Alvin Kernan (1923–2018)

If you don't already know the Battle of Midway, this book will leave it, er, unknown.

This isn't a book about the whole battle; it is quite specific to the air squadrons, especially the torpedo squadrons that were slaughtered at Midway. But this book offers a much better analysis than most about why it happened. It's not a pretty story. And it shows just how lucky the Americans were to win at Midway.

The book has another advantage, in that it is by an actual veteran of Midway, and one who was show more a member of the fighting squadrons, although he wasn't flight crew. It is a useful insider's view.

Most of the book is devoted to just how bad both battle tactics and tactical control were in the American forces at Midway -- poor in the Yorktown, the most experienced aircraft carrier; worse in the Enterprise, which had been in service for a while but had never been in battle; worst of all in the still-new Hornet, where the air squadrons were totally mishandled and only one of the four, the torpedo squadron, managed to ever find the enemy fleet -- and lost every one of its planes and all but one of its flight crew (one, pilot George Gay, survived being shot down and was rescued).

The account of the torpedo squadron's destruction brings home something that isn't really clear in the typical, more chronological, account of the battle: Just how bad the Hornet planes' performances were. The Battle of Midway was won by the pilots from the Yorktown and the Enterprise; the Hornet added nothing except casualties. You can figure this out if you read the chronological accounts and take enough notes, but it's much clearer here where the emphasis is on particular air groups.

Author Kernan seems to focus most of the blame on the Hornet's air group commander, Stanhope C. Ring, whose name is almost never mentioned in other accounts. I can't verify this, but it makes sense.

All in all, this provides a good corrective to the common accounts which heap so much praise on the Americans. The Americans did have big advantages -- e.g. their knowledge of Japanese plans -- but it wouldn't have been enough except for their big dose of good fortune.

The book is short and a good read, although the handful of maps are very confusing. And, to repeat, it won't explain the Battle of Midway to you if you don't already know about it. But if you do, and want another perspective, this book will be a fine addition to your library. show less

Alvin Kernan's death decree of "Literature" is more of a condemnation of deconstructionist literary theories and the inability of Universities to strictly adhere to traditional classic literature, which includes the legitimization of less conservative schools of literary theory. To be more specific on that latter point, Kernan repeatedly mentions how Feminist, Minority, and Marxist Literary Theory have been granted legitimacy over "the real language of men." Economics are also injected into show more the discussion, as Kernan occasionally points out how much capitalism and the free-market helped define or control "real" literature.

In short, Kernan's theory on literature seems to be driven by politically and socially conservative ideologies more than anything else. This is readily apparent in the first chapter when he highlights the death of real literature by discussing out three art exhibits of the eighties, two of which - the Mapplethorpe exhibit and the "Piss-Christ" - were mainly controversial due to right-wing outrage over the subject matter. Beyond the bizarre notion of comparing NEA funding to literary Academia, this start complains of the politicization of art while simultaneously taking a political stand along strictly conservative lines. This is how the majority of his argument continues to play out, and underlines the major flaw of this work: Kernan claims the degradation of the intellectual life of literature while buttressing his argument with repeated morale and political judgments. It should be no surprise that Kenan specifically mentions The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom in his introduction, as The Death of Literature follows the same conservative argument that progressively liberal ideologies and an increasingly permissive culture are bringing about the destruction of goodness, decency, and normalcy.

This is not to say that The Death of Literature isn't worth reading. Kernan knows his literature, and both his historical and structural interpretations are worth reading for his deeply informed opinions, even when he betrays his accumulated knowledge to defend his conservative viewpoints. An entire chapter, for example, is dedicated to how the literary world's defense of Lady Chatterley against obscenity charges began the decline of literature, somehow equating sexual promiscuity and anti-censorship with a loosening of academic principles. Indeed, any advances in literary theory beyond 1900 are seen as a step backwards (or down, as the case may be), with the aforementioned feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, and other minority (black, gay, etc...) focuses on literary theory being mentioned repeatedly throughout. Of course, literary critics are also to blame for becoming a profession, and you can hear the same venom in his voice when he mentions them as you would a Republican bemoaning "activist judges."

A perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty inherent within some of Kernan's arguments is when he goes off against deconstructionist theory by repeatedly referring to the Jacques Derrida quote "there is nothing outside the text," and rallying against the idea that nothing exists but the words. The problem is that this is an oft-mistranslated quote that really translates as "there is no outside-text," which was meant to describe how words cannot avoid linguistic context, and that words gain their meanings from their context and contrast with other words. I personally believe that Kernan knows this, but chooses to believe the intentionally misunderstood language to support his soapbox.

So, if you tend to be right-leaning in your social-political views, then this book will definitely preach to your choir as it laments the loss of the good old days when the definition of what counts as literature was controlled by a small cabal of elitist white males ensconced in old-world Academia. However, if your views shift more to the left, you'll also get a lot out of Kernan's evaluation of literature's gradual progression, as long as you're able to read between the lines, and willing to forgive his occasional lapses into ideological furors over nothing. show less

What really happened at the famous Battle of Midway? A survivor sets the record straight.
The Battle of Midway is considered the greatest U.S. naval victory, but behind the luster is the devastation of the American torpedo squadrons. Of the 51 planes sent to attack Japanese carriers only 7 returned, and of the 127 aircrew only 29 survived. Not a single torpedo hit its target.

A story of avoidable mistakes and flawed planning, The Unknown Battle of Midway reveals the enormous failures that led show more to the destruction of four torpedo squadrons but were omitted from official naval reports: the planes that ran out of gas, the torpedoes that didn’t work, the pilots who had never dropped torpedoes, and the breakdown of the attack plan. Alvin Kernan, who was present at the battle, has written a troubling but persuasive analysis of these and other little-publicized aspects of this great battle. The standard navy tactics for carrier warfare are revealed in tragic contrast to the actual conduct of the battle and the after-action reports of the ships and squadrons involved. show less

A book written in the 1960s is still relevant today, showing that, unlike science, theatre doesn't change theory rapidly. Although the plays used as illustrations are different than what you would see in a more recent book, the ideas presented are essentially unchanged, though there is much less focus on the actor/director than on the play. Unlike modern works, this book does not even mention the primacy of the actor/director; for the author, the play is what is important. This is one of the show more few things in theatrical theory that has changed, and not for the better. The plays are rather standard, all mostly linear plays, many of them overwritten by today's standards, but still good illustrations of the idea of character and conflict. A good introduction to theatre, but rather lightweight as textbooks go. show less