Big stupid honking mistake!
Cristina Odone occupies the first three paragraphs of her review of Does God Hate Women? pointing out a factual mistake – the name of one Afghan woman murdered for acting like a human being with a mind exchanged for the name of a different Afghan woman murdered for acting like a human being with a mind.
It’s a fair cop. The mistake is real. It’s mine. I have no idea how I managed it, but I did.
I didn’t realize I’d done it until the literary editor of The Observer asked our publisher (who asked us) about it, and I looked it up. That was Thursday I think. Jeremy and I had a set-to this morning about whether or not I would say it was mine. He told me not to the minute we both read the review. I said of course I’m going to! He said please don’t – and I wavered. But I also pointed out how damn near impossible that would be – and he admitted as much – and then I had him.
Of course I have to! I’d have bugs crawling under my skin for the rest of my life if I didn’t. His objections are as nothing in comparison. He wouldn’t let me fry, so I’m not about to let him fry. That’s it.
He did however insist that I should say that he is adamant that the responsibility is joint. Like so:
It is entirely fair that we should cop to it together. Look, if it had turned out that people had loved the book because you wrote some particularly devastating critique of something then I would have benefitted. It just happens that you made a tiny slip, and we`re going to get a little flak because of it. But structurally that`s no different. Given that I would have benefitted in the first instance means it`s fair that I`m disbenefitted in the second. (And anyway, I don`t suppose it`ll be much more than this review, and maybe a bit of crowing from the usual suspects.)
Fair enough. As long as I don’t have to creep around like Raskolnikov with a Horrible Crime on my conscience, he can have his say.
Now – as for what Odone concludes from my stupid mistake –
In the rush to drive home their point about all religions’ oppression of women, Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom shoved one woman’s narrative under another woman’s name: their priority is to make their case, not mourn a martyr.
I don’t know what that means. I don’t think Odone knows what that means. Mine was certainly a dumb-ass stupid clumsy mistake – but it also certainly wasn’t because we think either woman is unimportant, or subordinate to our making a point in our book, or anything like that. If anything it’s because we think both (and all) are important. As I said, I don’t know how I made the mistake, but the only explanation I can come up with is that both names were in my head and I somehow switched them while writing. That would be because both women matter to me, not because neither does or because one matters more than the other. In other words…the basic story is that there is a lot of material here, about horrible things done to women simply because they are women, and that I scrambled two bits of information about two such women. That stands for…having such women on my mind, not whatever other cynical thing Odone is gesturing at.
Still – to do her justice – Odone is critical of the book, but not to the point of being untruthful. She doesn’t follow the lead of Madeleine Bunting or Sholto Byrnes. She doesn’t just scream and throw things, or say we do nothing but rant from page 1 to page 178. That makes a nice change.
But there is some apologetic nonsense, all the same (and not surprisingly, since Odone is a vocal – or should I say New, or Militant? – Catholic.)
For millennia, women have found in God their greatest ally and muse – witness the writings of mystics such as Julian of Norwich and the charitable work of peasant Muslim women. For centuries, the most powerful and liberated women were the abbesses, nuns and consecrated virgins who devoted themselves to God. Women such as Maryam, Jesus’s mother, and Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife (and boss), play crucial roles in the Qur’an.
Well what choice did they have? No doubt they did, but then God was a given, wasn’t it, so it was either find in God an ally and muse, or do without. You might as well say the restaurant lobsters make a cozy home in that little tank where they wait their turn to be boiled.
Does God Hate Women? takes us on a terrible journey, where innocent women struggle – often in vain – against an oppressive culture. We should never forget these martyrs, and with their graphic descriptions of female circumcision and multiple rape, Benson and Stangroom ensure we won’t. But in explaining how God is dragged into this systemic abuse, the authors are guilty of the flawed logic they abhor in macho regimes. An attractive woman in a miniskirt who walks down the street is not responsible for the men who, distorting her attitude, read it as an invitation to rape; so God, in his many guises, cannot be held responsible for the men who distort his message into an invitation to abuse others.
Well – props for giving us that much credit, I must say. That’s a pretty generous reading, from a believer. But the last bit doesn’t really make sense, and in any case it’s beside the point. It’s not really God we’re holding responsible, since we don’t think there is any God; it is indeed the men who distort or adapt or use or anything you like the putative message. It’s religion’s power to sanctify and protect injustices that we are holding responsible.
