|
|
|
Kane: Each of you has your own style of writing, but the thing that links you all together is that aspects of your work have generated controversy. Rick is a little different, because his trouble seems to be with sharing… Bragg: Hmmph. I resent the implications. I mean, Rembrandt didn’t paint “The Last Supper” by himself, you know. He had assistants and apprentices helping him. You don’t see their signatures on the canvas, of course, but nobody makes a big stink about that. I don’t see how my situation is any different. If guys like that couldn’t be troubled to draw and paint every tablecloth and apostle’s fingernail, I don’t see why I should have to spend my valuable time in some courtroom in BFE taking notes. Kane: Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. So, you’re adamant that you’ve done no wrong, then? In effect, what you are saying is that you are a master journalist and, as far as all of the people that helped you are concerned, the experience of learning at your feet is good enough—they neither deserve nor require any credit. Bragg: Yeah, pretty much. You think Pulitzer Prizes grow on trees? As for the people you mention, I mean, who cares about them? They’re fucking secretaries, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not like anybody cares who James Joyce’s secretary was. Kane: We’ll let that one go, I think. Thank you, Mr. Bragg. Moving on, then, I originally meant to contrast Mr. Bragg with our other panelists, who more obviously share a certain affinity. Stephen, Jayson, and Paul are all known for—how shall I put this—elaborating on the truth in your articles. Glass: That’s a nice way of saying it. You mean lying. Blair: (guffaws) Sorry, I couldn’t help it. I was just thinking about the cattle pastures and tobacco fields at Pvt. Lynch’s family’s house that weren’t really there. That still kills me. (chuckles) Krassner: First of all, The Realist was a satirical magazine, even though I never labeled an article as such, in order not to deprive readers the pleasure of discerning for themselves whether something was absolutely truthful or a satirical extension of the truth. Appropriately enough, one intention of doing that was to make the readers just as skeptical of material in the mainstream media in general and the New York Times specifically. My operating credo was that a metaphorical truth could be more incisive than a factual truth.
Glass: Yeah, isn’t that some shit? I mean, fiction is in my blood. They tell you to write what you know, then they knock you down for doing it. I mean, OK, my reporting was mostly fiction—what are they trying to say now? That my fiction is mostly journalism? I don’t get it. Blair: Word. I know exactly what you’re saying. And what do they want from us, anyway? I can’t figure it out. But I will tell you what they can expect. My novel will be the greatest novel ever written. It’ll be truer than any article in any newspaper in America… Bragg: (interrupting) Look, am I done here? If you don’t have any more questions for me, then I’m gone. Kane: Hey, if that’s your attitude, do what you want. Bragg: Alright, then. See you later. I better get this byline, or you’re history, pal. Kane: Noted. Paul, did you want to say anything about your novel-in-progress, or about fiction more generally? Krassner: It's my first novel, and I mentioned to Avery Corman —author of “Oh, God” and “Kramer vs. Kramer”--that it was hard to write fiction, because you had to make up so much stuff. He said, "Paul, you've been making up stuff all your life." And I replied, "Yeah, but that was journalism." As for fiction in general, more truth was told about Watergate in novels than in nonfiction books about the same scandal. Some day, progressive libraries will eliminate the arbitrary Fiction and Nonfiction categories, and have instead Truthful and Untruthful. Kane: Of course, Paul, your situation is a little different than Stephen & Jayson’s in a couple different ways. For one, you’re a satirist as much as anything, and I don’t think you’ll take it the wrong way when I say that The Realist and most of the other publications you’ve written for are a little different than the Times and The New Republic. Krassner: Well, I wrote a satirical piece for The Nation several years ago titled "Growth in Fear Stocks" that some readers took literally because of the context, and it certainly turned out to be prescient. Also, I did an early profile of Janeane Garofalo for Spin which implied that I interviewed her in person, but it was actually on the phone; however, I asked her what she was wearing and to describe her surroundings. I had no reason to feel guilty about this. Kane: So this question is really for Jayson & Stephen, I think, though feel free to pipe in if you like. Do you two feel remorseful about the adverse effect your actions have caused to the credibility of those august publications? Glass: Well, if what you’re looking for is an apology, I’ve given plenty of those. My new novel, “The Fabulist”—published by Simon & Schuster, and available at fine bookstores everywhere, by the way—is an apology for my actions. I’ve apologized in the press, and at every stop of my multi-city book tour. Mea culpa? Ad infinitum. Blair: Right, I’ve done the same thing, you know. And you know what? OK, so I made some stuff up like—hee, hee—the thing about Pvt. Lynch. But her whole “rescue” was made up. I don’t see the Pentagon apologizing. WMD? There are no WMD, but I don’t see the NYT retracting anything. When I resigned, it was in shame. Ari Fleisher resigns, he’s going to get a lucrative job at Bechtel or something. So it’s all hypocrisy. Ooh, I’m a liar. We’re all liars in this country. Not only that, have you seen the statistics? 75% of Americans believe there was a cover-up when JFK was assassinated, they think it was the CIA, the Cubans, the Mafia, what have you. You read the polls, and most Americans don’t believe the papers, don’t believe what they see on CNN. You know what I’m saying? Kane: I hear you. In effect, all you’re guilty of is giving the people what they want. Blair: Exactly. This symposium is supposed to be about ethics? I don’t know about any of that. There’s supposed to be a fine line between the news and entertainment? Says who? This is the 21st century. It’s not my fault, it’s not Stephen’s fault if our publications haven’t got hip to that. Look at Fox. They elected George Bush, you see? His cousin gave him Florida, so let it be written, so let it be done. That’s what I’m talking about. Krassner: There's a terrific
irony here. When I was writing the script for a fake Doonesbury strip
that would grace the cover of The Realist, even though the masthead
stated, "Fact Checker: None," I verified with a source in
Mafia circles that Frank Sinatra had once delivered a suitcase full
of money to Lucky Luciano in Havana after he was deported. But, then,
that's my job, to establish verisimilitude. Just like political campaigns
and TV commercials and courtroom testimony, I don't have to Incidentally, in the foreword in my latest collection-"Murder At the Conspiracy Convention and Other American Absurdities" , with an introduction by George Carlin *--my last sentence is: "I hope you enjoy reading this book as much as I enjoyed plagiarizing it." Kane: I think that’s a sentiment that all of us can share, and a good note on which to end this discussion. Thank you, gentlemen. *Reviewed in Crapshoot!
by Howard Pearlstein. Visit Paul Krassner online at
http://www.paulkrassner.com/
|
