-how-a-new-yorker-writer-got-so-much-wrong-in-his-bestselling-book-on-the-troubles/

    ReplyDelete
  3. For example, on page 68 of Mr. Keefe’s book Say Nothing he writes:

    “(Frank Kitson) was known to dislike small talk. One story about Kitson that circulated in the Army (and was almost certainly apocryphal, but revealing nonetheless) involved a dinner party at which the wife of one of Kitson’s colleagues found herself seated next to him and announced that she had made a bet with a friend that she could get ‘at least half a dozen words’ out of him. ‘You’ve just lost,” Kitson said, and did not speak another word to her all evening.”

    (My emphasis).

    Because this is more revealing than Mr. Keefe may realize!

    Since that story is about former US President Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge.

    And just about any American who had high school US History knows this:

    “Although Coolidge was known to be a skilled and effective public speaker, in private he was a man of few words and was commonly referred to as ‘Silent Cal’. An apocryphal story has it that a matron, seated next to him at a dinner, said to him, ‘I made a bet today that I could get more than two words out of you.’ He replied, ‘You lose.’ However, on April 22, 1923, Coolidge himself said that the ‘You lose’ quotation never occurred.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

    (My emphasis).

    So rhetorically speaking why did Mr. Keefe attribute this to Frank Kitson?

    Professional courtesy maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Martin Dillon Weighs in On Patrick Keefe Controversy
    Posted on May 19, 2019 | 1 Comment

    My name does not appear anywhere in the narrative, but there are extensive references to my work listed in his Notes section. This is just one example that struck me as a failure by Mr. Radden Keefe to give proper recognition to the “long time chroniclers.” It is up to the critics to be more circumspect before defining Mr. Radden Keefe’s book as a “masterful history of the Troubles” based on his original reporting.

    https://thebrokenelbow.com/2019/05/19/martin-dillon-weighs-in-on-patrick-keefe-controversy/

    And so does Professor Rose Sullivan | June 12, 2019 at 1:05 pm

    I have been a professor for the last 15 years. The internet, for all of its usefulness, has made plagiarism and otherwise murky academic referencing widespread. I enjoyed Mr. Madden Keefe’s book, but anyone with even a cursory knowledge of contemporary Irish history would recognize that he depended heavily on the work of others. He skates too fine a line between claiming “original writing” and specious references and intentionally misleading citations. He tells an important story in his book, but intellectual honesty, historical accuracy, and respect for those who lived through those times demand that a writer convey those narratives without even a hint of disrepute.

    https://thebrokenelbow.com/2019/05/19/martin-dillon-weighs-in-on-patrick-keefe-controversy/

    I might add anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American history…

    Ah well, you get the picture.

    A best seller maybe, it if is or ever becomes one.

    But not the Orwell Prize.

    Although I am glad Niall O’Dowd didn’t like it even if for all the wrong reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan - always good to get a different take.

      Can't see the basis of Dillon's complaint. Seems a vanity matter: he didn't get mentioned enough. He doesn't have to be once his work is acknowledged. Every time The BC interviews with Brendan Hughes are mentioned and I am not, it doesn't cause me a thought. I think he has more grounds for concern than not being mentioned where he wants mentioned. Even at 16 in Crumlin Road prison I knew there was serious flaws in some of his work, Political Murder.

      Delete
  5. Nor do I think much of Rose Sullivan's criticism: her allusion to plagiarism does not stand up. The book was built heavily around the BC research, Ed's work, his own interviews and research. The entire reading world is familiar with that. Myself and Ed were excoriated by O'Dowd over the book. From reading him you would almost be forgiven for thinking we wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anthony,

    I hear you, but there is a saying in the Law that I am sure Mr. Keefe is aware of.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    False in one, false in all.

    If someone tells you one thing that is untrue...

    You should not believe anything he says.

    And clearly Ed Moloney has problems with many of Mr. Keefe’s mistakes and omissions.

