Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by a number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ academic experts. While not denying that Mao was "a monster," as one article on the debate over the book phrased it,
a number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ scholars specialising in modern Chinese history and politics questioned the factual accuracy ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ some ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Chang and Halliday's conclusions, pointed out their selective use ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ evidence, and called into question their objectivity, among other criticisms.[SUP]
[11][/SUP]
Professor Andrew Nathan ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
Columbia University published an extensive evaluation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the book in the
London Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Books. While he was complimentary ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the book in some respects — noting for example that it "shows special insight into the suffering ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Mao’s wives and children" — and acknowledged that it might make real contributions to the field, Nathan's review was largely negative. He noted that "
many ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ their discoveries come from sources that cannot be checked, others are openly speculative or are based on circumstantial evidence, and some are untrue." Nathan suggested that Chang and Halliday's own anger with the Chinese leader caused them to portray "a possible but not a plausible Mao" or a "caricature Mao" and to eschew a more complex explanation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ modern Chinese history in favor ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ "a simple personalisation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ blame."[SUP]
[23][/SUP] Similarly, Professor
Jonathan Spence ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
Yale University argued in the
New York Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Books that the authors' single focus on Mao's vileness had undermined "much ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the power their story might have had."[SUP]
[24][/SUP]
David S. G. Goodman, Professor ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Contemporary China Studies at the
University ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Technology, Sydney, wrote a sharply critical review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Chang and Halliday's book in
The Pacific Review. He suggested that there is an implied argument in
Mao: The Unknown Story that there has been "a conspiracy ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth" - an argument which he likened to the conspiracy theorizing ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the
The Da Vinci Code. Goodman argued that "the 'facts' in The Da Vinci Code are about as reliable as those to be found in...Mao: The Unknown Story." Goodman argued that the style ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ writing was "extremely polemic"
and that the book could even be thought ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ as a "form ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." Goodman was highly critical ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Chang and Halliday's methodology and use ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ sources as well as several ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ their specific conclusions, claiming that
their focus on vilifying Mao led them to write "demonography" rather than objective history and biography.[SUP]
[25][/SUP]
Professor Thomas Bernstein ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
Columbia University referred to the book as "... a major disaster for the contemporary China field..." because the "scholarship is put at the service ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ quotations out ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ context, distortion ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ facts and omission ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ much ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."[SUP]
[3][/SUP]
A detailed examination ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
Mao: The Unknown Story was published in the January 2006 issue ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the
The China Journal. Professors Gregor Benton (
Cardiff University) and Steve Tsang (
University ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Oxford) argued that
the book was "bad history and worse biography" which made "numerous flawed assertions." Chang and Halliday
"misread sources, use them selectively, use them out ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light." They discussed a number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ specific errors and problematic sourcing practices before concluding that
the book "does not represent a reliable contribution to our understanding ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Mao or twentieth-century China."[SUP]
[26][/SUP] Timothy Cheek (
University ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ British Columbia) argued in his review that "
Chang and Halliday's book is not a history in the accepted sense ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a reasoned historical analysis," rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a TV soap opera." Cheek found it "disturbing...that major commercial Western media can conclude that this book is not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ history, but terrific history."[SUP]
[27][/SUP]
In 2009, Gregor Benton and Lin Chun edited
Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s "Mao: The Unknown Story", which compiles fourteen previously-published academic responses, most ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ which are highly critical. Benton and Lin wrote that "
unlike the worldwide commercial media... most professional commentary has been disapproving." [SUP]
[28][/SUP] Mobo Gao, Professor ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Chinese Studies at the
University ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Adelaide, wrote that
The Unknown Story was "intellectually scandalous", and characterised it by saying that it "
it misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."[SUP]
[29][/SUP]