And it’s my stupidity I’m holding responsible for the name-switch mistake. Don’t let nobody tell you different.
Ah well, I guess “Does the notion of an absolute unanswerable authority help to perpetuate and justify the subjugation of women?” would have been a bit of a long-winded title for a book.
Still, I’d have thought that the majority of newspapers’ literary editors ought to be able to comprehend the concept of a figure of speech? Unless, of course, it suits their agenda not to…
“so God, in his many guises, cannot be held responsible for the men who distort his message into an invitation to abuse others.”
In her own terms, this is bollocks. Presumably God created men in the full knowledge that they would come to distort His message, so he certainly bears some of the responsibility. He should have created men slightly less prone to misogyny. That would have helped.
Not that there is a God or that we`re talking about God (as opposed to using a metaphor to make a point).
“It’s not really God we’re holding responsible, since we don’t think there is any God”
As we’ve seen time and again, that is the one thing that the majority of theists just can’t seem to wrap their heads around. The think we’re angry at god, or afraid of god, or for some other reason merely pretending not to believe to spite or hide from god. That we simply and honestly don’t believe seems to be just too much of a leap for many of them to make.
Is it any wonder, with such an absolute incomprehension of the basics, that we have so much trouble in the more subtle discussions?
You’re not supposed to take it literaly, duh! When the the Koran says that a woman’s testimony is worth 2/5 of a man’s that just a really clever metaphor for God’s transcendent love!
Interesting that she caught that mistake in your book. It’s not the type of fact that everyone knows, for example, that Paris the capital of France. That is, unless Ms. Odone
is an expert on the subject of the oppression of women under Islam, she didn’t just read your book to review it, as book reviewers do (my mother reviewed books for many years), but had an expert fact checker go through your book looking for errors. Expert fact checkers cost money, by the way. Interesting.
She might have read Caroline Lamb’s book and remembered the name – which would be impressive. It’s impressive however she did it. I have to hand it to her – she did a much fairer, less vituperative review than Sholto Byrnes did (or than Bunting quasi-did in a non-review outburst) and she did see at least some of the point. (Missed it at the end though.)
Oh or here’s a thought – Caroline Lamb might have told her. Maybe they’re friends, who knows – though that assumes Lamb has read the book, and I don’t know why I’d assume that. Oh well.
OB: “Well what choice did they have? No doubt they did, but then God was a given, wasn’t it, so it was either find in God an ally and muse, or do without. You might as well say the restaurant lobsters make a cozy home in that little tank where they wait their turn to be boiled.”
It is gems like that which make N&C a must.
As for the rest of it, I must disagree with you. It is not a “big stupid honking mistake”. It is a trivial understandable one.
I doubt if any book on any major subject has ever been published without something like that in it. And I think it fair to say that the more feverish the nit picking, the clearer the separate agenda. This book challenges my religion/cosmic frame of reference/whatever. That gives me two alternatives: either adjust my mind accordingly, or find as many things as I can that are wrong with it. Understandably, Odone elects the second.
That she or her hired help have had to scrape this far into the barrel bottom indicates I suppose the size of the perceived threat in the main substance of the book.
Though to be fair I have read neither the book or her review of it. I take it it’s in the Observer online.
I’m a suspicious and skeptical old bastard, so when I see that Ms. Odone has some connection with the Catholic Church, I suspect that someone with a rosary is feeding her data against you that she would otherwise not know. Not that many people remember offhand names in difficult foreign languages or other cultures. Quick: can you recall the name of the young woman who was killed just two weeks ago during a protest march in Iran? I can’t.
Found the Odone review at http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/12/god-hate-women-benson-stangroom
“Mine was certainly a dumb-ass stupid clumsy mistake”
Just for the sake of anybody else reading this – it really wasn’t this kind of mistake. It was an entirely understandable and easy mistake to make.
OB was dealing with a huge amount of data in that first chapter. Vast numbers of names. Many more than actually ended up in the book.
Some kind of transposing error occurred. Probably a cut and paste thing. Or a deletion that went wrong. That was it. Incredibly easy to do. If I’d have done that first chapter, probably none of the names would have corresponded with their stories. (Not that I *could* have done that first chapter.)
