Gawker
The Times just posted a fascinating follow-up article on the saga of fake memoirist Magaret Seltzer, the well-off white lady who pretended to be a half-Native American gangbanger raised by a foster parent in the ghetto. In it, we learn that none of the editors or publishers involved in the publication of Seltzer's book or subsequent articles about it feels particularly badly about not detecting Seltzer's lies, because the author lied like a crazy person, enlisted a couple of fake foster siblings and it's not like anyone saw this coming. “The one thing we wish,” Riverhead Books publisher Geoffrey Kloske told the Times, “is that the author had told us the truth." Kloske's people, along with the Times itself, were suspicious enough that they did some fact checking, but couldn't manage more than the sad and weak sort of fact checking sadly lacking in primary sources. Here, for example, is how Penguin Group editor Sarah McGrath plumbed the depths of Seltzer's background, or, uh, didn't:
Ms. McGrath, who never met Ms. Seltzer during three years spent editing the book, said Ms. Seltzer, who lives in Eugene, Ore., had provided what she said were photographs of her foster siblings, a letter from a gang leader corroborating her story and had introduced her agent, Faye Bender, to a person who claimed to be a foster sister.
Ms. McGrath said she also trusted Ms. Seltzer because she had come through “a respected literary agent” who had in turn been referred to the author by a writer whom Ms. Bender had worked with previously.
Just to be clear, the evidence collected by Seltzer's publishing house, unless they forgot to tell the Times about something, consisted of an unauthenticated photograph, easily faked; an unauthenticated letter, also easily faked; and a secondhand introduction with an alleged primary actor in the memoir — much easier to fake than, say, a direct and lengthy interview with said source.
But why worry? Seltzer's agent Faye Bender, who McGrath said she totally trusted, said "there was no reason to doubt [Seltzer,] ever." Um, what?
Funnier still were the standards at the Times House & Home section, which profiled Seltzer separate from Michiko Kakutani's book review. The section's legwork consisted of trying to find Seltzer family members to interview and, when that proved surprisingly difficult (go figure), tracking down a prison name and prison identification number for Uncle Madd Ronald, Seltzer's supposed gang leader. Did the Times ever reach anyone claiming to be Ronald? No. But they did get this seemingly bulletproof confirmation:
Ms. Seltzer provided a prison name and prison identification number, and a copy editor confirmed that the prison existed.
Of course the writer of the Times story, Mimi Read, thought everything would be fine because, like so many of the Manhattan media types involved in this sad affair, she figured she had a good innate sense of what a ghetto-raised ex-gangbanger would sound like:
“The way I look at it is that it’s just like when you get in a car and drive to the store — you assume that the other drivers on the road aren’t psychopaths on a suicide mission,” said Ms. Read, who was never told Ms. Seltzer’s real name by the publisher or by Ms. Seltzer. “She seemed to be who she said she was. Nothing in her home or conversation or happenstance led me to believe otherwise.”
Comments
The worst punishment this chick has to endure is having had that very unflattering headshot appear 20 times on Gawker in the past 48 hours.
I'm beginning to suspect this Seltzer woman has not been entirely upfront about this memoir of hers.
Seltzer's agent Faye Bender, who McGrath said she totally trusted, said "there was no reason to doubt [Seltzer,] ever."
It's that "ever" that really sells it for me.
But, seriously? Can you fucking weak-ass publishers stop buying memoirs from anyone under sixty who isn't famous, a war hero, or a proven convict? And that goes for thinly-veiled roman-a-clefs as well. Except for mine.
It should be a giveaway anytime a white person says "I'm part Native American". Which part? The bloated drunk kind?
What's with the disappearing comments?
Oprah is going to give her the Nan Talese treatment.
I love "Nothing in her home or conversation or happenstance led me to believe otherwise."
Was it decorated in Mid-Century gang banger?.....Was there dog-fighting in the foyer?
@nicepony
When the NYT paid her a call, Seltzer was in her kitchen...making black-eyed peas and cornbread.
If that isn't proof-positive that a white person has spent time among black folk, well, you're a cold hard-to-please cynical bastard!
@Furious George: Seriously. She looks like the crying Santorum kid, all growed up.
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but in defense of the Times, actually getting any kind of contact, let alone a fact-checking interview, with someone in prison is not just a matter of picking up a phone. Some prisons won't even confirm that a particular person is incarcerated there (even if they are supposed to), which may be what Ms. Seltzer was counting on.
people people -- if someone is in prison, they committed a crime. if they committed a crime, it's, uh, how can i spell this out so ny times editors and publishing house fact checkers can understand it ****A PUBLIC RECORD****
obvs they haven't ever used any
they thought she said she was "well, off-white." damned punctuation! the only thing worse is.... capitalization.
