#really want to get my hands on Moloney's Voices from the Grave

[kithj]

i finally finished Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keefe and whew what a book. probably one of my favorite non-fiction books i've ever read, and the audiobook was excellent.

this book really gives a lot of context and nuance around the case, and i really really enjoyed the "deep dive" into Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes. especially with Dolours Price, because we really get to follow her from the start, first as peaceful student protestor, then her radicalization, and ultimately her disillusionment and trauma following the hunger strikes. both with the Price sisters and Hughes we really get to see the kind of... long-term effects, mentally and physically, of so much trauma and violence. but i never felt that Keefe was unfairly harsh nor did he try to demonize armed resistance; in my opinion, he did seem to have an understanding about why people like Hughes and Price did what they did. he does criticize the loyalists and the British army as well, and even comments on the asymmetry in accountability after the good friday agreement, but overall the book is definitely way more focused on the provisional IRA-- it's definitely not a full look at the troubles, but i think it's a good starting point. it's definitely written for American audiences.

which brings me to my criticisms. about half-way through i started looking up the work of Ed Moloney, who is referenced a lot throughout the book & collaborated with Keefe, sharing resources and interviews, etc. Moloney does not like this book. he alleges that Keefe purposefully omitted primary sources that he himself gave him, that confirmed the presence of informers in Divis Flats as well as confirmed the use of the so-called "mysterious radio." Moloney does consider that this could have been something publishers made him do-- after all, the "good vs evil" / "perfect victim" narrative (which Keefe even acknowledges in the book!) is far more digestible than the messy reality of the time. it's really a shame, because i felt that Keefe had otherwise presented it consistently and with great skill and honesty up until the very end. there's really no need to omit information-- the murder of Jean McConville is unjustifiable, regardless. Moloney then goes on to call into question Keefe's history as a policy advisor within the US Office of the Secretary of Defense-- which was not disclosed with Moloney while they were working together, and seems to be purposefully obfuscated in Keefe's author/journalist profile. which leads Moloney to believe the omission was intentional and Keefe's own personal decision.

there's also the matter of the way Keefe presents this book. he calls it "narrative non-fiction" rather than history or true crime. i think he does this solely so he can get around the fact that this book has NO numbered footnotes. the way the sources are compiled for this book is criminal, and it makes a lot of the information appear as if it's all coming directly from Keefe. the reality is that a lot of this information is already very well-known and has been thoroughly investigated & covered by Irish journalists like Moloney, and it's their work that Keefe is presenting to his American audience. i didn't realize this until i looked up Moloney's articles, because i was listening to the audiobook (which also doesn't even include any kind of sourcing at the end, it's only in the print copies.)

ultimately, i did really enjoy this book. i do think it's incredibly well-researched and does a great job exploring the aftermath of colonial violence and trauma and how even decades and generations later it is still carried on in the people's memory. also some excellent commentary from those involved in the Boston Tapes; there's a particular line towards the end from Anthony McIntyre that i keep thinking about:

How will the truth of what really happened during the Troubles ever come out, he asked, if the authorities file murder charges against anyone who has the nerve to talk about it? ‘I would describe the PSNI stance as one of prosecuting truth, rather than procuring truth,’ he said in an interview.

all that to say if you read this i would take Keefe's final conclusions with a grain of salt. also definitely read Moloney's article alongside this book. i don't necessarily believe one over the other, since the argument could be made that Moloney is just trying to protect those involved. but i do think it's important to question Keefe's choices in how he presented this information. we're never going to know the truth-- just like Keefe calls into question the memories and testimonies of those involved, we should also question him, and why he's telling us this story, and why he's telling it in this way.