    Read Ed Molony’s article here where he laundry lists them all:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/02/an-american-reporter-in-belfast-how-a-new-yorker-writer-got-so-much-wrong-in-his-bestselling-book-on-the-troubles/

    So, I too would suspect any writer from the establishment who ignored convincing evidence.

    Beware Ivy Leaguers with National Security connections:

    https://www.watergate.com/bob-woodward/woodward-haig-connection



    ReplyDelete
  7. Eoghan - False in one, false in all - might do lawyers as they battle each other for the best argument rather than the best outcome but in the world outside the theatrics of the courtroom, it applies to every single person on this planet capable of reason. The only rule to emerge from adherence to that legal maxim is believe nobody. Not much fuel in that for going anywhere.

    Nothing I have seen yet shows a deliberate falsification by PRK: I did spot some errors. But every book has those.

    I read Ed's piece when it came out. Don't recall much from it at this point other than it was a much more robust critique than Dillon's but it didn't change my mind on anything.

    I see you haven't lost your penchant for conspiracy theories!! You have more chance of getting me into America than you have of getting me to follow links.

    Maybe it is just me Eoghan - I have heard people say Ed doesn't give my role in Voices From The Grave sufficient acknowledgement. And I am never always sure if they are getting a dig at him, me or both. But it is bollix. My role is amply acknowledged and I don't need to be told it every time Voices is mentioned. PRK frequently lauded Ed's work to me in Voices, without mentioning that it was me who had the task of interviewing. My nose was not out of joint. It meant absolutely nothing to me. I was not being airbrushed out. Ed is the frontman for VFTG. Why shouldn't he be?

    PRK did what he was supposed to do - he went to the source on Brendan Hughes - the tapes and acknowledged their contribution to his work. It is impossible to read this book without assuming Ed and myself. Or I am being too egocentric?

    I don't defend a book merely because I am weaved through it extensively. My review of We Wrecked The Place is a case in point.

    PRK and Ed between them have made unrivalled contributions to our understanding of modern republicanism in Ireland. Secret History remains unsurpassed in terms of grasping the IRA and what made it tick: the go-to book on the subject. PRK has reconstructed brilliantly the atmosphere of the time and has not spared our nostrils the smell of death and destruction. Each book comes through our pores and permeates our senses in different ways. That is the strength of each.

    PRK is a brilliant journalist, as is Ed.

    Nothing diminishes that. I will forever defend the journalism in both books and don't much care what others thinks of that.

    There is of course the added delight of knowing Niall O'Dowd hates both books equally!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eoghan - just to add that I don't actually dislike O'Dowd. I wouldn't refuse a pint from him. But I have serious issues with his devotion to the Adams narrative and his willingness to shill for him and be shrill to anyone who does not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting argument.

    Although AM and Carrie have tried to dissuade me, I have been put off reading the book because of the Jean McConville blunder, and for good reason. For me, the case is a kind of lynchpin for which one's overall view of the conflict can be formed. If you believe she wasn't an informer, then it's easy to dismiss the IRA as an evil group with no morals. If, however, you believe she was then the picture becomes more complex and some awkward questions need answering from the so called "piggys in the middle." While Keefe may very well believe that she wasn't, not disclosing evidence that the radios were widely in use by this time is suspect, at best.

    As for the claims of plagiarism, I can sympathise with the likes of Dillon and Moloney. While they've been reporting on the conflict for years, Keefe is making headlines and winning awards in America for repackaging old stories. Sadly, that's the way the cookie crumbles when it comes to non-fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eoghan,

    I'd never heard of the Orwell Prizes before now and I'm still not exactly clear as to what criteria the judges are working to. It does seem though that there are four separate categories; Political Writing Book Prize, Political Fiction Book Prize, a Journalism Prize and another under the heading 'Exposing Britain's Social Evils'.

    This year PRK received the award for political writing.
    Political writing to my mind, is commentary rather than reportage, speculative opinion unburdened of the constraints of a hard news story. Why equate apples with oranges?