I guess everyone fucking decided that credibility is overrated, and all these publishing-types circling the wagons in the comments around here are just self-proclaimed hacks. If you want a clue as to why people stopped reading newspapers and books, take a look in the mirror, hacks.
@notsofresh: All prisons and jails in the US are required to confirm if a certain person is being held there. Many try not to, yes, but their lame strategies are among the first things a cub reporter learns how to circumvent. And, last I heard, the NYT was the most powerful newspaper in the country. They shouldn't be employing reporters who can't get that kind of totally basic info. But the reporters at the Times are just as lazy and lame as the reporters they look down upon. And this is just another example of their lazy lameness.
I didn't know they had wolves in L.A. Nazis and Jews, sure, but wolves?
Egats!
@acridsheep:
jewish wolves?
"The one thing we wish," Riverhead Books publisher Geoffrey Kloske told the Times, "is that the author had told us the truth."
Wow, Kloske. To paraphrase Juno, "Wish BIG!"
My wish is that the sun goes down tonight and comes up in the morning and I will still have a job.
@Ian Spiegelman: Yeah, I agree. But I doubt that the NYT House and Home section is a hotbed of hardass, don't-take-no-for-an-answer newshoundery.
@if_i_only_had_a_heart: I was raised by them chutzpah. True story.
@Hamud: "I'm livin' in shame, Mama I miss you / I know you're not to blame, Mama I miss you."
@notsofresh: The hubris of the New York Times encompasses every single writer and editor under its stinking umbrella. Do you think that irrelevant zombie slob Michiko Kakutani even wondered for a second if this bullshit story was the real thing?
She just read it, saw "woman" and "black" and "native" and whinnied her way through a gushing review. Because she is an idiot. And that is what fuels the New York Times.
And I'm sure that the fact that Penguin Group editor Sarah McGrath's father is Charles McGrath (former editor of the NYT Book Review) is just a coincidence and had nothing to do with why the Times ran the profile in the first place.
You know, when I read the House & Home piece, my inner b-s detector went *wild.* White foster child in the hood? I don't think so. I just didn't buy it. Maybe if the crack investigative team at the NYT had called, oh, anyone who lives in LA, they might have caught it as well.
I found the part about her getting a tattoo when "Nevada set an execution date for a close friend" a bit suspicious because I know from living in Nevada that they don't execute people like Texas does. Sure enough, .10 seconds on google and I find out they've only executed 6 people in 10 years. If I weren't so lazy I would confirm that Nevada doesn't give people execution dates until all appeals are exhausted and it's sure to happen. But I wouldn't want to challenge Peggy's story. She'll sic Fat Momma on my ass fo' sure.
@notsofresh: Trust me. *Every* single reporter under the Times umbrella throws their weight around as if they were. The fact that this was the easiest story to debunk, and that they could not debunk it, will not lessen the hubris there.
And let me add one more thing: Michiko Kakutani is a horrible, horrible force against decent writing, that cheerleader of utter fucking crap.
The pathetic excuses in that story are more galling than the fact that she faked it. My favorite: That skepticism would harm the author-editor relationship. Not as much harm as finding out your author is a big liar.
@notsofresh:
just finished a story on three in prison. so not true. all public record. sorry.
@notsofresh:
oh and that's an excuse? Fuck. Hey NY TIMES House and Home! Hire me. I will fact check the shit out of your prima donna ass connected writers. They'll get nothing by me. And you don't have to pay me no 75 grand a year to do it. I'll do it for half that.
Course, I'll last about three months. That'
s how long it tooks the morons at RS to get rid of me after I brought up problems I had with the Stephen Glass college admissions story.
I was "difficult to work with" I was told. That's what the writers said.
I'll bet I was difficult.
Hard to tell lies and fabricate shit when someone actually takes the term "fact checking" seriously.
So what did the editor have: A pale white girl claiming to be Half-Native American,to have grown up with a black foster mother in South Central, and to be an "inactive member" of the Bloods. Yup, no reason to doubt this girl, ever. Everyone directly involved with the publication of this book should be fired and their positions elminated.
@friend_of_a_friend:
She'll sick her Brentwood residing slander-lawyer uncle on your ass is more like it.
@Ian Spiegelman:
Oh come on! She gave Carrie Bradshaw's book a great review in Sex and the City!!!!! And I'm sure it was a Great Book.
@slakboy:
It all makes me VOMIT. Nepotism everywhere. The son of Mr. Television Chuck Sherman head of MTV, his daughter a hack "financial editor" and money mag columnist who plegarizes every publication she can get her manicured hands and botoxed eyes on--she's down to MSN money. How do you think these people get these jobs? and why do you think they fuck up so monumentally? you think some no-nothing reporter who toiled away at The St Louis Dispatch who finally got a shot working for the NY Times would screw up like this?
