I wrote a book review post on here for Burned Alive - A Victim of the Law of Men by "Souad." It was a gripping story of a woman, born in 1957 or 1958 in a village on the West Bank, whose brother-in-law allegedly poured gasoline on her and set her afire to kill her as punishment for being pregnant out of wedlock. Her death would avenge the family's honor. I think that much of the story may be true, and it is certain that honor crimes occur in many countries around the world. The book's account of the cruelty suffered by Souad is truly sickening and there seems to be almost total complicity in the daily cruelty, as well as the horrific honor crimes, by her entire culture.
However, I promptly deleted the post after reading this review, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ttaylor.php?articleid=5801 , which casts some serious doubt on some of the claims in the book. It brings to light many contradictions, some important, some not as important. Except, of course, that any inaccuracy calls into question the accuracy of the rest. The article notes that there is not a single cite, reference, or attempt in the book to offer any evidence for the many claims that Souad makes. Also, the book is entirely "recovered memory," because Souad had repressed the memories for 20 years before she begins to get therapy and try to remember. Recovered memories are notoriously unreliable. Sorry, no cite here, but you can look it up. The reviewer is rebuffed when she tries to get more information from Souad and her humanitarian rescuer; but as a result of her dogged attempts to get at the truth, the publishers have actually changed several things in subsequent editions of Burned Alive.
I mention none of the criticism in order to detract from the horrific reality of honor crimes; and I believe this woman did suffer what has to be one of the most awful experiences imaginable. However, I was duly, duly chastised when I realized that I swallowed the whole thing, without question, even though some of it truly did not add up, merely because it was written down. In a book. Of stuff on the internets I am more skeptical, cuz as we can see, any fool can get a free Blogger account and repeat misinformation without even getting off the couch to get another diet Coke. But a book, it has to have a publisher, and an editor, and cover art. Surely you don't make things up that you put in a book.
So! I am determined to be a little more careful and a little more skeptical in the future. I think it would do a lot of us good to think reasoned thoughts and draw conclusions based on actual facts and real research. It seems like many "positions" or "opinions" held by people these days are the speedy result of: 1) putting on, like a cheap hat, the views of talk radio idiots who are mostly interested in ratings; 2) taking as gospel the email inbox glurge that is forwarded endlessly, without regard to truth or facts; and 3) believing that everything the news media say is true, or perhaps that your own carefully chosen news network, and only that one, is accurate. Of course, when one sees or reads a report about which one has actual knowledge, one realizes that coincidentally, in this one isolated incident, they got half the facts wrong. But I digress....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
excellently written post as usual...and it's a good point you raise. many good points, in fact. there's something about knowing a bunch of a "true" story isn't true that makes it not as compelling to read, but the topic matter is truly awful, and I might just have to read it even so.
and the radio station I listen to only deals in facts of course. All the people who call in--they're all dealing in facts only, too.
Thanks. Yeah, I would still recommend the book as an interesting read as long as you know it might not all be true.
I read factual accounts only and am not afraid to hold the author's feet to the fire if i suspect inaccuracies.
you should try it sometime.
interesting point about news media. someone i know said that all in every story he ever read in the paper having to do with him (maybe half a dozen?), the reporter got facts wrong.
as you say, it's probably a coincidence.
Excellent and thoughtful post "because it is in my heart."
There is a follow up article on the book Burned Alive, looking at how the author has built up and changed her story over time:
http://www.aljadid.com/features/Burning-Question.html
Burning Questions
Prior to 2003, Souad and her co-author, Jacqueline Thibault, gave many public testimonies to raise funds ... In those days, the tale was that Souad had been an innocent untouched virgin, attacked by her family because of neighborhood gossip that she had been speaking with a boy. “Tortured for speaking to a boy!” was the headline in Elle magazine. By 2003, following the publication of “Burned Alive,” the story had transformed into that of a seduced and abandoned girl, burned alive because she was pregnant. …
When interviewed by La Vanguardia in November 2003, Souad explained that when first meeting Jacqueline Thibault she was amazed, having never seen blond hair in her life: “I saw her so blond, so luminous, that I thought it was God.” …In an almost comical mistake, Souad has apparently forgotten her previous descriptions of her own father. He is described as a menacing creature with light, gingery hair: “he had a pale complexion with red splotches … and mean blue eyes.” In another part of the text he is “almost an albino.” One really ought not to claim, on one occasion, to be the daughter of a sinister near-albino, and on another occasion, to have grown up without ever having seen a fair-skinned person. These are both good stories, but they contradict one another.
The examples given here are but a few of the many contradictions found in Souad’s interviews. …
Post a Comment