Letters

By Letters
Sunday, October 22, 2006

Web of Words

Charles Seife, a journalism professor with a background in science, reviewed my book The Artist and the Mathematician in your Oct. 15 issue.

It seems that Seife has submitted every sentence in my book to a Google search, and the search resulted in two short sentences that he claimed appeared on a Web site. Even the two sentences he found were in no way identical to the ones in my book. He presented them in a way that insinuated that I have taken these sentences from the Web site, and stated: "A reader without a PhD in mathematics will be baffled by Aczel's prose. In all probability, so would an intellectual property lawyer."

But I have never, ever visited the Web site quoted by Seife. So why would two small sentences appearing in my book be similar to ones found in one out of tens of millions of Web pages searched? Every time a book of mine is published, roughly 10,000 new Web pages are created or modified, and as we all know (although apparently the journalism professor does not), Web pages proliferate and copy from each other without restriction. Some of them attribute their sources, while others do not.

For example, any search of my name on the Web encyclopedia Wikipedia.com will reveal at least 27 entries based on information in one of my 13 well-researched and authoritative books on science, which have generally been well received, have been translated into 22 languages, and have been nominated for awards. And while Wikipedia is meticulous in acknowledging and referencing its sources, not all Web sites do, and it is almost impossible to trace all sources of material appearing on the Internet. I am not saying that the Web page quoted by Seife got its information necessarily from my book, but it may have used information from a common source with my book. My sources are carefully referenced and footnoted, as I have done with every one of my many books (but as every author knows, not every sentence can be footnoted, or else no one would read the book).

I am further disturbed by Seife's sloppy writing, which habitually distorts my information and takes my sentences out of context. In his zeal to smear my name, he even tries to pull another sentence from my book and force it onto an external source. When that comparison fails because the two sentences are quite different from one another, Seife latches on to the order of names in a list. He claims that "the likelihood that the two passages would list the names in the same order is less than 1 percent, even taking into account the grouping into older and younger mathematicians." This is pure nonsense. Information from mathematicians was derived through interviews. If a mathematician listed names in a particular order (decreasing age), why do I -- or anyone else, for that matter -- have to purposely change it?

As someone with a PhD in statistics (and the author of two leading statistics textbooks, one of them now in its sixth edition), I strongly take issue with Seife's gross misuse of probability theory and logic. But what bothers me even more than Seife's lack of understanding of science is that the journalism professor apparently does not understand U.S. copyright law. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever copyrighted the order in which people's names are listed.

Unlike Seife, I am doubtful that an intellectual property lawyer would ever be "baffled" by my book -- but perhaps a libel lawyer might be baffled by his review.

-- AMIR D. ACZEL

Harvard University

Weighing in on Giuliani

It was unfair of The Post to give Vincent Cannato the choice of eating his own words or trashing ours (Book World, Sept. 3). Of course, he could've said, "No, I can't review Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 because its core message is the opposite of what I've already written." But that's clearly too much to expect from a man who's made his bones as chief of staff to New Jersey's most conservative Republican, ex-mayor Bret Schundler, as well as on the opinion pages of the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Given an opportunity to assail a book that questions the prescience, preparation and 9/11 response of Rudy Giuliani, Cannato couldn't let the twinge of conscience overcome the tug of duty.

Just a year ago, Cannato wrote a 2,300-word salute to Giuliani in the Weekly Standard that also served as his review of Fred Siegel's equally star-struck tome, entitled Prince of the City . Cannato concluded that "the city's response to 9/11 was part of years of planning" and that Giuliani "admirably did not share" what Cannato called "the general complacency toward terrorism in the 1990s." Just to make sure we got his partisan contrast, Cannato repeated that "unlike many in Washington during the 1990's, Giuliani and his associates saw terrorism as 'an ongoing threat.' " Giuliani proved, summed up Cannato, "that the city was 'governable' while under terrorist attack." Cannato did not disclose that his Siegel review returned a favor. Siegel had written a gush about Cannato's book, The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York , in The Post in 2001. Cannato upgraded Siegel's declaration that the Lindsay book was "essential reading," rating Siegel's work as "required reading."

Every one of the Cannato judgments about Giuliani in his 2005 Siegel review -- including his praise of Giuliani's emergency-management operation -- is challenged in our book with more detail and evidence on a single page than Siegel managed in his entire examination of Giuliani's readiness résumé. In fact, contrary to Cannato's claim then that Giuliani was "aware of the risks of terrorism since the first attack in 1993," we establish from a dozen named and inside sources that he never mentioned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and never questioned his police and emergency management commissioner candidates about it. The top uniformed police official throughout the Giuliani era said he prepared detailed descriptions of the city's most vulnerable sites, with the World Trade Center at the top, and briefed the mayor who, he said, "glazed over" during the discussion.

Cannato's review was only the latest evidence of his Giuliani devotion. As the Boston Globe put it, Cannato's book concluded with "a celebration of the age of Giuliani," whom he called the "un-Lindsay."

-- WAYNE BARRETT and DAN COLLINS

New York

Vincent Cannato replies :

I have to admit it is amusing to be accused of ideological bias by Wayne Barrett, a writer for the supremely un-objective (but entertaining) Village Voice.

You also have to wonder about the authors' skills as investigative reporters when they can't even get my former job title correct. I was never chief of staff to Mayor Bret Schundler, merely a lowly aide. And I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with my review.

Barrett and Collins's letter displays an obsession with the motives of others that is a central theme of their book. If an individual doesn't share their white-hot hatred of Giuliani, then he must be a political hack. Theirs is a petty style of argument, and I'll let readers compare the tone of my review with the personal attacks of their letter. (You mean I have actually written for the Wall Street Journal? Gasp!)

The authors ignore the central issue of the review. If Giuliani's supposed negligence of terrorism was so obvious, why didn't one of the authors, in his 2000 tabloid biography of Giuliani, bring up the issue? And why, when the book did mention Giuliani's creation of the Office of Emergency Management "bunker," did Barrett dismiss it as "militarist overkill"? Now who was being dismissive of security issues pre-9/11?

Send letters to us at bwletters@washpost.com.