I'm sorry to have to ask: But does anyone else find this galling? The Voice of America website's obituary refers to the success of the "prolific and controversial" author's first novel and states it is "remarkable because Mailer wrote realistically of combat without ever actually having taken part in battle." Personally, I believe this statement to be misleading to the point of being libelous. Because what the article fails to reveal to its readers "in 44 languages" around the world is that Norman Mailer -- unlike the executive in chief who I believe is ultimately responsible for the VOA -- served his country with honor in the military for two years during a time of war. I have been demanding a correction through VOA and the State Department since Saturday to no avail - making what was already one of the saddest Veteran's Days I can remember even worse. Can anyone help? (You can see the VOA piece here: <link> -Dan Currie, Boston

That still doesn't equate to "seeing combat" now does it?
There are plenty of military members now serving and not seeing or partaking in combat. Get a grip.

Dear Pooty Pants: I don't know where your "seeing combat" quote comes from and I don't want to get in an argument about Mailer's war record because, other than to know that he served as an army rifleman in the Phillipines and elsewhere in the Pacific, I don't know many more details than you I suspect. As to the other members of the military that you refer to: when the time comes for any of their obituaries to be written, I hope that their service will not be overlooked. Dan Currie, Boston

Pooty Pants,

While I originally agreed with you based on the awkwardly worded first post from dcurrieus, he/she does (although I am puzzled as to why dcurrieus saw fit to take it up in this forum) have a point.

From the VOA News article that dcurrieus linked* to:

"Mailer was just 25 years old when he burst on the literary scene with his first novel, The Naked And The Dead. The World War II tale is universally recognized as one of the best war novels to emerge from that conflict. Published in 1948, it is all the more remarkable because Mailer wrote realistically of combat without ever actually having taken part in battle." [E.A.]

From a New York Times article:

"He was finally called up by the Army in the spring of 1944, after marrying Bea Silverman, in January, and was sent to the Philippines.

Mr. Mailer saw little combat in the war and finished his military career as a cook in occupied Japan. But his wartime experience, and in particular a single patrol he made on the island of Leyte, became the raw material for “The Naked and the Dead,” the book that put him on the map." [E.A.]

Taking into account the respective biases of each publication, there certainly appears to be a distinction to be drawn between "without...having taken part in battle" and "saw little combat" that seems to demand at least a clarification from VOA.

* Note to dcurrieus: Separate links with at least one space on either side.

He was there, he went on patrol, but did he partake in battle? Did he/see/witness/engage in battle first hand. I think the article compliments his realistic description in spite of not partaking in battle. Libel though? Sounds like a bored ambulance-chaser is a fan of Norman.

Dr. Pangloss:

He was there, he went on patrol, but did he partake in battle? Did he/see/witness/engage in battle first hand. I think the article compliments his realistic description in spite of not partaking in battle. Libel though? Sounds like a bored ambulance-chaser is a fan of Norman.

Hence my use of the word "clarification," rather than "retraction" or "apology." Readers of the VOA article who don't know better (as I didn't until I looked it up elsewhere) may come away with the false impression that Mailer was never even in the military. I agree with you about the charge of libel, but I would sum it up this way: He (dcurrieus) has more of a point than you (or Pooty Pants) think he does, but less of one than he thinks he does.

The only thing that bothered me about the VOA report was that it promoted a "false impression that Mailer was never even in the military" (to quote Dr. Pangloss whose description proves the point above) and that a prominently displayed "correction" was (and still is) in order. Calling it a "clarification" would be as satisfactory. As far as my personal opinion is concerned about whether this false impression was created by the Bush VOA deliberately, to induce a certain opinion, and with reckless disregard for the truth, is a lesser issue. But it would hardly be the first time. And I do think about it in relation to Mr. Mailer as quoted by John Nichols in The Nation (Nov. 10, 2007 online): "Democracy, more than any other political system, depends on a modicum of honesty. Ultimately, it is much at the mercy of a leader who has never been embarrassed by himself," Mailer, who as a young Harvard graduate had served in the South Pacific during World War II, wrote of Bush at the close of a brilliant piece for The New York Review of Books. "What is to be said of a man who spent two years in the Air Force of the National Guard (as a way of not having to go to Vietnam) and proceeded--like many another spoiled and wealthy father's son--not to bother to show up for duty in his second year of service? Most of us have episodes in our youth that can cause us shame on reflection. It is a mark of maturation that we do not try to profit from our early lacks and vices but do our best to learn from them. Bush proceeded, however, to turn his declaration of the Iraqi campaign's end into a mighty fashion show. He chose--this overnight clone of Honest Abe--to arrive on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on an S-3B Viking jet that came in with a dramatic tail-hook landing. The carrier was easily within helicopter range of San Diego but G.W. would not have been able to show himself in flight regalia, and so would not have been able to demonstrate how well he wore the uniform he had not honored. Jack Kennedy, a war hero, was always in civvies while he was commander in chief. So was General Eisenhower. George W. Bush, who might, if he had been entirely on his own, have made a world-class male model (since he never takes an awkward photograph), proceeded to tote the flight helmet and sport the flight suit. There he was for the photo-op looking like one more great guy among the great guys. Let us hope that our democracy will survive these nonstop foulings of the nest."

I have just received an email from the features editor of the VOA news website apologizing for their error and directing me to the correction that can now be found in the second paragraph at <link> . I appreciate all the comments made after I imposed this issue on your attention and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed.