Diarmaid Ferriter slams Tim Pat Coogan's new book

MakeEmLaugh

Professor Diarmaid Ferriter of UCD has absolutely slammed the new book of Tim Pat Coogan, 1916: The Mornings After, describing it as a “travesty of 20th-century Irish history”.

In a scathing review of the “truly dreadful book”, published in The Irish Times, Ferriter takes Coogan to task for claiming to produce a “hitherto unpublished” letter from Patrick Pearse to John Devoy in New York, despite the fact that the letter was previously published, 35 years ago, in Séamas Ó Buachalla’s The Letters of PH Pearse.

Ferriter writes: “On the basis of this example and many others Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence.”

Ferriter goes on to criticise the lack of citations, and the fact that six of the 21 endnotes cited (for a 300 page book) are from Coogan's previous books, showing that much of the material is recycled.

“There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced.”

Ferriters lists a number of events, the dates of which Coogan gets wrong, including

• Arthur Griffith's founding of Sinn Féin
• The founding of the Ulster Volunteer Force
• Erskin Childers smuggling guns into Ireland
• King George V's opening of the Northern Ireland parliament

“Coogan is also a master of sweeping, inaccurate generalisations”, Ferriter goes on to say.

“It is also embarrassing that for all the attention he gives to institutional abuse he cannot even manage accuracy about the purpose of the landmark report of the Ryan commission, published in 2009.”

Trust me, there's a lot more that Ferriter takes issue with.

He does close by saying that “Coogan is... a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history ”.

This is hardly the first time a historian has taken issue with Coogan's work.

When Coogan's last book, The Famine Plot, was published, Professor Liam Kennedy of Queen's University Belfast said:

“Tim Pat has not researched the Famine in depth. One of striking things about this book is the narrowness of the evidential sources he uses, and indeed they're presented so badly. Titles are misquoted... I find it terribly difficult – and I'm not being unkind – to find any redeeming feature in this book”

What do people think? Is Ferriter being unfair on Coogan? Or is he right to call him out on things like this?

Jesus.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What do people think? Is Ferriter being unfair on Coogan? Or is he right to call him out on things like this?

Perhaps but I'll have to read the book first. My immediate reaction would be to take the side of Coogan simply because every time I turn the TV or radio on Ferriter is there. I'm tired of listening to him. RTE & everyone else roll him out any time there's a discussion about anything remotely historical (or even nothing to do with history). Why can't they go and get some other people and give them a chance rather than going back to the same person every single time?

Oh right, I forgot. That's the way RTE does things

Phoebas

Jesus. wrote: »

Oh right, I forgot. That's the way RTE does things

I still see Coogan popping up on RTE from time to time. Not as much as he used to. At one point he was a regular on Questions and Answers whenever there was a possibility of an IRA / peace process question.
I guess he was the Ferriter of that era.

Jesus.

Indeed Phoebas. They don't like variety. Its a closed shop in Montrose. The last few years Ferrier has hogged the debate and its interesting that in his review of Coogan he refers more than once to Coogan's hogging the limelight. That suggests to me that Ferriter's own ego has grown so large (because of being courted by the the media so much) he see's his reflection in others whom he believes to be similar. Its called transference.

He's the only Sheriff in town and he wants it to stay that way

Manach

The OP's report of this review does seem to show a hostile opinion of the book that goes beyond mere quibbles about dates and references. From other areas of history research I've rarely have come across this level of animosity. Would there be a record of person emnity between the two historians?

Dr.Nightdub

Manach wrote: »

From other areas of history research I've rarely have come across this level of animosity.

I recall a previous review by Ferriter that said "This book should never have been written" or words to that effect. So my guess is that what motivated him to write this scathing review of Coogan's book wasn't personal animosity but a desire to uphold the values of "proper" history - factual accuracy, use of sources, etc.

If Ferriter's review puts someone off buying Coogan's book and instead encourages them to seek out a work of "proper" history on the same subject, then he'll have performed a useful service.

Fratton Fred

Manach wrote: »

The OP's report of this review does seem to show a hostile opinion of the book that goes beyond mere quibbles about dates and references. From other areas of history research I've rarely have come across this level of animosity. Would there be a record of person emnity between the two historians?

I would put it down to Coogan not actually being a historian, more a writer who writes historical books for a certain market.

LordSutch

Perhaps but I'll have to read the book first. My immediate reaction would be to take the side of Ferriter simply because Coogan is so glairingly & unreasonably anti British whenever he can be. I'm tired of listening to him, ans I guess Ferriter is too.

