One lesson of the Figes affair

In today's issue of the TLS we print our account of a story which we began last week, a sorry tale that has become known in Britain as the Orlando Figes affair.
 
There is no reason to repeat the details here. Read JC's account instead.
 
It has certainly been an unusual saga, set out well also in yesterday's Independent newspaper. Many other writers have played their part, drawn by reports of literary skullduggery and arguments about the ethics of reviewing in the internet age.
 
Only one point of substance, however, needs to survive into next week. It does not concern the anonymity or otherwise of comments about books or the equally longstanding sensitivity of authors to adverse criticism.
 
The issue is only that scholars, more than all others, should think long and hard before hiring lawyers to stop publication of material about themselves that they dislike - however much they may dislike it.
 
The Figes family has fallen in the mire by forgetting this week that the ethics of a celebrity footballer or actor, whose lawyers will regularly use libel and privacy law to prevent discussion and disclosure, are not to be aped by those whose primary duty is to those very virtues.
 
Professor Figes's lawyer not only attempted to gain silence and his costs from newspapers, those who need no sympathy here for we can care for ourselves. He attempted  on behalf of his client  to suppress the wholly legitimate questions of one of that client's more distinguished colleagues and, still worse, to point out the financial risk of libel damage that this colleague risked by refusing to comply with his demands
 
A footballer may buy a reputation as a litigious man, enjoy it even, and hope that it may protect him. No serious scholar should wish for the same.

Comments

[Clayton Burns]

Another lesson of the Figes affair--this must be an allusion to his practice of doing it with his companion--is that it should be illegal to write dull history. Do I refer to "A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924"?

Yes I do. Despite the inherent dullness of much of history, I seldom sleep when I am reading historical accounts--unless when plodding through Figes.

I sentence you--exasperating professor--to master the COBUILD English Grammar and learn how to write English in a somewhat interesting way. If not, I will not believe your next fabricated version of your activities.

I am working over the history and political science sections--obsessively--obsessively--in Chapter's Robson and finding much of interest. Sir Peter might assign a reviewer to take on Mark Moyar's books. The Marine professor. A compelling writer, even if a more than latent revisionist. So much--so much about the Marines. Everywhere.

We might even deduce from David Kaiser's "The Road to Dallas" that the JFK killing was a real case of Marine blowback.

High school students should be put to it--working over and over the history and political science sections in bookstores for a live curriculum. It is particularly valuable to draw connections between history and literature, the novel "Libra" and JFK.

If the TLS were to interview Figes and ask him why he writes such repellent text, there would perhaps be violent recoil. We can't have that. Sir Peter might have to endure a paddling with a rubber hose. Not for the first time, no doubt. You have to keep quiet about certain things. The nomenklatura have to be coddled.

[Thierry Kron]

Since the Orlando Figes Affair, the Historian gains celebrity even on the continent. For someone like me, to discover Mr. Figes in Pierre Assouline's Blog (lemonde.fr) was a positive affair, I at least knows now what the great historian stands for. This story is what one calls in german eine Schönheitsfehler, to be forgotten...
Orlando Figes, will not die out of ridicule, then le ridicule ne tue pas!

[R A Fellows]

In the extensive reporting of this strange incident, it is curious that little mention is made of Stephanie Palmer's role. As Figes's wife and a practising barrister one would think that at least her colleagues at Blackstone Chambers would feel uneasy about her involvement. This point or her general behaviour is not developed by any of the articles I've read. Is her role that of a collateral support, faithful wife, fellow academic or more prosaically - well you can fill that piece in yourself.

[Michael Bulley]

What I can't quite see is why Service, or anyone else, wanted to know or to make known the identity of the reviewer who wrote under a pseudonym. If a review is written, what does it matter who wrote it? Surely what matters is what the review says. If Service thought the review was badly reasoned, it was up to him to find a way of rebutting it, if he wanted to. It is not logical to think that the sort of person who is likely to read a book about Russian history will unreflectingly believe every word of a review of it.

[Alex D-F]

It's tempting to dismiss RA Fellows's question as ill-willed. Unfortunately, it is extremely pertinent.
Most commentators have bought the idea that S. Palmer had no role to play, and that allegations to the contrary were a further symptom (if such were needed) of O. Figes's caddishness. Most prominently, this line suits Rachel Polonsky, who, in the Mail on Sunday (25 April) portrays herself as bonding with wronged woman S. Palmer.
But if Figes is such a fibber, why believe him when he assumes sole responsibility for the malicious reviews?
The evidence adduced by noted historian Tim Tzouliadis, in a comment to the Independent article, tells another story. Check the comments here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/historian-hits-back-at-online-vandalism-1947226.html
Why is this important? two reasons -
1) Most people agree that the real crime is not writing nasty reviews on Amazon but lying about it afterwards. If these are your ethics, then you might want to know that the deception hasn't ended. By the very act of appearing to come clean, Figes may well be continuing to deceive the public.
2) Most people believe Figes will keep his job. But if both are guilty in this game, and Figes is carrying the can for the sole reason that it's more likely he'll keep his job in his profession (academy) than she could in hers (law), then the academy – to which I belong – shoots itself in the foot not only on the ethical count, but in respect of its own ability to pay attention when certain matters require it do to so.