Score

Well, your objection is framed as a metaphor , one I'm not quite picking up on. I read Denmark and the Jews , and I've been hearing about The Benality of Evil for so long I thought it was Gospel, but I want very much to hear about your objections to Arendt in detail. L, Thom

Can we add the memoirs of New Yorker writers/editors/staffers to this list?

Reese wrote: "Because I haven't read Arendt's EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM, I am prepared to be enlightened by and to have my attitude toward the book changed by those who know the work. ...If readers can offer evidence that will change my attitude toward the book, I hope that they will share the information."

I think the only thing that can change your attitude toward the book is to read the book. How can you critique the book from an uninformed position? Even stranger, how can you request that other people not vote for the book? Reading the book will either change your mind, or not. If it fails to change your mind, your suspicions and fears will be confirmed and you will be able to write a nasty review (which I would look forward to reading). At the very least, you will have gained some knowledge and awareness.

Anyone should feel free to express whatever opinion they choose. But it's hard to take seriously someone expressing deep fears and suspicions of a book from only secondhand information and others' opinions.

I don't know why two anonymous people who don't know each other still wouldn't expect to be taken seriously. What do acquaintance or anonymity have to do with anything?

I may develop an attitude or opinion about a book before reading it, but I have no expectation that that attitude or opinion is accurate, until I've read the book. I also think people should read widely, including works they suspect they may disagree with. But you might find you don't disagree with Arendt. Here's a review from Amazon:

A previous reviewer claims that Arendt's book shows the ambivalence of human nature, proving that in effect anybody could have done what Eichmann did. In fact, this is exactly the cynical point of view that Arendt opposes in this, and her other writings. Her argument here is a revision of her earlier position on 'radical evil' advanced in The Origins of Totalitarianism, a position which Heidegger claimed to find 'incomprehensible.' She argues here that banality and "sheer thoughtlessness" (akin to Heidegger's reflections on boredom) are in fact the root of Evil. To put it better, evil continues precisely because of its inherent rootlessness, its constitutive disregard of the world. Thus, the detachment of claims such as "Anybody could have done what Eichmann did" distort her intention. Evil, she insists, is not an inevitable aspect of human nature, but instead arises from an unwillingness to understand.

The most recent edition even contains a "postscript directly addressing the controversy that arose over her account."

Reese wrote: "I do appreciate your taking the time to present a discussion of Arendt's thesis. While I have not read the book (as you know), I did read assessments and analyses by readers who praised the book an..."

You guys are way more cerebral than me--I just read whatever's lying around.