    Though AM has vague memories of Ed's Counter Punch piece as being more robust than Dillon's critique I must say I found Ed's rebuttal in that article an impotent and limp-dick one. To me Dillon and Moloney are insecurely attempting to protect what they erroneously perceive as their established territory.

    They'd been better men to have adopted AM's position as taken from his review of 'Say Nothing'
    "These things irk only when we take ourselves much too seriously and suffer from an inflated sense of self-importance."


    Pathetically Ed introduces a 'straw-man' when he references PRK's employment history.

    "When Patrick Radden Keefe sought my assistance, first for a New Yorker article on Gerry Adams titled, ‘Where The Bodies Are Buried‘ and then for his recently published book Say Nothing, he made no mention of his service at the Pentagon. I discovered this only recently when a friend pointed it out."

    Another 'the dog ate my homework' excuse from Ed. Not the first time he hasn't done his homework properly when in pursuit of a project!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anthony,

    Like I said, best seller maybe, because it is a good read, but not the Orwell prize.

    Since it would not have been hard for PRK to just say:

    “The same apocryphal story about Calvin Coolidge is also told about Frank Kitson.”

    If PRK were Irish or British then I could forgive him for not knowing it was about Coolidge.

    But it’s pretty clear he pulled this story straight from Wikipedia without proper attribution.

    Plagiarism? No. Stupid? Yes.

    And so, his omission lends a brick of credibility to others who also critique his omissions.

    After all, why do people ignore convincing evidence?

    Because it doesn’t serve their agendas whatever they may be.

    That all said, I wouldn’t have a pint with Niall O’Dowd.

    Why encourage him?

    Since you are not likely to dispel his devotion to Gerry Adams short of a deprogramming.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anthony,

    And by the way conspiracy is simply two or more people agreeing to commit a crime.

    Theory simply means explanation.

    And as you know some explanations of crime are better than others because there is proof.

    Like for instance:

    1. COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
    2. Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
    3. Phoenix Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
    4. Gulf of Tonkin incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
    5. My Lai Massacre and US Army cover-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
    6. Force Research Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Research_Unit
    7. Tuskegee syphilis experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
    8. Nayirah testimony on incubator babies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
    9. Chilcot report: Blair (& Bush) didn't tell truth about WMDs https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/world/europe/chilcot-report.html
    10. Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, etc.

    And see this recent spotlight on Patrick Clawson and Mike Pompeo in their own words:

    Jimmy Dore Show

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQzb4ErYWQ

    That all said, ever notice people generally have no problem believing conspiracy by poor people?

    Which is why prisons are filled with poor criminal conspirators, i.e. conspiracy to sell drugs, etc.

    And it’s also why people like Bush and Blair and their subordinates skate free.

    People just can’t or won’t believe it despite the overwhelming proof.

    It’s like they’re living in a political cult much like Niall O’Dowd does.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan - I think Blogger is trying to tell you something. This comment went straight to Spam! I knew one had come through as I saw it before going up to bed but can't actually post from my phone. When I went to upload it this morning it wasn't there, so I checked spam. Happens occasionally but it might be down to the links - don't know why you put the effort in with links when you know I never open them.
      The thing about links is that nobody ever seems to put them up alongside the comment that this link suggests that what I believe is a load of bollix. Links are primarily self serving, not informative.

      That is a legal definition of conspiracy. It is far removed from the definition of conspiracy theory in popular culture: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
      It generally applies to those who believe in crackpot explanations like Elvis is still alive, evolution is a myth, Lyra McKee is in Australia, Jews eat Gentile babies ad infinitum.
      The crackpot belief flies in the face of the evidence, and is only known to the tiny band of crackpots who support it. Hence the self conscious need to call everybody else that doesn't believe it names.
      There is no doubt that many hidden hands are at play - the difference between the discerning mind and the conspiratorial mind is the discerning one looks for the evidence of the hand while the conspiratorial flips the bird at the evidence, filters out real evidence and picks up on the first thing sympathetic (even when not substantively supportive of their position).
      In the North, it was clear many years ago that there was collusion between the state and loyalists which the state denied. I and others considered the view that in advance of the real story making its way into the public domain the state would have it put out through the conspiracy theorists. By the time the real evidence came to hand the concept had been destabilised because people had grown accustomed to the idea that such notions were bizarre.
      Never rule out the capacity for manipulation, hidden agendas, the masking of power. Never back it up with crackpot ideas.

