- - - -
Now available for preorder:
The San Francisco Panorama.
- - - -
L E T T E R S .
[Please send printable correspondence to mcsweeneysmail@yahoo.com. Thank you.] - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 Subject: C L A R I F I C A T I O N P A G E From: "Chris Beck" Dave, That was a very interesting "clarification" of David Kirkpatrick's piece on you. I read that article when it came out and was struck by the comment he made on your lawsuit with your former agent. It gave the distinct impression that he knew the details of the case and who the aggrieved party was. This was offered as evidence that you are very concerned with keeping all of the profits from your book, even though the merits of the case were not established, except for the obvious inference that Kirkpatrick sides with the agent. This was shoddy journalism. I appreciated getting a "behind the scenes" view of the process that produced this piece. Kirkpatrick has essentially hoisted himself on his own petard. Someone in the New York Press commented that this clarification was akin to dropping an anvil on an ant, but I think you are fully justified in publishing the full email correspondence, given that Kirkpatrick clearly violated a most basic journalistic standard. I'm left with the impression that he was pissed off at you because you wouldn't play ball with him by granting a telephone interview, and that he wanted some measure of revenge. He comes off very badly in this correspondence, but he has only himself to blame. Thanks for publishing it. Regards, Chris Beck
- - - - From: "Santry, Tim"Subject: FW: Correction [and good thoughts] Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:30:33 -0600 [Brief, polite letter, written to the NYTimes by Mr. Santry has been omitted, only because the forwarding arrows and such are distracting.] I did not realize how muchelse was wrong in the article. Of course, the Times still has not printed any correction. Please accept various good thoughts from me as youcontinue to publishinteresting things for peopleto read, despite those who make it difficult for you to do so. Yours, Tim Santry - - - - Subject: re: clarificationDate: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 I just wanted to drop a note of thanks to Dave Eggers for making public the exchange between Dave Kirkpatrick and himself. It has been difficult for me to break into journalism while maintaining the desire to see a story written with integrity and a real lust for truth. Several of my earliest attempts were rejected due to a lack of "edginess" which, when explained to me, seemed to be a euphemism for "denigration of one's subject." It is a small vindication to seean unethical journalistat such a high-profile publication so publicly routed. Excelsior! Regards,
- - - - From: Kip JacobsonSubject: in support of dave e. re: kirkpatrick Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 I just wanted to say that what I think the clarification was a good thing, and thank you. As you mention, your case is one of many, this kind of rape of a subject. There is a enormous misunderstanding of the media on the public's part - how it operates, to whom it is beholden, how it must market itself, and how it measures success. I have been particularly annoyed at how many intelligent people will somehow feel that the New York Times is some kind of shining exception. I think you have helped to remove that false cloak. I hope a lot of people read this exchange. I have always found writing agonizing. Any kind of public externalizing has been a troubling thing for me, I can only begin to imagine the issues with which you must wrestle. For me it is easier not to write, I admire and sell others' writing instead, and share myself with just a few, as is the case with most of us I suppose. So I admire you for publishing, and more for self-publishing in the future. If you have made the decision to share some more, I hope this twisted element of the media won't make you reconsider. I doubt it would. I know your readers are with you, regardless of journalism. take care, kip - - - - Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:24:30 -0800Subject: hi Dave Eggers, Bravo to you! I was fascinated to read the entire exchange between yourself and David Kirkpatrick. I am so happy that you published said exchange because it really does illuminate the sleaziness that pervades our industry. I am a journalist as well, and formerly was a reporter for the NY Post, a publication not known for its journalistic integrity in the least. In fact, while there, I was encouraged NOT to check sources and to portray certain Democratic politicians in a negative light, against my principles. Of course, these are stories that many people can attest to at newspapers around the country, no, around the world. And I doubt it will ever change. But I think you made an significant dent by publishing your dialogue with Mr. Kirkpatrick. And I thank you for that. Keep it up! P.S. I have not yet read your book, but I have heard the most wonderful things about it. I will definitely pick it up in paperback. P.S.S. If you do publish this e-mail, I would appreciate it if you would NOT use my name or e-mail address. Thank you for that courtesy. - - - - From: "Matty Jacobs"Subject: clarification Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:46 -0600 This would be to Mr. Eggers, I just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your correction for the New York Times article. I read it a week ago or so and I got kind of a funny feeling from it. My first reaction was, "Ah, some good exposure." That changed. Anyway, I commend your desire to post this correction. It really straightened out the story and reminded me that it is impossible to trust most journalists. So thanks,
- - - - Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001From: Nathan Alderman Subject: To Mr. Dave Eggers, Should He Be Reading Mr. Eggers, As a journalist (albeit one with limited experience) I wanted to offer my condolences for the way David Kirkpatrick of the Times treated you in his "interview." (I noticed the Clarification on McSweeney's Web site.) How he got away with such shabby work is beyond me, especially at a paper like the New York Times, which, if it doesn't actually have high standards, certainly acts as if it does. I have probably a small fraction of Mr. Kirkpatrick's experience, and will most likely never write for the Times whether I want to or not, but I felt compelled to let you know that not all of us are creeps out to distort the truth. Some of us-- most, judging from the reporters I've met-- actually care about presenting the truth as honestly and accurately as we can. On a side note, I received "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" as a Christmas gift from my brother, and was impressed by your writing skill and the honesty (apparent or genuine) with which you told your story. I also read your story about the dog in "Speaking With The Angel," and was similarly bowled over. You write movingly and well. I look forward to your next book. Sincerely,
- - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001Subject: Kirkpatrick Article-Please Forward to Dave Eggers Dear Dave: Being a writer myself, and also having spent two decades plus in the Hollywood film industry on the business side, I want to say how awesome it was to read your explanatory article as well as the voluminous E-mails regarding the Kirkpatrick fiasco. It is easy to call someone a scum sucking pig of the highest Orwellian order, but you did something more imaginative--rather than pass judgment on someone who deserved it, you simply removed the Kimono and let the world judge for itself. By the way, the context here is: I have not yet read your book I am planning to and would have notwithstanding DK's snide remarks as to marketing ploys What you have experienced on the literary front from the Times is a hor fudge sundae compared to what you may face if and when the film is made...and I say this being a voting member of the academy, but also someone who worked on both sides of the desk, so to speak, as well as someone who has tremendous passion for thw written word and mind-blasting cinema, on those few occasions in my life when that has happened. Bill Nestel - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001Subject: Kickin' ass and taking names I just read about Dave Eggers and the whole New York Times Debacle and got this great rush that I haven't had since Junior Highschool when my friend Tami shoved a girl named Felicity into the lockers face first for making fun of my stutter. It's a specific type of satisfaction, but I am at a loss to describe it this second. Maybe it is wrong for me to feel this way, but it feels good. MMmmmmmm. Thanks Tami and Dave. If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right. Dana Schmalenberg - - - - From: "Smith, Clare"Subject: David Kirkpatrick Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 That's the best article or exchange I've read about journalism - particularly the last part. - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:15 -0500From: "Caroline M. Levchuck" Subject: Bravo... for not simply shrugging off Mr. Kirkpatrick's hatchet job. I hope that it is, indeed, true that this unscrupulous man's sources will dry up and he will find himself working at the Enquirer or the Star, where he, clearly, would be quite comfortable rooting around in the trash cans of his subjects. I am sorry that your creative efforts have been misconstrued as a marketing ploy. I guess I never quite understood why journalists were held in such low regard and I do now. It's because they are ALWAYS looking for the bad light in which they can cast a subject. And the fact of the matter is that if someone did an article on me, well, despite what those closest to me say (and I'm no one of any particular importance), you could find many people, I'm sure, who would say negative things about me, my work, etc. This is, unfortunately, true of anyone. Period. Whoever you are, there's always someone who has some sort of beef with you, especially, I'm sure, if they have enjoyed even the slightest bit of notoriety, as is the case with yourself. Again, I laud you for your most comprehensive telling of this sordid and unfortunate tale. It's so very sad that you were hoodwinked into dealing with this individual in the first place. I do thank you, though, for a most amusing read...your [no response] comments made me chuckle. And, no, I've not read your book so I'm not a fan blowing smoke up your backside or anything of the sort. But I shall put it on my required reading list. Keep fighting the good fight and continue to create despite the cynics who mislabel your