There's a stunning piece just posted at NYT site from tomorrow's paper on a book I wrote about last month--Charles Pellegrino's Last Train from Hiroshima. I wrote about it in the context of it being bought by James Cameron for a movie (I have written dozens of stories on the subject and co-authored the book with Robert Jay Lifton Hiroshima in America). Pellegrino is an old friend of Cameron and worked with him on Titanic and other projects. Now William J. Broad in the Times reveals that a key revelation in the book is based on a hoax. Pellegrino fell for a story from a guy who claimed he was a last minute substitution on an A-bomb bomb and told the story of a partial "dud" -- made up out of whole cloth. The author now says he will revise the book ASAP. Here's an excerpt below. -- Greg Mitchell
That section of the book and other technical details of the mission are based on the recollections of Joseph Fuoco, who is described as a last-minute substitute on one of the two observation planes that escorted the Enola Gay.
But Mr. Fuoco, who died in 2008 at age 84 and lived in Westbury, N.Y., never flew on the bombing run, and he never substituted for James R. Corliss, the plane’s regular flight engineer, Mr. Corliss’s family says. They, along with angry ranks of scientists, historians and veterans, are denouncing the book and calling Mr. Fuoco an imposter.
Facing a national outcry and the Corliss family’s evidence, the author, Charles Pellegrino, now concedes that he was probably duped. In an interview on Friday, he said he would rewrite the book for paperback and foreign editions.
“I’m stunned,” Mr. Pellegrino said. “I liked and admired the guy. He had loads and loads of papers, and photographs of everything.”
The public record has to be repaired, he added. “You can’t have wrong history going out,” he said. “It’s got to be corrected.”
The book has many more problems, and the publisher (Holt) and author (Pellegrino) seem to be stonewalling on private queries to them involving sources for dubious claims.
ReplyDeleteI suggest pointed queries in print to them on such matters as chemist Urey and Sengier/uranium, journalist George Weller's log, the stories about Father Mattias/Tibbets, Tibbets' alleged letter (to Coster-Mullen) stating the Nagasaki (second)bombing was unnecessary, Hachiya's seeing a horse on hospital grounds, the kilotonage of the 2nd bomb, etc.
The indirect evidence that this book may be more than sloppy seems to mount--disturbingly--and that uncritical book reviewers, often knowing little about the subject, got "taken."
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, (1) does Pellegrino have a Ph.D., and from what school, what date, what subject, and what's the exact dissertation title? (2) Did Nobel prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez really provide to Pellegrino claims about an A-bomb/radiation accident at Tinian on August 4, 1945, and that the Hiroshima bomb was under 10 KT and virtually a "dud"? Or is this a Pellegrino invention, aided by his claims that Fuoco, now dead and thus unable to speak, had "duped" Pellegrino on this? (3) Let Pellegrino prove, with exact evidence, that there was a Father Mattias in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, that he later became an alcoholic and then committed suicide, and that Jesuit philosopher John MacQuityy spoke at Mattias's burial in hallowed ground, and that there was, indeed, a Father John MacQuitty? Might Mattias and MacQuityy be inventions? (3) A third A-bomb (after Nagasaki) could have been used in about mid-August 1945, according to Gen. Groves on August 10. So why does Pellegrino disregard the clear published and archival evidence, and say instead September or October? (4) And how/why did Pellegrino claim that Nobel prize-winninng chemist Harold Urey (1893-1981) died young, and on what does Pellegrino acknowledge Urey's aid? Might Pellegrino be making knowingly false claims to add to his authority? Neither Alvarz nor Urey--each dead-- can defend themselves. Is this part of a Pellegrino strategy?
In view of all this, how could the NY Times book-reviewer Dwight Garner (Jan. 20) term Pellegrino's book "authoritative"? And why didn't J. Kanon in the Wash. Post (about Feb. 7)) spot some of the many factual problems in "Last Train"? Aren't there multiple questions of competence in such markedly uninformed reviewing in major newspapers? Shoudn't these two reviewers, and their papers, issue a public apology, and perhaps explain how they went so wrong? Haven't the reviewers violated a public trust, and shouldn't these two papers (besides William Broad's Feb. 21 article) explicitly "fess up, and act, systematically, to improve reviewing? These issues about book reviewing are dramatized and illuminated by the handling of by "Last Train," but they reach well beyond "Last Train."
A University of Georgia librarian, on the Amazon.com website on "Last Train," perceptively raised questions about book reviewing and competence.
