Self-aware. Self conscious. Self induced.

Lying v. Fiction

Oh, if Plato and his good student Aristotle could just duke it out.

In 2002, David Hockney came out with a marvelous book, Secret Knowledge, in which he laid out his case for how many of the masters of painting – including but not limited to da Vinci and Velázquez – used special tricks and technology to compose their painting. The criticism of him in the art world can be summarized to a large degree as a choral response: “You’re saying they traced! You’re saying they cheated!”

This is a response that Hockney, a painter himself, anticipates in the writing of the book, and one which he unsuccessfully tried to stave off. His argument is that yes, they traced, but no, they didn’t cheat. They still composed those paintings. They still laid in the pigment and used color according to their own skill. They weren’t lazy, any more than someone who uses a ruler to create a straight line. They used the technology that was at their disposal.

His fundamental argument, however, is that they remained masters.

This past week Jon Krakauer set off a bit of a storm with his 60 Minutes interview and byliner.com release of Three Cups of Deceit, detailing his case for how Greg Mortenson, inspiring author of Three Cups of Tea, is a liar.

There are lots of things going on here. Laura Miller at Salon argues that the issue of deceit is secondary to the issue of whether or not he’s using his foundation, the Central Asia Institute, as an ATM. The press is going to run with the salacious front story (James Frey! James Frey!) at the expense of the important story, but whether or not it’s the misleading article title or bad writing on Miller’s part, her argument gets lost in the shuffle, outraging (amongst others) the otherwise level-headed Jessa Crispin at Bookslut (April 21).

The thing is, these guys aren’t just selling their stories. Inspiration, it seems, can only come from a successful and well-plotted dramatic narrative in which our heroes face their inevitable confrontation, with the outcome at least a little in doubt because it’s a true story.

The thing is, these guys (and ghost-writers, ahem ahem) are, like Hockney’s master painters, good writers. A memoir is, in theory, a history – a memory. Not all lives are dramatic. Why can’t we inspire without dramatic tension anymore? A good writer should be able to reach people without resorting to cheats, just like a good painter should be able to create a good painting without resorting. One question I don’t recall Hockney addressing was the proportion of paintings by, say, Velázquez in which he used a camera obscura. Was it just us, his descendants, who got worked up about those? Does anyone get upset with Shakespeare for composing not one single original story in his plays? Honestly, they’re all histories or folk tales or re-writings of other plays. Does that make him less of a great writer?

In fiction, the reader is with us in the game of untruth. In lying, I’m trying to deceive you. Jennifer Laughran says “Don’t do this.”

That’s part of the reason, I think, that we’ll focus on Mortenson’s untruths (which he denies, I should say). He didn’t lie to me about the money he might have taken. He lied to me about why he’s so great. One is an abstract betrayal, and one is personal.

P.S. The fact that Greg Mortenson’s parents were total douches to my parents and then-infant older brothers back in 1961 and sent them packing from Moshi, Tanzania in a cab bound for Arusha without so much as a “by your leave,” has no bearing on my interest in this incident.

P.P.S. True story.

Advertisements

3 responses

  1. Yeah, Kristoff’s take is very much that everyone loses here – most relevantly, the people who have the most to lose.

    Kurt -> parents -> Mortensons -> Greg. Looks like three degrees to me. Sorry.

    April 23, 2011 at 3:19 pm

  2. This means that you are one, two degrees of separation from Nicholas Kristof? (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1)

    That’s about the only part of this uproar that interests me. The ATM-foundation part, if true, is serious. But outside of that (which seems to be a separate issue), from what I’ve read, if events had been written exactly as they happened, would that have changed anything? If the following is true: “guy goes on trip, guy experiences something, guy builds schools because of it,” then do the details of how that happened have to be completely accurate, especially when presented in novel form? Was James Herriott’s life really as interesting as he makes it?

    Granted, I’ve never read the book, but its presentation alone (cover picture, title), gave me the impression it was a work of fiction, if not wholly, at least partially.

    Say, are you any degree of separation from David Hyde Pierce? ‘Cause I’d really love to have lunch with him if you can set it up for me. :)

    April 22, 2011 at 9:23 pm

  3. mitya

    I agree with Laura Miller.

    April 22, 2011 at 8:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s