      Delete
  13. Eoghan - I doubt very much it was pulled from Wikipedia. I guess every country has its own version of that story just as every religions has its creation myth. It is so widely applicable. PRK said the story was almost certainly apocryphal, which you cite yourself. So neither plagiarism nor stupidity. If there is convincing evidence that PRK has ignored what is it? Christopher above refers to not disclosing evidence about the existence of the radio at the time. But this overlooks the fact that in p333 there is a photo of the radio which PRK claims was tracked down by Ed.
    I don't get too annoyed by a different political opinion. If a Free Presbyterian minister can call here with his son and take me out for breakfast (we have absolutely nothing in common other than that we can get on with each other), I am sure I can have a pint with Niall O'Dowd without much fuss. I had quite a few drinks with the former SAS colonel Clive Fairweather. And you know very well from experience, if you are buying lunch I will go out with you!! I don't actually go out with people for the purpose of dispelling them of their beliefs or to convert them. I am not too hot on proselytisers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anthony,

    Links are no different than footnotes or end notes.

    And how would you know they’re “…self-serving, not informative” if you don’t read them?

    Seems though that anyone who offers proof of their assertions is self-serving.

    Hence the expression: My thesis.

    But the real key is do their proofs stand up, are they informative?

    But you would have to read and watch to find out and weigh.

    Dismissing them out of hand as you do won’t get you there.

    And your conspiracy theory of popular culture is just a conspiracy theory without proof.

    As far as never ruling out the capacity for manipulation, hidden agendas, the masking of power, I don’t.

    And as far as never backing it up with crackpot ideas, I don’t.

    But then you’d have to actually view my links. LOL!

    For example: I said earlier to you to beware NSA types.

    Because as you say they have a capacity for manipulation, hidden agendas and masking power.

    And offered you among other things, Mr. Clawson & Mr. Pompeo in their own words.

    Your loss for turning a blind eye to that proof.

    However, fact that you don’t won’t stop others who want to.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan - end notes or footnotes that only confirm our own prejudices are as useless as links. The purpose of end links when I use them is to acknowledge the author not to use them because they think the way I think they should think. If you can show me one link you have posted that would suggest you have been talking bollix I will concede the point that they are not self serving. Just one. People at this game as long as I have been soon get to know whose links are worth reading and whose are not. Much like you as a lawyer dealing with the same clients time and again. If you haven't acquired a feel for things you fail. If I was to read every link recommended I would never read much else.

      Delete
  15. Anthony,

    It’s clear that PRK did pull it from Wikipedia.

    Sure, every country has its own version of a story like that.

    But not the same “… apocryphal” description of it.

    And if you want to see the convincing evidence that PRK ignored….

    Then you’d have to see the link to Ed Moloney’s article on PRK.

    It wasn’t just the radio evidence that PRK ignored.

    Ed Moloney also gave him, among other things, convincing proof that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, but...

    In ‘Say Nothing’, this story became: ‘Once, when Adams was on the run, the two men sat up chatting in an hotel room, and, because it was unsafe for anybody to leave, Moloney spent the night sleeping on the floor’.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/02/an-american-reporter-in-belfast-how-a-new-yorker-writer-got-so-much-wrong-in-his-bestselling-book-on-the-troubles/

    So, I don’t think this is all just a matter of having a difference in political opinion.

    In fact, after reading PRK’s book, I don’t know what his political opinion is really.

    Although I came away with the impression of “piggy-in-the-middle” as does Christopher Owens here.

    And George Orwell never took that position.

    That said, by all means go out with whomever you want.

    But my guess is the Free P minister and SAS colonel were at least civil with you.

    Do you really think Niall O’Dowd would be?