Odone makes much more of it than is justified (though it is quite legitimate for her to point the mistake out, and she won’t have known how it was made). It didn’t show anything other than the fact that a name got transposed. And frankly, it wouldn’t have made any difference whether we’d called the woman “Fred” or “Burt” or “Gemima” – it’s still the case that what happened to her was appalling, and that we are in a sense “mourning” her (not that I’d ever talk in that kind of way).
Also, I understand why OB wanted to confess, and I think there is something to be said for going public about the mistakes one makes in one’s books, but if you’re joint authors then you have to accept joint responsibility. It’s no good if you get a bad review telling yourself, Ah well, I didn’t write the bits that they don’t like (if that’s the case), because long ago you contracted in to a joint endeavour, and you’re responsible (jointly) for what comes out at the end. If you can’t deal with that responsibility, then you should write books on your own.
So it is our mistake, not OB’s mistake. We try not to make mistakes. We don’t make many mistakes. But we do make occasional mistakes. That’s just the way it is.
OB, this mistake doesn’t deserve so much hand-wringing. Your first paragraph gets it right: whichever name is there your point still stands.
I find it interesting that in the very same issue of The Observer is an opinion piece from ex-President Jimmy Carter that, in effect, supports the central thesis of the book…
Mistakes like this are very unfortunate, but also inevitable. They are also hard to catch – not the sort of thing that a copyeditor with good general knowledge would pick up on. It’s unfair to draw ny inference beyond the fact that some kind of transposition error, or whatever, was made.
Compare an error that I caught Margaret Wertheim on once: she claimed that the first sentence of the Bible starts “In the beginning was the Word.” She clearly did mean what she wrote, i.e. the first verse of the Bible, and made a fuss about what it meant about the thinking/worldview of the ancient Hebrews. That verse is not of course the first verse of the Bible or even of the New Testament. It is the first verse of the Gospel of John, and is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by “Hebrew” thought.
Now THAT is the kind of error that should leave an author and a copyeditor getting sleepless nights. It shows that someone doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Your error? Not so much.
It’s an ugly mistake and annoying because it offered the mean-spirited reviewer an open goal, but, as we used to say when I worked in publishing, that’s what hardbacks are for. Nobody buys them after all.
I look forward to your next project ‘In Celebration of Martyrs’, by the way. So much more edifying.
The mistake is a mistake, but it’s not a very important one, and a good reviewer would have pointed it out without judgement. But Odone calls it a ‘telling mistake’ in her first sentence, and this says a lot more about Odone than it does about the book. It’s not a telling mistake; in fact, as some have pointed out, it’s the kind of mistake that makes perfect sense, and can be corrected just by search and replace.
What Odone wants to do is to parlay that mistake into saying that the book itself is a mistake of the very same kind, and that the authors of the book have mistaken one thing for another. Asking, “Does God Hate Womnen?” is, for Odone, the same kind of thing. The authors have mistaken cultural attitudes towards women for the attitudes of God (or gods), and so have misled us, all the way through the book.
And she shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this nonsense. Forget the little mistake, and concentrate on the big one that Odone makes. She thinks there is a god, so she believes you can wrongly attribute things to him/her/it. Anyone who says that God hates anyone is a false witness to that god, since gods are all about nice, friendly, kind and loving things. Everything nasty can be attributed to the gods’ lying witnesses, and unfaithful narrators.
So Ms Odone doesn’t get it wrong in the end, and her review is not a kind one at any point. She is denying the whole premise of the book – which, of course, she would, since she does believe in God, and thinks that God is all about peace and love. Surely, she asks, the authors have heard about unreliable narrators? Well, yes, the authors no doubt have, but when it comes to religion, everyone is an unreliable narrator, and everyone gets it wrong, even those who think that the gods are kind and generous.
The point of the book still stands. Don’t let a little editorial error allow the slightest doubt to creep in on that point. Odone is an apologist. Apologists look for cracks in the argument, and then they take them over, and drive in wedges as deep as they can. Don’t give her the space to play her godly games. They all end in disaster.
You guys…
sniff.
Oops forgot the link! I’ll add that; thanks, Ian.
