Year / 2007

by Edward Champion

BSS #115: A.M. Homes II

segundo115.jpg

Condition of Mr. Segundo: Remarkably terse.

Author: A.M. Homes

Subjects Discussed: Expanding the New Yorker piece to book form, the rules of memoir, inventing deposition testimony, being “dished up” by the Roiphe sisters, the false connection between Homes’ novels and the memoir, Joan Didion, the culture of confessional memoirs, truth stranger than truth, speculating upon parents, being fact-checked by The New Yorker, negotiating with Granta and The New Yorker, declarative sentences, deciding what to reveal, court documents, judging other people, not running from the truth, Daughters of the American Revolution, on being excluded by family, and maternal fantasies.

EXCERPT FROM SHOW:

Homes: The lawyers kept saying to me that you should sue your father for paternity. And I kept thinking, I don’t really want to do that. And a couple of things became clear to me. One was how interesting it is that one person’s decision to exclude you from your family history excludes you from all of your family history. Hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet you’re no more or less related to any one person than another. And how interesting is that someone could remove you from all that. So that was kind of fascinating to me. And then I was thinking about, if we did sue him, what would happen? And essentially, he would be legally compelled to not only produce some sort of a test or a document, but also to really answer all of the questions that had never been asked. And I also thought as an artist or writer that was most interested in these, by that point the reader knows who my biological father is well enough to participate in the reading, that I could just ask the questions and not even have to provide answers.

Listen: Play in new window | Download

by Edward Champion

In Which I Am Misattributed by Josh Getlin

Josh Getlin gets his facts wrong in this article about the so-called litblogs vs. print war. The quote that Getlin attributes to me is actually from Colleen Mondor:

It’s okay for the lit blogosphere to exist as a version of your Mom’s book club – it’s okay for us to talk books and authors and compare notes on favorites, as long as we keep our place. Have you got that? We must not think for a moment that we contribute anything beyond serving as accessories to the real literary discussions.

I should point out that Getlin contacted me by email. I offered to talk with him over the phone and clarify my points. He never returned my call. But I did send the email he quoted.

And I’m glad that he at least noted the fact that Michael Dirda and I have been emailing. But I’m baffled that Getlin didn’t get a quote from John Freeman.

[UPDATE: One other correction to Getlin’s piece. For those who don’t know the story, here is the history of events. Dirda didn’t write his words in The Washington Post, as Getlin claims, but he contributed them to the NBCC blog Critical Mass. I was the first person to leave a comment on that post. I wondered why Dirda was so hostile to blogs. I called for harmony between print and online voices. Other figures, such as Colleen, Bookblog’s Marydell, Ron Hogan, Dan Wickett, David Montgomery, and numerous others, have asked the same question I have in various threads at the Critical Mass site as well as various posts at their respective sites: Why is the NBCC so hostile to the very literary enthusiasts who need to be involved in the campaign? John Freeman attempted some spin control with this post at Critical Mass on April 30, only to suggest, merely a week later on the Leonard Lopate Show, that newspapers should steal from blogs in order to survive. The question then is why Freeman constantly waffles in his clear animosity towards blogs (I certainly have no animosity towards Freeman, but he seems to confuse criticism of his writings with criticism of him as a person) and why he can’t quell these troubling prejudices in favor of a united front for literary coverage in all conduits.]

[UPDATE 2: The Los Angeles Times will be correcting the piece.]

Also, for the record, I think Josh Getlin is, in general, a pretty good reporter. I think this was simply a case of Getlin not understanding blogs very well.