    Besides, O’Dowd would never buy you lunch. LOL!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan - claiming it is clear to you does not mean it is clear to anyone else. It is certainly not clear to me.
      I read Ed's piece admittedly a while ago but recall nothing that stood out as being decisive. I half listened to Ed on Radio Free Eireann one evening as the reception was bad but if I am right he said it would have been a good book but for the fact that it did not acknowledge where he felt it should. Neither he nor Ed are in dispute about Adams being an IRA member. PRK says repeatedly that Adams ordered a war crime. He was hardly saying it was a civilian Adams that ordered it. So he was never Piggy In The Middle. He had a very firm view of Adams. Ed gets more criticism for his treatment of the IRA than PRK does - but Ed is right in his criticism. Those who accused him of analysing Adams in the way he did because he took sides and was not Piggy in the middle were talking tripe. I don't think you need to know what PRK's political opinion is any more than you need to know Ed's. I don't judge books by the political opinion of the writer.
      To be fair to O'Dowd, whatever private exchanges we have had he has been nothing but civil. It is his on line persona which is hostile but so is that of the Free P guy. But what do you expect. He opposes me politically and can't stand my atheism. But he is sound personally with me and when he next arrives in Drogheda, this house will be his first port of call.

      Delete
  16. Henry Joy,

    George Orwell as writer and activist always took an anti-authoritarian position in politics.

    When you finish reading any book or article by Orwell you know where he stood.

    He was never neutral. He opposed imperialism in all its forms.

    So as much as I enjoyed reading PRK’s book, I really can’t tell you what his political opinion is.

    If I were to guess, now that I know his credentials, he is pro-England in Ireland.

    Just like the US government is. Shocker that.

    Which is why I would not have given him the Orwell Prize which is clearly misnamed.

    Much like the Nobel Peace Prize (with Barak Obama and Henry Kissinger as recipients).

    If Orwell’s name and opus are to have any meaning then I’d award an Orwell Prize to:

    Medea Benjamin for her book INSIDE IRAN and Charles Glass for his book SYRIA BURNING.

    That all said, I disagree with you about Ed Moloney’s motives.

    I don’t think it’s about him suffering “…from an inflated sense of self-importance.”

    I think it’s more about Ed Moloney trying to flush out PRK’s motives.

    And that ought to be considered fair game for anyone’s political writing.

    Especially given the insidious hold National Security agencies have on the US and world in government, business, academia and the media.

    And that’s no straw man or dog-ate-my-homework excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan

      whether 'Say Nothing' merited the Orwell award over and above perhaps the titles you've mentioned, or indeed any other publication, is subjective unless we're really clear as to what criteria the judges work to. Of course you're entitled to your objections and concerns.

      Perhaps there's a rare possibility that you're right also about about Moloney's intentions in flushing out PRK's motives rather than just being reactive to encroachments on his perceived domain. I can't definitively exclude that from the mix. However, flushing him out at this stage would very much be akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
      Ed does after-all have form in deciding in haste and leaving others to repent at leisure.

      Moloney had a duty of care to check this man out, just as he had a duty of care to seek independent legal advice before embarking on the Boston History Project ... before he gave PRK direct access to recordings and transcripts arising from that project.

      Whinging about it now is somewhat juvenile and immature. Someone with a bit more nous finding themselves in such a position would swallow hard and say nothing about 'Say Nothing'.
      Ed, or at least so it appears to me, has become resentful and jealous at Patrick's triumph. He now insists on rubbing salt to his wounded ego and can't get by that he himself played a large part in that success.

      Moloney was conflicted by the bind he found himself in; the promises he'd made to Dolours and his professional urge to get the story out. The transcript he furnished Patrick with, of the Dolours filmed interview, allowed Ed exit the bind and was a nod and a wink as to where Keefe might move next. The redaction of personal pronouns from the transcript made it more than likely that the third member of the execution detail was in all probability also a female.

      Ed did indeed make a very large contribution to the story.
      And now, its my contention his nose is out of joint, big time out of joint!

      Delete