John Brisker Lives

Mr Ridgeway,

Sorry, I can't hear you. I have Dave Eggers talking in one ear and Penguin in the other.

YHS, etc

 

So that part of your post was a fiction?

Noted.

 

And they're both saying, 'Um...decaf?'

I thought Frank was criticizing the magazine more than the piece, but maybe not.

Either way, John Brisker lives.

 

In answer to 21, piece blew, but decision to run piece blew worse. Pretty much I always blame the editors -- I don't think they should run dumb stuff. Writers can't always help themselves, something Kindred pointed out in the last week or two on another thread.

Had no idea FoF was this writer. But it was an honest opinion, and who wrote it should not be a factor. I still think Pierce's piece on the Obama campaign was a horrendous decision by Esquire's editors when taken into context with the multiple insightful McCain pieces Jones wrote for the mag. While I like Pierce's work generally, I thought David Granger had his head up his ass on that decsion. I blame Granger more than Pierce.

This is what we do here, FoF. I could not really give a shit if you wipe your ass with all those book contracts you elect not to sign. It's irrelevant to whether this one sucked ass, and as a John Brisker fan who played with an ABA ball in my driveway as a kid, and as a journalist who thinks attempting to meld fact and fiction gives you critters like those on The Island of Dr. Moreau, I thought it the article sucked big turds.

 

Mr R

You can go to your proctologist and get a full-body exam.

Like I said, your opinion means nothing to me. I created an illusion but don't get the illusion that I care what aclown like you thinks. Can't process "Fiction Issue" as a concept ... you are some insightful reader, big guy. I guess you can't like what you don't understand. Thankfully those who matter (ie, those who edited and paid me, those editors in publishing houses) liked it and that's a trade I'll work every time.

YHS, etc

 

One more thing, FoF. When you interviewed these real people, were they aware that you planned to write a piece that was part truth, part figment of imagination? Or did you tell them it was a legit story and hoodwink them into cooperating with this circus act? From the one (1) comment I see with this story on ESPN's website, it appears that someone claiming to be one of the Briskers is a bit unhappy with the amount of fiction in it. I suppose I could just ask Freddy Cranwell whether you'd been straight with him, but it's far more fun to ask you whether you let these people in on your little joke or just sort of ethically dicked them after the fact? So which is it, FoF?

 

Mr R,

I researched Brisker with the hope of finding out what happened to him. Did so for a few years back when I got the State Dept documents. Talked to the people mentioned in the story and others and, yes, contacted as many people as I could in Uganda and in Liberia (strangely enough I had contacts in both from a non-sports story I did about Christian missionaries). Talked to private investigators but didn't get a good feeling about them--Uganda dicks are $30-$60 a month, at least what I was quoted. So I wrote a piece of fiction that was researched and speculative at the same time. Not the only time that has ever happened. I tried to portray Brisker as accurately as possible. Jim Shepard is just one example of a fiction writer who does a lot of research and writes fictions about real people, John Ashcroft and John Entwhistle among others. Did I do anything duplicitous? No. And if you read closely enough, the story never says the guy in the doorway is John Brisker. Never does. That's left vague and inconclusive. And, in fact, the unnamed protagonist concludes (maybe) that it isn't him. But then again, you were in your proctologist's office and missed these small details.

YHS, etc

 

You didn't answer the question, not even close. When you interviewed those people, did you tell them it was for a work of work of journalism or were you upfront with them that you would be making up stuff? If I were them, it would make a significant difference in whether I would talk to you at all, let alone be on the record. I believe that if you told people you were working as a journalist when they agreed to talk with you, you had an ethical obligation to use their comments only in a work of journalism. If you were writing fiction, then you had an ethical and moral obligation to reveal that to people you were asking to speak. These are human beings. They are talking about their real lives and the real life of a loved one. They do not exist solely for the purposes of your portfolio, to fictionalize as you wish. And they might answer one way (or not answer at all) to a journalist, and an entirely different way (or not at all) if they were talking to someone who was honest about an intent to make stuff up.

So, answer the question. When you interviewed Brisker's family, Fred Cranwell, etc., did you tell them their comments would be in a work of fiction or didn't you? Easy question, and it deserves an answer in which you do not hedge.

I believe any competent and ethical editor would ask these questions before publishing this piece. It's certainly fair game to ask it now on a board in which journalists interact.

 

Ragu, we agree on many things, but this one has me at a loss. If this were Day One of a discussion about how to create a sports journalism site, that might all be a valid argument. But since this has always been an anonymous site for critiquing and assessing and analyzing specific pieces of work, I'm not understanding your point at all.

There seems to be a presumption of 'safe haven' status for members or past members of the board that is never afforded to those who don't materialize here. What if the Brisker story had been written by someone else? Frank says (and I believe him) he didn't know who FOAF was. Should he dilute his opinion because he once posted on the same anonymous message board as the writer of a piece he didn't like? Frank didn't make a personal attack, or drag any board history/histrionics into it. He didn't like it. Other than exchanging dinner recipes and creating fantasy leagues, isn't that one of the basic purposes of this board?

 

John Brisker lives !