Sir, – In reference to some of the correspondence regarding Diarmaid Ferriter’s review of Tim Pat Coogan’s new book, a defence given is the advanced age of the author. I would presume even Mr Coogan himself would not want casual ageism to be used as a form of defence. Likewise, getting dates and times wrong should not be excused, but the oversight of these errors could equally be attributed to the editors or publishers.
In my view, the crux of Diarmaid Ferriter’s argument is that Mr Coogan did not partake in the golden rule that history should be based on evidence.
Judging by the citations, or lack thereof, this is something that is lacking in this publication. Perhaps historians have not forgiven Tim Pat Coogan for his "historical consultant" role in Michael Collins, a film which contained a high amount of unhistorical and fictional material!
– Yours, etc,
EOIN WALSH,
Mooncoin,
Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – I note that in the four letters published on Tuesday (Letters, November 24th) about Prof Diarmaid Ferriter's criticism of Tim Pat Coogan's new book, The Mornings After – From the Courts Martial to the Tribunals none of them takes issue with any fact stated or conclusion drawn by Prof Ferriter in his review.
Two letters mention Mr Coogan’s age as a reason not to criticise him.
One simply makes the counter-intuitive syllogism that if Prof Ferriter finds fault with the book, then it must be worth purchasing.
The fourth letter, by Niall O’Dowd, makes the valid point that Mr Coogan opposed the revisionist idea that we, alone of all nations, should denigrate our brave men and women of the 1916-1921 period. For this I believe that he should be applauded. But the idea that Mr Coogan is an “icon” is absurd or that Mr Coogan is twice the historian that Prof Ferriter is doubly absurd or that Mr Coogan should not be subject to robust criticism now because he was correct in the past is trebly absurd.
If anyone takes issue with anything Prof Ferriter wrote, let us hear it.
– Yours, etc,
FRANK MacGABHANN
Skerries,
Co Dublin.