Last week I checked the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, by Michael Wolff, out from the library. I was curious about it but thought I probably didn't want to pay Wolff royalties, and turns out I was right.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. I'm sure big parts of the book are true. But I'll never really know, because I stopped reading on p. 55, permanently, forever. I didn't mind the subject matter. I was terrifically annoyed by the writing.
Let me offer the following example. Here are some facts about a man.
1) He grew up attending Catholic schools in Richmond, Virginia.
2) He got a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech.
3) He spent the next seven years of his life in the Navy, first on ship duty and later at the Pentagon.
4) He was a Naval lieutenant.
5) While still on active duty he obtained a master's degree from Georgetown.
6) After leaving the Navy he went to Harvard Business School and obtained his MBA.
7) He then spent four years working for Goldman Sachs as an investment banker, reaching a mid-level position there.
Now, I could write those facts in paragraph form like this:
After a childhood spent attending rigorous Catholic schools, he graduated from Virginia Tech, one of the best universities in his home state. He joined the navy as a lieutenant and spent seven years in service to his country. His performance on board ship earned the attention of his superiors, who transferred him to the Pentagon. There, while working full-time on active duty, he also earned a master's degree from prestigious Georgetown University. Honorably discharged at the end of his term of service, he continued to none other than Harvard Business School, where he received his MBA. He then worked four years as an investment banker at Golden Sachs, reaching a mid-level position in that short time.
Sounds pretty impressive, right?
Okay, here's another version. This is from Fire and Fury, page 55:
"Catholic school in Richmond, Virginia. Then a local college, Virginia Tech. Then seven years in the navel, a lieutenant on ship duty and then in the Pentagon. While on active duty, he got a master's degree at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, but then he washed out of his navel career. Then an MBA from Harvard Business School. Then four years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs--his final two years focusing on the media industry in Los Angeles--but not rising above a mid-level position."
Doesn't sound as good, does it? Our man may be a bit of a wastrel--"local college," "washed out of his naval career," "not rising above a mid-level position." But in that first paragraph we have "in service to his country," "prestigious," "reaching a mid-level position within that short time."
These two paragraphs slant the same set of facts diametrically different ways. I wrote the first, not out of any personal conviction, but just to show the opposite point of view. The problem is that all of Fire and Fury is slanted. Every bit. And after awhile--because I'm a writer, because I know how to control slant and how easily some readers are affected by it--after awhile it made me really angry.
The guy in question, by the way, is Steve Bannon. I don't like Steve Bannon. I would be interested in reading more about him, but not in the way I quote above. It's dishonest to suggest that seven years in the Navy and degrees from VT, Georgetown, and Harvard represent failure. You could say, despite all that, and give us some other facts, or quotes people said about him, or something--but if you're trying to skew every single fact you find, I'm not going to read your book. And I'm really glad I didn't pay you royalties.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. I'm sure big parts of the book are true. But I'll never really know, because I stopped reading on p. 55, permanently, forever. I didn't mind the subject matter. I was terrifically annoyed by the writing.
Let me offer the following example. Here are some facts about a man.
1) He grew up attending Catholic schools in Richmond, Virginia.
2) He got a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech.
3) He spent the next seven years of his life in the Navy, first on ship duty and later at the Pentagon.
4) He was a Naval lieutenant.
5) While still on active duty he obtained a master's degree from Georgetown.
6) After leaving the Navy he went to Harvard Business School and obtained his MBA.
7) He then spent four years working for Goldman Sachs as an investment banker, reaching a mid-level position there.
Now, I could write those facts in paragraph form like this:
After a childhood spent attending rigorous Catholic schools, he graduated from Virginia Tech, one of the best universities in his home state. He joined the navy as a lieutenant and spent seven years in service to his country. His performance on board ship earned the attention of his superiors, who transferred him to the Pentagon. There, while working full-time on active duty, he also earned a master's degree from prestigious Georgetown University. Honorably discharged at the end of his term of service, he continued to none other than Harvard Business School, where he received his MBA. He then worked four years as an investment banker at Golden Sachs, reaching a mid-level position in that short time.
Sounds pretty impressive, right?
Okay, here's another version. This is from Fire and Fury, page 55:
"Catholic school in Richmond, Virginia. Then a local college, Virginia Tech. Then seven years in the navel, a lieutenant on ship duty and then in the Pentagon. While on active duty, he got a master's degree at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, but then he washed out of his navel career. Then an MBA from Harvard Business School. Then four years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs--his final two years focusing on the media industry in Los Angeles--but not rising above a mid-level position."
Doesn't sound as good, does it? Our man may be a bit of a wastrel--"local college," "washed out of his naval career," "not rising above a mid-level position." But in that first paragraph we have "in service to his country," "prestigious," "reaching a mid-level position within that short time."
These two paragraphs slant the same set of facts diametrically different ways. I wrote the first, not out of any personal conviction, but just to show the opposite point of view. The problem is that all of Fire and Fury is slanted. Every bit. And after awhile--because I'm a writer, because I know how to control slant and how easily some readers are affected by it--after awhile it made me really angry.
The guy in question, by the way, is Steve Bannon. I don't like Steve Bannon. I would be interested in reading more about him, but not in the way I quote above. It's dishonest to suggest that seven years in the Navy and degrees from VT, Georgetown, and Harvard represent failure. You could say, despite all that, and give us some other facts, or quotes people said about him, or something--but if you're trying to skew every single fact you find, I'm not going to read your book. And I'm really glad I didn't pay you royalties.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The comments on this blog are now moderated. Yours will appear provided it's not hateful, crass, or annoying--and the definition of those terms is left solely to me.