efforts...it's your audience that counts, not the wannabes at the Times who fought and scratched for a job there only to find out how miserable and vacuous a life that truly is. Sincerely, Caroline M. Levchuck - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:49 -0500From: Matt Sendbuehler Subject: Something for Mr. Eggers to chew on, regarding the fascinating yet embarrassing Clarification of the sloppy Times piece "If the men of wit and genius would resolve never to complain in their works of critics and detractors, the next age would not know that they ever had any." -- Swift, Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting. - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001Subject: for what it's worth, from tom mashberg to david eggers: I'm a newspaperman with 20 years in, and i've written and edited for the NY Times, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, among others. i was interested in david eggers's e-mail exchange with david kirkpatrick for several reasons. one of them is explicable if you view the letter from me to jim romanesko's web site dated Wed. Feb. 21, 2001 (i was an "'accidental source" for a story my a media critic). another reason is that i have taken to conducting interviews by e-mail whenever possible, and i find that this approach has helped me perfect what i do, in that i print exact quotations within their context and receive virtually no complaints from quotees anymore, which is as it should be. so i read the Times piece; a dreary experience. (if Kirkpatrick had an ounce of smarts, he would simply have asked you to let him run your pre-publication e-mail exchange about the article -- perhaps elided on your end, but not on his). it baffles me that he never saw that as the sole way to convey such a story. But. so: kirkpatrick's piece is a very conventional work of its form, strangely tone-death to the voice of the writer being written about. (i find that most good writing about writing, when about the author him/herself and not the author's subject matter, offers some sense of the subject writer's voice. when this is accomplished in conventional journalism -- by which i mean the brutish, disposable stuff we have come to associate with mainstream periodicals -- it means the writer has done what he/she should strive to do: become invisible to the piece, yet not entirely absent from it). Kirkpatrick lacks this skill. still, i do not see his piece as being as bitter and, er, "snarky" as others of its kind i have read. His use of the word "stunt" was churlish, and his reference to the fawning girl-fans was snotty. (or vice versa.) he should never have touched the lawsuit topic, and his paragraf on that score was a botch from front to back. and of course the use of off-the-record quotes was pusillanimous and desperate as well as ethically tarnished. there is also a whiff of envy about the piece, but nothing off the charts. That said, as someone who knows not your work or reputation, and who is impressed by your tonality and apparent love of print, i want you (for what it's worth) to know that i did not come away from the times piece thinking any less of you; you strike me as quite sincerely dedicated to getting your work out in a low-key and unvarnished way, despite the gruesomeness of modern hypery. unless you are the Duke of Orleans, and imprisoned by the English during the Hundred Years War while your poetry is circulated to great acclaim without your knowledge, is plum impossible. this is a long way of saying that as someone with a good ear for these things, i don't think you should feel that the Times has created a negative impression of you. dog knows it's painful to be written about, and as i said earlier kirkpatrick absolutely muffed a chance to do a smart piece. But as an outsider looking in, i'm no less eager now to see you book than i might have been had i not seen the Times article. and i wish you well in your literary endeavors. tom mashberg
- - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001From: "Tom Acitelli" Subject: Kirkpatrick's Mr. Eggers: "Time wounds all heels." - John Lennon Please pass along above quotation to Mr. Kirkpatrick. Thank you
- - - - From: "Sarah McMullen"Subject: Bravisimo! Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 i loved loved loved the correction to the times article. that had me in stiches. yeah, i don't really prefer nasty mean-spirited journalists very much. so it was very encouraging. i especially like the part where he begged you not to print the private correspondence, and that i was reading it! thank you, again, my day is brightened. have a nice weekend. - - - - Subject: FracasDate: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 Mr. Eggers, I must commend you on your recent run-in with Mr. Kirkpatrick. Bravo to you for publishing it online. I used to live and work in NY and always wondered when karma would kick in for him (a six-degrees kind of connection through my previous job but there's no need to go into detail). I wish you the best in the future and am throwing a kudo to you for your book. I read it last year when it was published and two months later lost my only brother to testicular cancer. I look forward to reading it again in paperback later this spring. Warm regards,
- - - - Read Previous Letters:
|
Red dot denotes content that is new today.
Black dot denotes newish content.