Heard Coogan on the radio recently explaining that we Irish drink too much because of the British, so even alcoholism is blamed on "the British" according to Tim Pat :cool:

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

Perhaps but I'll have to read the book first. My immediate reaction would be to take the side of Ferriter simply because....

That's called plagiarism, Sutch. I'm not sure Mr Ferriter would approve...

LordSutch

Lord if you please, Jesus.

..if plagiarism was good enough for George Harrison, then its good enough for me

convert

I remember trying to follow up on a specific reference in one of TP's books. The source/call number as he cited it didn't exist. It frustrated the hell out of me. Then I was at his 'talk' on the Famine at a recent History Festival, where he stated with authority that the Famine was a genocide, and managed to convince well over half the room that he was correct, despite the fact that a lot of the information he used to support his argument was inaccurate!

I think, going on those reasons alone, Ferriter is probably right in his take on the book. I wouldn't think it's necessarily personal, just probably a sense of frustration.

tabbey

Apologies to Fratton Fred if I am plagiarising him.

The fundamental difference between Coogan and Ferriter, is that Ferriter is an historian by profession, while Coogan is a journalist / writer. Both, of course, write and speak on historical matters, but they are coming from different disciplines.

An historian puts accuracy and sources first, while the writer is more into wordcount and entertainment. Hopefully both will be accurate and entertaining, but their core values differ.
Personally I have considerable regard for both men, while sometimes feeling irritated by them also. This is what makes them attractive to audiences.

Arsemageddon

Manach wrote: »

The OP's report of this review does seem to show a hostile opinion of the book that goes beyond mere quibbles about dates and references. From other areas of history research I've rarely have come across this level of animosity. Would there be a record of person emnity between the two historians?

Ferriter and Coogan do have previous form. When Ferriter wrote called Judging Dev which was a fairly objective biography of DeValera, Coogan lambasted it in two reviews. Coogan's own biography of DeValera was very simplistic (Collins good, Dev bad). Ferriter's book is by far the better of the two.

In fairness to Coogan (and Anthony Jordan - author of numerous Irish political biographies) he did make some valid points about the way Judging Dev was promoted by FF upon release, two copies were sent to every secondary school in the country, RTE commissioned a ten part radio series and numerous ministers publicly stating that it was the best book ever.

By the by, I do think Jesus makes a very good point about Ferriter being ubiquitous in the media. It's not a criticism of the man himself as I'm always interested in what he has to say, I just think it's laziness on the part of some media outlets to not feature other historians.

Thinkingaboutit

I identify Mr Ferriter as a bit of an insider, a onetime Bertie buddy, but still close to power even post FF. That said, he makes points which would undermine Mr Coogan's work if true. Tim Pat Coogan is hardly an outsider, though. I become wary of historians who appear too often on TV. I was a bit unhappy with his book on the late Pres De Valera. It has many merits, but there seemed more than a hint of personal animus towards the man who was his former boss in the Irish Press.

KingBrian2

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Professor Diarmaid Ferriter of UCD has absolutely slammed the new book of Tim Pat Coogan, 1916: The Mornings After, describing it as a “travesty of 20th-century Irish history”.

In a scathing review of the “truly dreadful book”, published in The Irish Times, Ferriter takes Coogan to task for claiming to produce a “hitherto unpublished” letter from Patrick Pearse to John Devoy in New York, despite the fact that the letter was previously published, 35 years ago, in Séamas Ó Buachalla’s The Letters of PH Pearse.

Ferriter writes: “On the basis of this example and many others Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence.”

Ferriter goes on to criticise the lack of citations, and the fact that six of the 21 endnotes cited (for a 300 page book) are from Coogan's previous books, showing that much of the material is recycled.

“There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced.”

Ferriters lists a number of events, the dates of which Coogan gets wrong, including

• Arthur Griffith's founding of Sinn Féin
• The founding of the Ulster Volunteer Force
• Erskin Childers smuggling guns into Ireland
• King George V's opening of the Northern Ireland parliament

“Coogan is also a master of sweeping, inaccurate generalisations”, Ferriter goes on to say.

“It is also embarrassing that for all the attention he gives to institutional abuse he cannot even manage accuracy about the purpose of the landmark report of the Ryan commission, published in 2009.”

Trust me, there's a lot more that Ferriter takes issue with.

He does close by saying that “Coogan is... a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history ”.

This is hardly the first time a historian has taken issue with Coogan's work.

