Nick Bryant’s name is on a review of The Year It All Fell Down but half of it seems to be by someone else, his friend Nick Cater perhaps, or a Murdoch editor affrighted by his initial praise of me.
I here reprint this curious two-backed beast in full.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Much like 1956 or 1989, 2011 was a year of mega news, when each week seemingly produced the kind of tumble of events that would ordinarily keep newsrooms occupied for months.
On their own, the Arab Spring, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the Christchurch earthquake, the Breivik massacre in Oslo, the Occupy movement and the Queensland floods would have made for an unusually chaotic news year. But there were also the London riots, the closure of the News of the World, the royal wedding, the strange affair of former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the attack on the Kabul Inter-Continental, the loss of the US’s triple-A credit rating, the deaths of Elizabeth Taylor, Vaclav Havel, Amy Winehouse and Steve Jobs, and, of course, the killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden.
Even the final weeks of December, when journalists’ thoughts usually turn to the newsroom Christmas party, brought no let-up. Small wonder that on December 17, when the news came that the North Korean dictator had died, at least one weary anchor referred to him as Kim Jong the Second.
In his latest book, a news digest entitled The Year It All Fell Down, Bob Ellis revisits these world-altering events. He writes evocatively of major episodes such as the Japanese tsunami, and reminds us how extraordinary it was to see them unfold in real-time.
“It was a God’s-eye view of unfolding calamity, simultaneous with the event,” he writes of Japanese broadcaster NHK’s helicopter-mounted high definition cameras, “unlike any thus far in world history”. His description of “cars tumbling over a seawall in a dark Niagara” is particularly sharp and haunting.
As well as revisiting the obvious events, Ellis reminds us of stories that in another year would have hogged more headlines. Brazil experienced its first school massacre when a man posing as a lecturer shot dead 12 children in Rio de Janeiro. Texas suffered its worst wildfires, with more than 1500 properties razed. Science also had a red-letter year, capped by significant moves towards confirming the Higgs boson particle, as well as the detection of a planet 36 light years away in the Vela constellation “as likely as ours to have life on it”.
Woven through this book is the touching story of Gabby Giffords, the Arizona congresswoman shot in January, who doctors thought would not survive the week, let alone the year. To the remarkable Giffords, Ellis dedicates the book.
Occasionally, this sweeping narrative contains revealing details. At the time, I missed the story that Leon Panetta, the then director of the CIA, celebrated the successful mission against bin Laden with a bottle of 1870 Chateau Lafite Rothschild owned by a rich schoolfriend and set aside for that precise purpose. It was served in commemorative shot glasses embossed with the CIA insignia. The story, however, was reported widely at the time, which points to the book’s chief deficiency.
I could not identify a single instance in which Ellis has added to the historical record or delivered a fresh insight to enrich our understanding.
After wading through this compendium, I am still at a loss as to why he wrote it, still less why Penguin published it. Had it been a hot-off-the-press “quickie” that hit bookstores at the start of 2012, it would have made more sense.
Bringing it out 18 months later serves little purpose.
The publishers, confronted with the challenge of composing a blurb for the back cover, note that it will “refresh and repopulate our memories”. But a new book surely has to do more. It creates a sense that anybody with access to a handful of news websites could have written this kind of book, and also that nobody should have.
Absent is any great overarching thesis, or much of an attempt to explain the forces driving, say, the Arab Spring. Rather than being structured in a thematic manner, which would have lent itself to more theorising and intellectual coherence, it is merely a blow-by-blow chronology. Even then, the structuring is hard to fathom. Monthly chapters are subdivided into numbered sections, which one assumes at the beginning equate with days of the month. It soon becomes apparent, however, that these numerical sections are completely random.
As far as I could tell, Ellis has not borne witness to any of these events other to watch them on television or read about them in the newspapers. Large chunks are from previously published articles, which are introduced with the grating line: “Of this Ellis wrote”. Even more strangely, he quotes at indented length from the work of his collaborators, Damian Spruce and Stephen Ramsey. “Of this, Damian Spruce wrote”, and so on. Like Ellis, they are good writers, but their contributions add to the sense of disjointedness.
Of Ellis it should also be observed that some of his passages feel as if they were delivered to the publisher chiselled on granite, or perhaps dictated by the author clad in a toga. “Osama bin Laden’s tall silhouette,” he announces, “bewitched America’s bad dreams in Christendom’s third millennium like no other.”
Perhaps there are those who will enjoy reading about news events two years after the fact. Here, though it probably was never his intention, Ellis has produced the perfect antidote to the hurtling pace of Twitter: slow news.
Even the title, The Year It All Fell Down, is never explained adequately. Ellis has produced a peculiar and frustrating book.
The Year it All Fell Down by Bob Ellis with Damian Spruce and Stephen Ramsey, Viking, 264pp, $29.99
Nick Bryant is a journalist and author who will soon take up the post of the BBC’s New York and UN correspondent.
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
…. Well.
The palpable change of heart after the words ‘the book’s chief deficiency’ is, on the face of it, remarkable. One ‘fresh insight’ he quotes himself: ‘the God’s-eye view of unfolding calamity, simultaneous with the event, unlike any thus far in history’. Others lie in the portraits of Kervorkian, Schwarzenegger, Jobs, Havel, Assange, Paul Simon, Tony Bennett, Wills and Kate, and the connection between Strauss-Kahn’s ill-fated blow-job and the Europe-wide economic meltdown that followed within three days.
In the first half, he mentions ‘revealing details’ – the Chateau Lafite, the soul’s journey of Gabby Giffords – then says, contradicting himself, they were ‘widely reported’ anyway. This would be true too, I guess, of the details of the Dallas assassination in three thousand books, and a reason not to write them. Who cares any more what happened in 1963? It was all so long ago.
His astonishing view that it should have come out on January 1, 2012, a technological impossibility, shows a mind at the end of its tether. Should the book 1599: A Year In The Life Of Shakespeare have come out in 1600, and never after, or The Guns Of August in September? It is hard to argue this.
He says the title is nowhere explained. Let me explain it now. Fianna Fail fell down after sixty years.The Japanese economy, tsunami-smashed, after fifty years. Mubarak after forty. Ghaddafi after forty. The News of the World after a hundred and forty. Strauss-Kahn, felled by a false charge of oral rape, a physical impossibility. The US triple-A, felled by the Tea Party. Wall Street’s dominance of the known world. Young Labor in Norway, felled by Breivik. The pre-Zuckerman world. The orderly, safe image of London. Osama Bin Laden. Kervorkian. Jobs. Winehouse. The bizarre Orwellian Ruritania of Kim Il Jong. The secular sainthood of Julian Assange. The architectural beauty of Christchurch. The US towns trashed by the worst tornadoes in history.
All clear now?
And … the idea that this is a book that ‘anybody could have written’ and ‘nobody should have’ is entirely bizarre. You can’t say some of it seems ‘chiselled in granite’ by an ‘author clad in a toga’ – one summons to mind Gore Vidal, Robert Harris, Bob Carr – and that all of it is by definition tiresome because it all occurred, oh dear, two years ago (seventeen months ago, actually); you can say one but not both, for both is evidence of a confused mind. Is a book on Strauss-Kahn, Assange, Steve Jobs, Elizabeth Taylor, Bin Laden or Kim Jong-il impossible now because it concerns itself with events too remote to be any more of interest? Who but a damn fool would argue this?
Yet argue it Nick does, after praising it hugely.
I ask him to declare, in these columns, that he wrote all of this review, and this was the review he first submitted, or to say why he suffered mid-stream so identity-splitting a change of mind.
Recent Comments