Eric – yeh okay. Soft bigotry of low expectations, I guess. Overton window. Bunting-Byrnes were so abusive and so (cough) inaccurate, that anything above that level seems almost admirable. I’ll pull myself together.
Yes, pull yourself together, OB. You and JS publish books which make coherent sense, one of which contains a regrettable but trivial mistake which has no effect whatever on the central message of the book. Otoh, Bunty and Armstrong and Odone cannot write a short article without huge contradictions and evasions and distortions. Consider briefly the absurdities they have now retreated to: (1) We admit all the big religions are based on myths, and, you sillybillies, of course these myths aren’t true. (2) There are mysteries. Therefore, it’s helpful to introduce a non-thing we’ll call ‘God’, which is the Answer to questions we won’t formulate intelligibly. (3) By definition, nobody knows anything about this ‘God’. Be silent, while publishing 16 books about it. (4) When all those Christians intone ‘I believe / credo / pisteuo in one God …’, they mean, you sillybillies, ‘I have trust that the following are helpful metaphors for something or other about the human condition, but I have no idea what, precisely.’ And when Hairy Rowan tells us that no, on the contrary, he actually believes this stuff, he’s, er, mistaken / confused?
Nicholas
Hahahaha
Oh dear – there are some good laughs in comments here, too
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_annoyed_query.php
as well as some dang good points.
There are too many clever intelligible people out there saying things, how am I supposed to get anything done?!
I’ll join in the chorus. It’s a mistake. A minor mistake. But why does that negate the whole theme of your book? It doesn’t.
Odone’s move is classic and well-understood by anyone who’s debated religious apologists.
However, she could have slow-played for maximum effect. It’s much better to make a vague accusation, let the original authors get defensive, and then pull the error out of the hat.
Had Odone simply wrote, “In a book rife with factual errors…” she could have strung out the conversation for a while, making our esteemed hosts go on the defensive. (The obvious question is
“What factual errors?”) When she pulled out the real error, the authors would have looked like idiots.
Dont beat yourself up about this tiny mistake O.B there are so many names,so many outrages that you can be forgiven if you mix up a couple.. I
Yeah, what Eric said. An error which is the logical equivalent of a typo vs completely missing the point? No contest.
Hmm, I have to disagree with the general tenor of the comments here. I agree the mistake was a small one, but it was unfortunately symbolic. People’s names are important part of their personal identities and messing up a martyr’s name can suggest that the individual as a person is less important than making political hay out of that person. It’s a reasonable interpretation of the mistake OB made. Not a correct interpretation in my view, but a reasonable one.
I do agree that the review goes on for far too long about it, though.
(Caveat: I know nothing about the publishing industry and don’t know how easy or difficult it is to screw someone’s name up. Nor do I know if the reviewer should know about this.)
The reason why I think this is that frankly, if I saw a religious author misstate a name in her book, and the name she got wrong belonged to a person who had suffered in some way, and the author was using this person as an example of why religion is great–well, I have to admit that my first thought would be “uh huh, you can’t even get her NAME right, shows how much you care about her!” And I don’t think I’d be the only nonbeliever to have that reaction. It might not be fair, but it is pretty understandable.
Janavir
Yeah, I think you’ve got a point about how the mistake might be viewed.
The thing is, though, Odone didn’t talk about impressions, she asserted that it was a very telling mistake. But she was wrong, it wasn’t. It was just a transposition error. It’s not as if we were confused about the story, or its significance.
We can’t really complain if readers make assumptions on the basis of slips such as tihs one. I’m sure we all do it. Dennett misspelt Emile Durkheim’s name throughout his “Breaking the Spell”, and I must admit I wasn’t impressed.
But… Odone isn’t just a reader. She’s a reviewer. As a reviewer, she needs to be more careful in her assumptions. If one reflects about this sort of thing, it should be fairly obvious that whilst the mistake might have been indicative of a lack of interest or care or something like that, it might also not have been (as indeed it was not).
You shouldn’t just assert what you cannot possibly know.*
(*I’m excepted from this rule, obviously).
“For centuries, the most powerful and liberated women…”
1. They were always less powerful than the men and empowered ONLY over other women and children. Some power…
2. They were ‘liberated’ only within the strict confines allowed by the church. Some liberty…