When Coogan's last book, The Famine Plot, was published, Professor Liam Kennedy of Queen's University Belfast said:

“Tim Pat has not researched the Famine in depth. One of striking things about this book is the narrowness of the evidential sources he uses, and indeed they're presented so badly. Titles are misquoted... I find it terribly difficult – and I'm not being unkind – to find any redeeming feature in this book”

What do people think? Is Ferriter being unfair on Coogan? Or is he right to call him out on things like this?

A few point on this.

Getting a few historical details wrong when the overall story is historically accurate is most important.

Point two
It is good to see different historical interpretations of events that shaped this country. We have the benefit of looking back and observing how different the times were back then and putting into context the events that took place. We had no television to witness what was taking place in the landscape of 20th century Irish politics.

Last point
The famine has irrelevance to the 20th century, yeah we know it was major crisis in the 19th century but the following century was completely different. Irish society was going through the experiences of WW1 having a very real change in Irish history.

laoch na mona

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Last point
The famine has irrelevance to the 20th century, yeah we know it was major crisis in the 19th century but the following century was completely different. Irish society was going through the experiences of WW1 having a very real change in Irish history.

The Famine was extremely relevant in the 20th century, along with contemporary events such as ww1, the famine arguably altered the Irish psyche, defiantly altered the material conditions of Irish society(it killed off most the rural poor which killed the language in many areas as well as altering the rural social dynamic, and lead to increased urban populations which created the conditions for the new unionism of Larkin et al), most importantly post famine Irish national politics emphasised the land question which allowed it to develop it's popular support in a way the United Irishmen or young Irelanders never could.

tabbey

laoch na mona wrote: »

The Famine was extremely relevant in the 20th century, along with contemporary events such as ww1, the famine arguably altered the Irish psyche, defiantly altered the material conditions of Irish society(it killed off most the rural poor which killed the language in many areas as well as altering the rural social dynamic, and lead to increased urban populations which created the conditions for the new unionism of Larkin et al), most importantly post famine Irish national politics emphasised the land question which allowed it to develop it's popular support in a way the United Irishmen or young Irelanders never could.

Laoch na Mona is undoubtedly correct in saying it altered the Irish psyche, however I would question the idea that it led to increased urban populations. Look at the census for Dublin, over the following half century, there were only gradual modest increases in residents, in stark contrast to rapid development in Belfast, where industrialisation, largely led by our Ulster Scottish brethren, made massive progress.
In the rest of Ireland, smaller towns were hammered even more. Youghal for example, and many more, have still to recover their pre-famine populations.
The famine knocked the confidence, not merely of rural Ireland, but Dublin, Cork etc.

KingBrian2

laoch na mona wrote: »

The Famine was extremely relevant in the 20th century, along with contemporary events such as ww1, the famine arguably altered the Irish psyche, defiantly altered the material conditions of Irish society(it killed off most the rural poor which killed the language in many areas as well as altering the rural social dynamic, and lead to increased urban populations which created the conditions for the new unionism of Larkin et al), most importantly post famine Irish national politics emphasised the land question which allowed it to develop it's popular support in a way the United Irishmen or young Irelanders never could.

Yes but that was the 19th century not the 20th century. John Mitchel and O' Donovan Rossa experienced the famine in their lifetime and the men and women of the early 20th century were dying in the trenches of Belgium. Couple with this was how vastly different Irish society had become by the time Arthur Griffith became President of Sinn Fein & James Connolly with Tom Clarke coming to Ireland to organise a movement against the industrial ruling class.

MakeEmLaugh

The spat continues.

Coogan has responded to Ferriter's review, or at least acknowledged it.

"It is dust beneath the chariot wheels... It was just a piece of scurrility which is best ignored."

(He really does come across as a grumpy old bollocks, if you'll forgive the language.)

Ferriter, meanwhile, hasn't changed his mind:

“The review was based entirely on content, research and evidence, which I think is entirely sensible... If you are asking a historian to review a book about 100 years of Irish history then that is the focus of the review . . . people are trying to make out there is some sort of personal grudge or history between us, but that is just not true.”

Some have pointed out that Coogan gave a quite scathing review of Ferriter's book Judging Dev in the May/June 2008 edition of History Ireland, where he described it as "a work of cunning hagiography", which "glossed over or ignored" unfavourable parts of de Valera's life and career.

Ferriter mainained that his criticisms were nothing personal:

"Tim Pat Coogan has obviously been writing for a long time and he is a very popular author, but I was asked to review the book and this is about calling him to account about his methodology and his history writing . . . that is what I do... He vigorously promotes himself as Ireland's best-known historical writer and he has very strong views, he doesn't agree with me and I don't agree with him. That is not personal.

We have had personal exchanges which have been few but very pleasant. I went out of my way to make that point, why would I do that if I had a personal grudge against him?

Nobody is about one book, Tim Pat no more than anybody else, so it's not personal. If you are making assertions about serious matters then you have to do the research and say where the information is coming from.”

Niall O'Dowd of the Irish-American website IrishCentral.com has chipped in, saying

“I am deeply shocked that Ferriter who I would not have considered in that camp (revisionist), has now matched them for vitriol”.

Bear in mind, Niall O'Dowd is someone who wrote, in June 2010, that Gerry Adams deserved the title of 'Ireland's Greatest' which had recently been awarded to John Hume. I think that says plenty.

Jesus.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

"He vigorously promotes himself as Ireland's best-known historical writer and he has very strong views, he doesn't agree with me and I don't agree with him. That is not personal."

Of course its personal because its ego driven. That must be the 4th or 5th time Ferriter has mentioned that Coogan promotes himself as Ireland's best known writer. That gets under Ferriter's skin because the years of the media fawning all over him has made him believe he's the one who should be the best known.

RTE are such a joke

Lt Dan

Manach wrote: »

The OP's report of this review does seem to show a hostile opinion of the book that goes beyond mere quibbles about dates and references. From other areas of history research I've rarely have come across this level of animosity. Would there be a record of person emnity between the two historians?

But, that in no way actually deals with valid criticism raised by Ferriter if ,upon reading Coogan's book, the book is shabby and lacks research, accuracy and citations. It is nothing personal. If Ferriter is correct in his assessment then Coogan or anyone else (including him) deserves to be called out on it

Lt Dan

Jesus. wrote: »

Of course its personal because its ego driven. That must be the 4th or 5th time Ferriter has mentioned that Coogan promotes himself as Ireland's best known writer. That gets under Ferriter's skin because the years of the media fawning all over him has made him believe he's the one who should be the best known.

RTE are such a joke

What is Ferriter is correct? That the book is riddled with inaccuracies? Isn't he entitled to make a valid, accurate and honest assessment?

Nothing to do with ego etc

Coogan , correctly, had no qualms calling out the former Trinity Professor, Peter Harte, who wrote a book about the Tan War in Cork , based on evidence of an imaginary eye witness, whom he failed to clarify his source and rebut the allegations made against him

Nothing to do with ego.

Coogan is well able to defend himself. The fact that he point blankly refused to clarify and rebut allegations that his facts are inaccurate says it all. He is talking about facts, so he should expect to be criticized if such basic facts are incorrect.

Coogan was entitled to be critical of Judging Dev book. A huge waste of money and told us nothing new, if you read his hatchet job of a book and the more rounded edition by T Dwyer. Even then, Coogan was accused of having an axe to grind against the family (for good reason)

Inventing a personal grudge that is not there is dishonest and actually gets away from the real issues

Powerhouse

I read the review later a few days ago and saw nothing in it that justifies people saying it was a personal attack on Tim Pat Coogan. It seemed to be an attack on his methodologies which is fair enough. The fact that no one is arguing the contrary i.e that Coogan does show regard for context, has used exhaustive sources, and is entirely accurate, but instead are talking about possible (and increasingly fantastic) motives on the part of Ferriter does not exactly dilute his argument. Presumably if they could challenge him on his substantive arguments they would.

I think many people are so used to fluffy book reviews written by friends/colleagues of the author which are essentially designed to promote books they reel away in shock when there is a bit of candour. There is also a reality that many people are interested in history but have scant knowledge of how punctilious about sources serious historical writing is. For many it's all about the narrative and preferably one that panders to their prejudices. Ferriter could never get through to that audience but for Tim Pat, as a journalist, it would be native territory. Consequently many have an understandable affection for Coogan but why his writing should not be held up to the same light as anyone else writing history is not clear.

Jesus.

Ferriter has himself been accused of perpetuating historical inaccuracies also:

Similar phrases he used were That is my whole object in carrying on a Protestant Government for a Protestant people. The correct phrase was quoted by Jonathan Bardon, and Professor Ronan Fanning, but the common misquotation has been relayed by eminent historians such as Diarmaid Ferriter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Protestant_Parliament_for_a_Protestant_People

Lt Dan

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Has he not already written a book about this subject?

Judging by my inglorious typo mistake of "what is" as oppose to "what if", a well known radio 1 show that Diarmuid use to host, clearly , I am not.

But seriously, DF has a point and Coogan is running scared. Worst of all people in this thread are ignoring major issues here and are trying to bring up a clash of personalities. As usual, the Irish try and make things personal

jonniebgood1

Off topic posts removed
Moderator