Accessibility Tools

  • Content scaling 100%
  • Font size 100%
  • Line height 100%
  • Letter spacing 100%

The lives of the saints

David McBride’s ethic of self-interest
by
January-February 2024, no. 461

The Nature of Honour: Son, duty-bound soldier, military lawyer, truth-teller, father by David McBride

Viking, $36.99 pb, 288 pp

The lives of the saints

David McBride’s ethic of self-interest
by
January-February 2024, no. 461

Sometimes, for the faithful, it doesn’t do to look too closely into the life of your chosen idol. Saul of Tarsus had been an enthusiastic persecutor of Christians before his spiritual detour en route to Damascus. St Camillus de Lellis, patron saint of nurses and the sick, to whom we owe the symbol of the red cross, spent his early life as a con man, a mercenary, and a compulsive gambler – little wonder he went far in the Church. Where our secular martyrs are concerned, matters become still murkier. Mahatma Gandhi tested his chastity by sleeping naked with nubile young women and girls – one of whom was his grand-niece. And as for Julian Assange ...

The Nature of Honour: Son, duty-bound soldier, military lawyer, truth-teller, father

The Nature of Honour: Son, duty-bound soldier, military lawyer, truth-teller, father

by David McBride

Viking, $36.99 pb, 288 pp

You May Also Like

Comments (24)

  • I actually think the reviewer's comments highlight many of the things that came to my mind while I was reading this story.

    What’s even more important is the stuff the author has chosen not to include.

    I had hoped for more about his demons and struggles. Also, he seemed to skip over Northern Ireland too fast, yet it seems to have had such an impact on him.
    Posted by Alex the kid
    12 January 2024
  • The real heroes were the two journalists at the ABC who chose to reveal the truth and have paid a terrible price while choosing not to self-promote
    Posted by Carol Oakes
    11 January 2024
  • From the outset, by labelling McBride a “celebrity martyr”, Foster sets the tone of character assassination.
    This review is a cruel, nasty piece of work that forgets the price most whistleblowers have to pay. Shame.
    Posted by Andrew Arthur
    11 January 2024
  • The world of Australian letters is incestuous. Friends routinely review and promote each other — sullying the critical waters and making it difficult for readers to know what is worth their money and time. Occasionally, this inbred criticism sparks a feud between warring literary clans (see: Laura Elizabeth Wollett’s recent Sydney Review of Books piece on The First Time podcast). More often than not, it produces criticism that reads like vanilla ice-cream, sweet and soft.

    Kevin Foster’s review of David McBride’s memoir is anything but vanilla. Foster has an opinion of the author and his book, and he prosecutes that opinion. Speaking as a reader, it is informative. Speaking as a reviewer, it is measured. Speaking as an author, it is tough.

    I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the Foster review, by the way. What I’m saying is that critical takes such as Foster’s review of the McBride book are essential points of reference for informed, interrogative reading.

    As for McBride, his social media temper tantrum over the review is juvenile. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why he’s upset about the review; I’ve received bad reviews, too. But here’s the thing: a free and fierce critical culture is, like corruption bodies and whistleblower protections, a cornerstone of our democracy.

    The bottom line is we can’t have a vigorous literary culture without vigorous critics. That’s why I’m glad Foster wrote and ABR published the McBride review.
    Posted by Joel Deane
    11 January 2024
  • Central point: McBride sought not to expose Australian war crimes but to conceal them.

    McBride's response to this review is very telling. McBride is VERY upset and is posting on Twitter and Tiktok nonstop. Rather than responding to its substance, he asserts his supposed military virtue, while falsely insisting the review's author is a military shill.

    He has mobilised his Tiktok following to attack its author on this basis. This response very much confirms the review's portrait of entitled petulance.
    Posted by John Smith II
    11 January 2024
  • This reads more like a vindictive Facebook post than a scholarly review. ABR says Kevin Foster is a "fearless, cogent, informed reviewer". In this case he is not, he is an aggressive, dismissive critic of David McBride, not an informed reviewer of a text.
    Posted by Ronald Brown
    11 January 2024
  • This certainly reads like a character assassination, and it is certainly not a book review.
    Posted by David Huck
    10 January 2024
  • Ironic that McBride and his supporters flock to criticise this review en masse. How dare it be suggested that McBride is self-interested, something the book appears to inadvertently reveal? It's a review of an autobiography, and so the subject's opinion of themself as told in the book is highly relevant. The reviewer has indicated that the value in the book might be what McBride is inadvertently saying, rather than what he intends to say.
    Posted by Mia Aghajanian
    10 January 2024
  • There is no book review here. There is a diatribe against the author. At some point, an actual review of the book would be good . . .
    Posted by Jeremy Culberg
    10 January 2024
  • As a book review, this is lacking. Even as an ad hominem attack, this is lacking. David may not have been the whistleblower you wanted, but he did identify that SOTG structures (and the entire Operation Slipper architecture after about 2009) were fundamentally morally compromised - like so many people I interviewed in my books about the Afghan war - and then he did something about it, which almost nobody did. This fact must at least be grudgingly acknowledged somewhere.
    Posted by Ben Mckelvey
    10 January 2024

Leave a comment

If you are an ABR subscriber, you will need to sign in to post a comment.

If you have forgotten your sign in details, or if you receive an error message when trying to submit your comment, please email your comment (and the name of the article to which it relates) to ABR Comments. We will review your comment and, subject to approval, we will post it under your name.

Please note that all comments must be approved by ABR and comply with our Terms & Conditions.