Would it be overly alarmist to suggest that such bad book reviewing contributes to injury of the public, and to corruption of the culture? Doesn't this merit public discussion in terms of how/why reviewers are chosen, whether slipshod work is even recognized by the newspaper editors, and what actions are taken to avoid such problems?
Specifically, will the NY Times "Public Editor" in his Sunday column (in section IV) discuss Garner's review and this book? Will Kanan be chosen by the Post again, or by others?
For more on Mr. Pellegrino's illustrious literary and scholarly career see:
ReplyDeletehttp://jamescameron.blogspot.com/
Holt (Pellegrino's publisher) has now dropped the book, and Pellegrino himself. His alleged Ph.D. is now greatly in question. So are his claims about Father Mattias and MacQuitty, which Pellegrino now lamely contends are pseudonyms for real people.
ReplyDeleteThat clever claim seems very unpersuasive, but one has to admire Pellegrino's hasty agility. Obviously, it has not persuaded Holt.
But why did Holt hook up initially with Pellegino, whose own web site reveals that he has had a checkered career well before the present disputes on "Last Train"? Shouldn't Holt, and John Macrae Pellegrino's reported editor at Holt), have been wary? And, if signing
Pellegrino, why didn't they fact-check about two-dozen items? The
Fuoco story was clearly suspect, as any intelligent editor should have spotted. As was the Mattias/MacQuitty tale, involving a priest's suicde and his burial in hallowed ground.
Or check Dr. Hachiya and the horse. Or the events involving Nagai's children. Or the claims about Harold Urey dying young. (He was actually 87!) Or . . . .
The evidence is strong that Holt (with Macrae) lack good judgment, and that reviewers Garner (Times) and Kanon (Post) did not do their homework, but tried to conceal their failure to do their homework in their reviews of "Last Train."
Fortunately, America is a "third chance" society, and people speedily forget such matters. After all, Doris Kearns Goodwin is still lauded, and is again a prize=winner, despite her having quietly paid an author she'd ripped off; and Joseph Ellis still reviews for the Times and elsewhere.
Maybe Holt will sign Steve Ambrose (even though he's dead), and
Goodwin, Ellis, Garner, and Kanon can then praise his future work. Here are some trusty adjectives for them--"authoritative," "gleaming," "truthful."
Other cynical readers might suggest other adjectives--"pioneering," "probing," "magisterial."
My own favorite for such reviewers: "Truly original but in a derivative way."
And movie maker James Cameron, of "Titanic" and "Avatar," in further enriching America and international culture, will provide added testimonials to Charles Pellegrino's honesty, integrity, and thoroughness.
Questions: What would Pellegrino have to do to lose Cameron's public support? And what will the corporate folks above Holt (and Macrae) do now that the Pellegrino fiasco--including his Ph.D. problems--is a public matter?
Pellegrino's university in New Zealand has now declared that Pellegrino does not have a Ph.D. from that school, and never was granted a Ph.D. by that school. In view of Pellegrino's frequent claims--on his website, and elsewhere--that he has a Ph.D. from that school, hasn't he been less than forthright?
ReplyDeleteFilm maker James Cameron, of Titanic and Avatar fame, had recently defended Pellegrino from other charges, when Holt on about March 1 dropped Pellegrino's book. Cameron soon stated, in effect: There must be a misunderstanding, Charlie would never fabricate.
What can Cameron say now? Maybe: That Pellegrino doesn't often fabricate. Or possibly: Pellegrino only sometimes gets caught. Or: Don't get bogged down in "facticity." Or: Why would I (Cameron) really care about fabrication, truth, accuracy, honesty, etc.? My movies don't worry about accuracy, only about effects. And: We need a culture that admires "invention," and Charlie is a great fabricator.
I propose a national cultural contest: Write the lines for Cameron in dealing with his Pellegrino "problem." This is a good opportunity to explore, and contribute to, a culture that admires p.r. "spin," and hires publicists for their agility to conceal evidence or deny its existence.
The winner of the contest will be decided by: (pick two) James Frey, Alice Mayhew, John Edwards, Jason Blair, Dwight Garner, Howard Stern.
ooooh i love people s
ReplyDeleteooooh i love people s
ReplyDeleteTerm papers
so nice blog. will visit there in a moment to check on the changes. Anyway I'll be subscribing to your blog and I hope you write again soon.
ReplyDelete