Jealous much? Not really…

I was over at the Huffington Post reading Jason Linkins’ blog about the new book Game Change. Mr. Linkins pretty much points out that this book, which is sold out in some places, is a salacious collection of gossip which is attributed to anonymous sources. Being trained as a historian, I tend to distrust stuff that doesn’t come with good footnotes. Mr. Linkins blasts the book for being so reliant on phantoms, and rightfully so.

But down in the comments, one person posts a pity, “Jealous much?” I believe he decided to make this witty foray into the discussion based on the fact that the book’s authors were paid a large advance for the tome. Clearly, the thinking went, since they got the big bucks and Mr. Linkins didn’t, he was motivated in his critique by pure spite and jealousy. This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this criticism being leveled against a critic, and it’s always delivered with that “this ends the argument” finality because, if the critic contests the point, he is answered with, “you’re in denial.”

Game. Set. Match.

But it’s important to recognize two things about this charge: Jealous much?

The first is this: it’s an ad hominem attack. It says absolutely nothing about the strength of the author’s argument. All it does is attempt to undermine the arguments by impugning the integrity of the author. Now it really doesn’t matter how scurrilous a louse an author may be, if his facts are facts, they stick. There is no escaping them.

In writing seminars, I open myself up to this sort of charge from time to time. I often note, for the pure shock effect, that, “I’d call Tom Clancy’s characters cardboard, but I have no desire to insult cardboard.” Now, there is no denying that Tom Clancy’s books sell better than mine. And even if I was simply pea-green with envy, his characters still would be less than cardboard. My being jealous, which I’m not, would not affect the validity of my comment.

And that brings us to the second point about that charge, Jealous much? The person who levels it shows they have no intention of even attempting to engage in a discussion. I would venture to say that this is because they know they’re intellectually out-classed, or realize that the argument being offered by the author is not refutable through an attack on the facts of the case. The second they level that charge, they’ve agreed they’ve lost the argument.

And, frankly, if they’re not smart enough to approach the championing of the subject matter from even a weak defense, you pretty much know they’ve not read the book and are just out trolling for a flame war. For example, for a book like the one under discussion, full of explosive material about powerful folks, you advance the, “for the sake of their families and their livelihoods, and in the interest of wanting the truth to get out, they had no choice but to comment anonymously,” defense of using anonymous sources. As I noted, it’s weak, but you get that conspiracy-vibe thing going, which a lot of folks will buy into.

Are there jealous people in the world who will rant and rave because they are insane concerning someone? Absolutely, but they usually froth on for countless pages about stuff that makes no sense, destroying their own credibility. Easily spotted, easily ignored.

Not so, I fear, Mr. Linkins’ critique.