Letters to the Editor
-
How did she "fool the world"?
Hey, Salon. Perhaps a little less hyperbole and a little more honest reporting.
She/he/it didn't fool most folks, because most folks didn't give a shit. And still don't. Try rewriting that headline to how this huckster fooled the ratty litter of literati who so desperately needed to believe this crap. And while you're at it, how about a simple acknowledgement from the editors that your own starfucker writers--like Ayalet Waldman--were among the few who were taken in, and in the process helped to tremendously cheapen what little reputation you have left.
I'm still waiting for that article. Just don't let Farhad Manjoo write it...because he'll keep rewriting it in this "letters to the editor" section after the fact.
-
This says something very low about our culture
Why exactly is it not impressive for a middle aged woman to write a book about a teen prostitute, but it's great underground literature when it's the "true life story" of a pathetic character?
Our obsession with "authenticity" devalues fiction writers.
-
Salo will hear a lot about this article, I'm sure. Not much positive, though.
JT LeRoy.
This is the second big Salon article about this fake weirdo, and I still don't care. I think the same people who fall for this kind of crap also answer those Nigerian scam letters.
Five long pages about a fake. I guess the cheescake pictures of the LeRoy's creator gave the story the editorial heft it needed to get featured in Salon.
Pity. Salon used to be the most exciting thing on the internet.
-
Here We Are Again - Sadly
I wrote a letter on this topic once before, in response to Ayalet Waldman's article. I won't rehash what I said then (no, not everyone was fooled, only those that wanted to be because the idea of JT, and "his" vision of the red states fit into their larger worldview). I do, however, want to question if the writing matters because this goes to the very heart of this story. If, now that JT Leroy is a con, the writing doesn't matter then the author of this article, and Dennis Cooper, et al. need to turn in their writer's badges because what you're saying about yourselves isn't pretty. If the only reason why you read and championed this writing was because of the autobiography of the writer and not for the writing itself, you're all pretentious sacks of you-know-what. If the writing was good, why does it matter? I don't condone the hoax, but as has been made clear, if the literary establishment (both above ground and underground) had known the identity of the real author, nobody would have given these stories a second glance. That's pathetic. And it shows the true state of our culture. Either the writing is good and deserves praise, or it doesn't. Fiction writers write fiction, they create characters - can we please get off the Derrida/Foucault/Lacan/Feminist/Structuralists bandwagon of the 80s and realize that art is not all about the biography of the writer? It's about the ART! As for myself, some of the short stories were very good ("About a boy, about a girl", "Lattice"), others, and the novels, not so good. The writing should be examined in the future on its merits. Sadly, I realize that such a thought is simply a dream. we're too far gone now to care about art, really. It's all about the packaging. This story, this letter, isn't just about JT Leroy. It's about what we feel is important in our culture, and whether we value creativity or just good marketing.
-
Success on the backs of philistines...
This whole thing hasn't been much of a surprise. I had a discussion with a friend about this years ago, when JT first appeared. Conscensus was "No way, not true." I think that many people thought that JT LeRoy was a pen name, but as others have pointed out the writing wasn't worth consideration so it didn't warrant pusuit. Turns out that it is quite a hilarious, if unintended, prank that vividly points out the contemporary obsession with authenticity over aesthetics. But, in the end aesthetics win.
As for the readers, it comes down to this: If you supported and admired JT LeRoy you either have to admit you are a dupe and a philistine, or stick by the work. That is why people are so angry about this. Since the work was shit, now that JT is gone all that is left is shit. That makes them angry. JT's supporters deserve all the discomfort that they feel. The rest of us are just left chuckling and maybe shaking our heads ever so slightly.
-
The best article to date on this fascinating story
Excellent work, Jack. What a strange and wonderful story this is. I spent my early 20s in the Bay Area in the early 90s... This article brought me back to that place and time. Nice.
My "introduction" to the JT LeRoy story a month or two ago was through the outing of Savannah as the JT LeRoy surrogate. Having been guided into the full story through that aspect, I was surprised at how little attention the Savannah part received in this article.
Waldeman's story was also excellent.
Good stuff, Salon. Thanks.
-
To Steal Ruthlessly from South Park...
Dude, we don't care.
-
Excuses, Excuses
* In 1980, the Washington Post's Janet Cook fabricates an 8-year-old heroin addict.
* In 1993, Vicki Fraginals fabricates a 14-year-old HIV-positive boy who endured ritual sexual abuse. (Notable dupes: Paul Monette and Armistead Maupin.)
* In 2002, freelance journalist Michael Finkel fabricates a West African boy-slave for New York Times Magazine.
Other than scam-artistry, what is Laura Albert’s particular talent? In what way is concocting an imaginary child-victim innovative or original?
How does “punk rock” serve as an excuse for someone who used the sexual abuse of a child as a convenient device for a literary hoax?
-
quaint
I love the people who chime in with "I don't care." Yeah, you totally don't. Which is why you took the time to write a letter proclaiming your indifference as opposed to, like, not responding to the article or not reading it or, you know, not caring.
You cute kiddies don't seem to get it, do you? Salon will feature articles about "controversial" issues because, gasp, "controversy" sells. Do you really think the editors sit around and fret about the angry letters you self-righteous tools fire off? No. They revel in your outrage. I bet you're the same lot who get really T.O'd about right-wing talk radio, too, huh?
Just go listen to your tedious NPR podcasts and let Salon do what all political/cultural organs do: entertain. Just like Fox News, just like CNN, just like Air America, and politics itself-- Salon's goal is to entertain, entertain, entertain.