-----Original Message-----
From: ESRCs East West Programme [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Serguei A. Oushakine
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 5:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "...they were not intended to harm": Orlando Figes admits posting
Amazon reviews that trashed rivals (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/23/historian-orlando-figes-amaz
on-reviews-rivals/print
Historian Orlando Figes admits posting Amazon reviews that trashed
rivals
Professor 'apologises wholeheartedly to all concerned' as he retracts
denials and legal threats
'I have made some foolish errors,' said Orlando Figes, professor of
history at Birkbeck, London. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA
The future of one of Britain's leading historians was looking
increasingly uncertain tonight after he admitted that he was the author
of anonymous reviews that praised his own work as "fascinating" and
"uplifting" while rubbishing that of his rivals.
In a row that has scandalised the academic world Orlando Figes, one of
the stars of contemporary history, had issued a string of legal threats
to academic colleagues, literary journals and newspapers that suggested
he might have written the reviews posted on Amazon.co.uk.
When challenged about the reviews, Figes's lawyer initially denied Figes
was the author and threatened legal action. In a later statement, Figes
blamed them on his wife, the barrister Stephanie Palmer. But today
Figes, a professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London,
admitted "full responsibility" for the posts, saying he had been under
"intense pressure". He added: "I have made some foolish errors and
apologise wholeheartedly to all concerned."
Rival historian Robert Service, whose work on the history of communism
Figes described as "awful" in the Amazon posts, said he and his wife had
been through hell. "I am pleased and mightily relieved that this
contaminant slime has been exposed to the light and begun to be scrubbed
clean," said Service, who is professor of Russian history at St Antony's
College Oxford. "I have been made acutely aware that a solitary
malpractitioner, if he has an abundance of money and malice, can
intimidate all and sundry - and that includes both scholars and
journalists."
John Sutherland, professor of English at University College London,
suggested Figes's position at Birkbeck could be under threat. "On the
whole academics are pretty tolerant," he said. "Clearly in the present
climate he's a star, and Birkbeck needs stars because of the upcoming
research assessment exercise. They'll find it easy to prove that he
provides impact. On the other hand, he's done something that's dishonest
and possibly actionable."
The row began two weeks ago when historians noticed reviews on Amazon
praiseing Figes's books and attacked those of academic rivals. Comments
under the alias "orlando-birkbeck" and "Historian" called Rachel
Polonsky's book Molotov's Magic Lantern "hard to follow" and Service's
Comrades "awful", while praising Figes's study of Soviet family life,
The Whisperers, as "a fascinating book ... [that] leaves the reader
awed, humbled, yet uplifted".
Service raised the matter of the rogue reviews with other historians and
contacted Figes, who first suggested the two could "mend their
relations" before his lawyer, David Price, issued a legal warning. The
next day Figes turned his fire on the TLS after its diary quoted some of
the comments from its website, which suggested "that Orlando Figes and
orlando-birkbeck are one and the same" and calling on Figes to clear up
the matter. Price contacted the newspaper, denying that Figes had any
involvement in the reviews, demanding a "corrective publication", and
suggesting that his client would be entitled to damages.
Just a few hours later Price issued a new statement, this time saying
that Figes's wife had posted the comments, and that Figes himself had
"only just found out about this, this evening". But after a week of
questions and increasingly critical headlines, Figes today revealed that
he had been responsible for the comments. He apologised to Polonsky,
Service and his lawyer - "to whom I gave incorrect information" - for
actions he called "stupid", adding: "Some of the reviews were
small-minded and ungenerous, but they were not intended to harm." He
described a state of panic when he first saw the email sent by Service,
which made him instruct his lawyer "without thinking this through
rationally.
"This escalated the situation," he said, "and brought more pressure on
myself by prompting a legal response. My wife loyally tried to save me
and protect our family at a moment of intense stress when she was
worried about my health. I owe her an unreserved apology." Service said
the episode underlined the need to rethink libel law. "I hope everyone
can see the urgent need to do something about the laws of libel and to
decontaminate the ground of public debate."
As the historians were left licking their wounds the editor of the TLS,
Peter Stothard, said the issue of poisonous online reviews needed to be
kept in proportion. "There's nothing new about oversensitive writers,
and nothing new about anonymous criticism, both of which have existed
since time immemorial. What is new and is regrettable is when historians
use the law to stifle debate and to put something in the paper which is
untrue."
He added that it was "quite different" for a footballer or singer to
panic and call in the lawyers. As a specialist in Russian history,
Figes's "whole business is replacing a mountain of lies with a few
truths". Figes was unavailable for further comment today and a spokesman
from Birkbeck added: "He's on sick leave and we're offering our
support."
Clues on the web
'Makes you wonder why it was published'
Description by "Historian" of Molotov's Magic Lantern, by Rachel
Polonsky:
"This is the sort of book that makes you wonder why it was ever
published ... Her writing is so dense and pretentious, itself so tangled
in literary allusions, that it is hard to follow or enjoy."
"Historian" described Robert Service's 2008 work Comrades, a world
history of communism, as 'rubbish':
"This is an awful book. It is very poorly written and dull to read ...
it has no insights to make it worth the bother of ploughing through its
dreadful prose."
The same reviewer found one writer's work rather more to their liking.
Orlando Figes's 2008 The Whisperers was "beautiful and necessary":
"A fascinating book about the interior lives of ordinary Russians ... it
tells us more about the Soviet system than any other book I know.
Beautifully written, it is a rich and deeply moving history, which
leaves the reader awed, humbled, yet uplifted ... Figes visits their
ordeals with enormous compassion, and he brings their history to life
with his superb story-telling skills. I hope he writes for ever."
Robert Service
Orlando Figes's secretive rubbishing of my work, and his subsequent
legal threats, are disgraceful
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/23/figes
-shameful-admission/print
... The public interest in this squalid little story is that if someone
is wealthy and malicious enough it is possible to tread on the throat of
free and open discussion in this country almost with impunity. I was
close to caving in at times simply because I lacked Figes's financial
resources. We have a set of libel laws seemingly designed to produce
another Robert Maxwell. At the same time we have electronic media that
enable the ink to flow from poison pens. In my case, these two features
of our culture were wrapped around each other like a vicious weed.
Legislative reform is urgently required.
|
