for 5 June 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Stranger Than Fiction

Sheesh!

I don't know who Ruth Shalit
is, but it's easy to be pithy
when you copy Dr. Samuel
Johnson - almost exactly,
too. I don't have the
reference in front of me, but
"No one but a blockhead ever
wrote, except for money" is a
bit closer to his actual
words (or anyway, what
Boswell reported).

But I think you have
unwittingly identified the
problem about fake reporting:
If nobody at The New
Republic, or at Suck, ever
heard Dr. J.'s (no, not
Erving) second most famous
quote, it is not so hard to
see how insouciant law
students can pull the wool
over your eyes. You have to
bring something to the table
yourself, you know.

But tell me more about
Shalit. Is she famous for
pithiness? Has anybody
checked her other bons mots
for plagiarism? Does she
sleep with a book of Dorothy
Parker reviews under her
pillow?

Harry Eagar Maui
<heagar@aloha.net>

"None but a blockhead..." is,
of course, dear Dr. Johnson;
you just wanted to see if we
were paying attention.
However, a perhaps more
amusing cross-reference is to
Fear and Loathing on the
Campaign Trail '72, which
invented a mythical drug
(Ibogaine?) to explain HHH's
lack-of-effective
campaigning. When The Press
picked this up, the gonzo
doctor began including the
phrase, "I've got to stop
making this stuff up" at key
points.

Yeah, we'll miss Mr. Glass.
His stories were often the
best thing in TNR.

Alan Kornheiser
<ASKORNHEISER@prodigy.net>

Well, at least you give me
credit for knowing the
quote's true source; I've
received several emails
already telling me that I've
fallen prey to Shalit's
deception.

Alas, I was surprised you
didn't call me on the
authenticity of Eldon
McElway, who is merely an
imaginary homage to Glass'
own powers of invention.

I tried to work something in
there on Thompson's fictive
tendencies; I wish I'd known
about that particular
disclaimer of his. Some
people have been citing
Thompson in various
conversations about Glass and
wondering how come he never
got into a similar amount of
trouble. My typically
uninformed guess is that he
and other New Journalists
probably did provoke their
share of angry, denunciatory
essays, but that those, alas,
were not anthologized and are
therefore forgotten. Also,
Thompson used other devices
that functioned as
disclaimers - presenting
himself in the fictional
guise of Raoul Duke, etc. I
noticed on the Fear and
Loathing Web site (I may have
been the only person to click
on that ad) that the movie's
producers refer to Thompson's
book as a "novel." I wonder
if this is how the
article/book was positioned
when it was first published,
or if that was just an
instance of revisionism on
their part.

Best,
Huck

Subject: "No one but a
blockhead ever wrote for
anything but money."

I never wrote these words, or
anything remotely like them.
(I don't think!)

Am I losing my mind - or
just missing the joke?

Please advise.

Ruth Shalit
<rlss@erols.com>

What the heck is a serious
journalist like yourself
doing reading Suck? In any
case, the reference was
supposed to be a joke.

While the quote seemed apt
for the point I was trying to
make, citing its true author
seemed to lack the Glassian
verve with which I wanted to
infuse the piece. So I
attributed it to you instead,
believing that people would
take it as a humorous aside
about The New Republic's
ongoing problems re: ethics,
and as a general comment on
all the various ways that
journalistic credibility can
be undermined.

What I didn't anticipate is
that readers might
underestimate my mastery of
Bartlett's Quotations and at
the same time, overestimate
your brazenness in regard to
sampling the work of other
writers.

Huck

On a serious note - although
I do appreciate the
freewheeling, fun-loving
Glassian spirit in which you
attached my name to those
words, it just so happens
that another plagiarism flap
is just about the last thing
I need. So ... if you could
remove my name from your site
pronto, I'd be much obliged.

And of course I read Suck!

Although, truth be told, I
liked your last Stephen Glass
piece better.

Ruth Shalit
<rlss@erols.com>

Haven't we determined truth
is just a big bore, Ruth?
Meaning, I didn't write that
other Glass piece, and now
you've gone and hurt my
feelings. In the future,
please lie.

Huck

Frequent Fisherman Alan
Kornheiser on the Hot Seat

Dear Mr. Kornheiser:

Noted with sad interest your
characterization of Robert A.
Heinlein as a 'lovable
fascist', in your letter to
Suck of 21 May:

"Perhaps the best advice
comes from the late, lovable
fascist Robert A. Heinlein,
who opined that politics is
simply what people do, that
we do it badly but have no
real choice in the matter,
and that all we can hope for
is a system that gives us a
little breathing room. Works
for me."

Alan Kornheiser
<askornheiser@prodigy.net>

This is a common smear of the
man, often supported by
references to his novel
Starship Troopers (which
actually contains no co-ed
shower scenes, in case you
only saw the movie), which
takes place in the context of
a society that one could with
great strain characterize as
fascist, but in my view [this
smear] is unjustified. He
wrote also of societies that
were democracies, tyrannies,
and anarchies and made them
all come to life.

In his life, he was a
dedicated patriot, but one
greatly distrustful of
government and its power. The
fact that he could describe
the workings of a fascist
state in his fiction does not
make him a fascist.

A capital-C Curmudgeon, maybe
... but that term is one he
may have both deserved and
accepted.

