pumpkinstrokemarrow

And 'Iphigenia in Forest Hills' being the name of a book by Janet Malcolm, which rates full length, top billed reviews in both the NYRB and the TLS. As luck would have it, I came across them both. The subject of the book is the trial of one doctor who was alleged to have hired a hit man, who happened to be her uncle, to kill another doctor, who happened to be her husband; a trial which attracted much media attention in New York in 2009. I knew nothing of it.

TLS came first and their reviewer is a lady author. The impression she gives is that the book is a post-modern, deconstructed view of the badly flawed trial of a tragic lady doctor. That Janet Malcolm, apart from taking the lady doctor's part and showing no regard for the victim, is determined to take the legal process apart. To show how the trial is an ugly show, or perhaps a contest, with the truth, whatever that may be, hardly getting a look in. The lady doctor was never given a chance. She, the author, seems to put no value on evidence or process. At the end of this review, my thought was why has the TLS given so much space to this tripe?

Then there was the NYRB and their reviewer is a gentleman publisher and author. He is clearly fascinated by all the post-modern twists and turns. The way that we all try to superimpose a coherent and satisfying story on the rather casual mish-mash of truths and half truths that is what we have to go on, in this case in a trial. He describes the book as brief but immense. "All her art is deployed to reveal the seams and interstices of the art-making process". He gives quite a lot of space to the role of the rather odd sounding lawyer appointed to look after the interests of the couple's child; a looking after which result in the death of the father. At the end of this review, my thought was maybe I had better the get the thing and take a look for myself. Unfortunately, Surrey Libraries have not heard of Janet Malcolm, and I hesitate before buying a book which I suspect will turn out to be superficially clever, full of interesting colour, but shallow.

I close with a wonder about the efficacy of process. The Catholic Church believes that a sacrament is valid, provided it is conducted according to the rules, whatever the flaws and failings of the celebrants. They believe in the efficacy of process. Management consultants believe in the efficacy of process, in part because most large firms of such consultants have processes to sell. People called in to review the doings of others quite explicitly check the process not the product. Can't second guess professional judgements about the ambulance service in New Malden (for example) but I can check the process you went through in coming to those judgements. I believe in process - provided sufficient room is left for content. One has to beware of writing a report that consists of little more than the copious headings supplied by the process manual. But Janet Malcolm appears to have no regard for process at all.