I don’t doubt Jules Crittendon’s critique of “The War” by his own standards; yet I was struck by Ken Burns’ assertion (in an interview on PBS) that he was basically out to capture not so much the facts of the war as a historical event, but its impact as an emotional one. Mr. Crittendon’s review is like my brother-in-law physician’s view of alternative medicine. His poo-poo of alternative medicine is right on the money given his “measuring stick” in viewing the body as a blood-based chemical plant; yet the efficacy of alternative medicine is nonetheless right on the money given a different “measuring stick” in viewing the body as an electrically-based power plant. Both are true. Discounting the other’s point of reference is like working a jigsaw puzzle using half of the pieces. I wonder what Mr. Crittendon would have written about “The War” had he seen that Ken Burns interview.