I doubt it.
@notsofresh: I have to enter this late: It actually is just a matter of picking up the phone to get prison inmate status confirmed. You might have to pick up the phone several times and call many people, but, I've done it at least two dozens times and it's not rocket science.
The truth is insulting and divisive, according to Nan Talese as quoted. Her name is on book spines, if books can still be thought to have them. "I don't think there is any way you can fact-check every single book. It would be very insulting and divisive in the author-editor relationship."
@felion: shocking that they bought it, really. punk'd has more convincing pull-the-wool-over-their-eyes strategies than this chick.
@lizzybennet: Do you mean she gave Carrie's book a good review in the show, or that she gave Candace's book a good review in real life?
Still, I could understand giving Candace's book a good review. It was light fun and Candace was one of the first successful sex writers in the 90s. Michiko's real crimes occeurred later.
@Ian Spiegelman:
Why is this Michiko Kakutani's fault? That's the only part of this I don't get. I'm irritated by everyone else and see plenty of fault to go around:
Author
Liar, Poseur, Manipulator
Book Editor
Asleep at the switch (Let's be VERY kind.)
Enjoyed nepotistic connection
NYT Book Review Editor
Maybe a little too swept up by comfortable stereotypes about unruly black people
Responded to nepotistic connection
Assigned or suggested book (I assume)
Reviewer
Although possibly susceptible to nepotistic connection, read book and apparently liked it, with the assumption it was true. (The comment in the review about the memoir's "novelistic" aspects is screamingly funny now, as are all the articles the NYT ran before the fraud was exposed. The slideshow was priceless.)
But what was Kakutani supposed to do? Unloose the bloodhounds before opening the book? She's an effing reviewer/critic, not a P.I.
More important, shouldn't the Times's famous ethical rules have required an outside reviewer in a situation like this?
@Ryan:
Glad to see you're still carrying the fire in spite of the dayshifts rout.
The issue was never that that the book got undo coverage (surely it did, but that kind of nepotism is expected) The issue is that Penguin broke the story with Motoko Rich who occasionally shares a byline with Charles McGrath, and Motoko was uncritical of McGrath the younger. Shenanigans!.
@Seeräuber Jenny:
Well... not be so damned gullible, for one thing.
I don't even hate Kakutani nearly as much as most people here; I'm actually flabbergasted that she was fooled by this shit and even thought it was well-written.
@Seeräuber Jenny: She's been around forever. How about opening one's eyes to see how unlikely the story was?
But more to the point: If there is anything seemingly "ethnic" about you, even if it is absurd, MK will nod and praise and nod and praise. She's a cheerleader for an idea of a writer, and not even remotely a critic of existing writers. She's a stupid little preacher. Not a valid critic.
@Kakapo:
I do like Kakutani (I'm sure she has a very fine opinion of herself and couldn't care less what I think), but I think it's unfair to ask a reviewer to be a fact checker. A lot of people are acting as if there wasn't a whole chain of command that f---ked up absymally before the book got to her. Read after the fact, the review does display a bit of skepticism.
Were I a book editor I wouldn't want to interrogate the author of a memoir, either, although I think I'd try to check out some basic facts. And my goodness, the budget was so low that the writer and editor never met in three years?
Future memoirists:
Be ready to hand over your DNA (Thanks a bunch, Peggy.).
@Ian Spiegelman:
It was carrie's "collection of essays" that got the rave review, because on S& The C, let's face it, carrie bradshaw was the shit. All the men wanted her. mr Big finally gave up everything for her (NOT true in REAL life). She never married the dancer (NOT TRUE in real life). And she's not pathetic, unsubstantial, materialistic, simplistic, and a "fun light" writer of cliche with a twist and in an expensive gift box.
Get your ass through Angel of Repose or Call it Sleep and then we'll talk.
So the buck stops with the agent, huh? But it starts with the greed. Nobody lays out 100K unless they smell bestseller, paperback rights, movie deal. The editor never met the author? Did she think she was dealing with Salinger. This is the Pontius Pilate Book Club this lot is.
@3cardkitty:
I got it over the internet. Prison support groups publish this information routinely.
@Ian Spiegelman:
I was oretty clear it was Carrie bradshaw, not Candace Buschell.
And I probably spelled that wrong but I never bought the crap. I have 102 per cent desire NOT to read "sex columnists. Unless it's Dan Savage.
@lizzybennet:
and yes I meant Angel, as in Angel of literature, Wallace God Stegner.