Glad to see you at least
'grok' some of his thinking,
even if you mischaracterize
the man.

For a statement of his
beliefs (as opposed to his
fiction), see:
http://www.rjgeib.com/
thoughts/athens/
heinlein-i-believe.html.

fascist adj. relating to or
characteristic of fascism n.
an adherent of fascism or
other right-wing
authoritarian views

fascism n. a political theory
advocating an authoritarian
hierarchical government (as
opposed to democracy or
liberalism)

Sincerely,
Parker Smith
<Smith_Parker/avantec_us@avantec.net>

Dear Mr. Smith:

Please do not confuse
glibness with ignorance. I'm
an old RAH fan; I owe him, in
no particular order, my
education (graduate degree in
physics, courtesy of The
Rolling Stones), my hobby
(fencing, courtesy of Glory
Road), and a lifelong love of
speculative fiction. I still
remember writing a book
report about Starship
Troopers the year it was
published. (One of the things
that impressed me about the
book was something that,
oddly enough, also impressed
Chip Delany: the pleasant
suburban society the Troopers
are defending truly is a
completely interracial
society, so much so that
nobody even mentions it. Done
as a throwaway on the last
page or so. Cute.)

And, sure enough, there are
plenty of smarts in his
books. Beyond This Horizon
(which I also once mentioned
in Suck.com) remains the
smartest thing ever written
about genetic engineering,
written in 1939!

None of which changes the
truth that RAH's politics
were unpleasant. Oddly
enough, they were
simultaneously incoherent and
aware of being incoherent.
Sure, he loved to play with
ideas. He was smart enough to
see the holes in his own
ideas as well: The pleasant
anarchy of Moon is a Harsh
Mistress is satirized as an
unworkable nightmare in a
later book (Friday? some
such). The "Thou art God"
anarchy of his best known
work is itself internally
satirized as workable only
for gods. And so on.

And, yes, fascist is a cheap
slur. The word is from the
Roman fascii, a bundle of
sticks that individually weak
are together strong. (Check
what the eagle holds on the
seal of the US government -
those arrows are themselves
fascii.) RAH didn't like
anybody giving him orders and
didn't think individuals were
so weak they needed to be
bound.

But. But. If one carries
rugged individualism too far,
one ends up not too far from
fascism. You find yourself so
sure of your own correctness
that you're willing to shoot
anyone who disagrees with
you. From there, the
distinction between
individualism and fascism
becomes very thin. Some of
his later writing was very
dark, very strange, and very
unpleasant. Consider
Farnham's Freehold, for
example. Consider also the
uniformly unpleasant
parent/child relationships in
all his work.

He knew that, too. Stranger
in a Strange Land is
simultaneously a cry for
personal freedom and an
argument for liberal
parliamentary democracy. He
was a firm believer in
government; he just didn't
believe it should apply to
him.

So, shorn of my (smart ass)
glibness, I stand by my
quotes. You'll note that my
quote was approving, after
all.

Alan Kornheiser
<Askornheiser@prodigy.net>

Frisky Fish in Hot Pants

SO IS THERE ENY GOOD PORNOS
ON THIS PAGE OR WHAT LET ME
NO THANKS

Daniel Raymur
<draymur@worldnet.att.net>

Daniel.
Please don't confuse glibness
with horniness. We're old
porno fans - we owe it for,
in no particular order, our
existence (dad was a fan),
our hobbies (smut), and a
lifelong love of speculative
screwing. We still remember
sneaking into Porky's the
year it came out. (One of the
things that impressed us
about the book was something
that, oddly enough, also
impressed the horny teenagers
next to us in theater - the
scene where they're peaking
into the girls' locker room.)

But. But. If one carries
horny voyeurism too far, one
ends up not very far from
misogyny. You find yourself
so wrapped up in your own
erectness that you're willing
to shoot anyone who disses
you. From there, the
distinction between sexuality
and misogyny becomes very
thin. Some of those Porky's
sequels were very cheesy,
very degrading, and very
unpleasant.

We're firm believers in
government restrictions on
truly harmful smut; we just
don't believe it should apply
to us.

Sucksters (With And Without
Nappy Dugouts)

Fishy Sicko

I am embarrassed to admit how
I found your site. I was
actually just taking dirty
words and putting them after
"www." In this case, it
opened quite a treasure
trove. I have to tell you
that I love your site;
especially the cartoons,
since my college degree had
nothing to do with becoming
literate. Your humor is
acerbic, esoteric, and
sometimes I don't have the
slightest fucking idea what
the joke is. Maybe that's
because it's not there, but
who cares?

It looks like you guys are
also in San FagSicko (as I
once heard our fair burg
described by one of those
loving Christians on public
access). I should have
guessed that anyway. Some day
I will have to pinch out some
pennies and buy some of your
schwag to help support your
continued existence.

Well, pardon me for droning
on. If you are still reading,
thanks again, and I'll keep
you guys bookmarked. Tell me
where your office is, and I
might drop by someday with
sandwiches and lemonade at
lunch time.

Parry Tallmadge,
San Francisco, CA
<parryt@hooked.net>

Sandwiches and lemonade - is
that some kind of naughty
euphemism?

Don't stop by.

Dirty, dirty man.