AN EXCHANGE WITH JASON LEOPOLD

From: Jason Leopold
To: Jan Herman
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:35:11
I respect your opinion. However, your review of my book appeared to be filled with anger. I spent a lot of time berating myself for all of the carnage I left behind so I am not quite sure how I am the "sad victim of an ego grandstanding to the bitter end." For a person who cites Burroughs as one of his favorite authors I am surprised that you were so repulsed by my book. Moreover, I never presented myself as a Hunter S. Thompson or anyone close to him. I'm simply a mild-mannered journalist who had a story to tell.

If it's the subtitle of my book that was annoying you I suggest you read this past Sunday's NYT Book Review article about subtitles.

I will continue to read Blogcritics because I love it so much. So no hard feelings. I'm sorry that you felt you were misled.

[Leopold's Blogcritics reference is to another site where STRAIGHT UP is also posted. The Sunday NYT Book Review article about subtitles is by Ben Yagoda, who writes: "They are a sort of lottery ticket in the economics of nonfiction book marketing. Publishers throw all kinds of elements in them -- vogue words and phrases, features of the book the title didn't get around to mentioning, talismanic locutions ... in the (almost always) vain hope that something will pay off."]

From: Jason Leopold
To: Jan Herman
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:44:56
What I find fascinating is that people who claim to adore Burroughs, Kerouac, Hunter S., and others like them can't stand to read about someone in the 21st century who is, let's be honest here, not that much different than they were in their time.

I ask you what's so different between Hunter S and me? He dropped acid. I snorted coke. Burroughs shot heroin (and his wife). I stole CDs. Hunter S. reported on the scandalous Nixon administration. I was obsessed with nailing Bush and Enron.

Burroughs, as I knew him, was not an egomaniac -- far from it. I concede that Hunter S. Thompson was, but his egomania didn't put me off. And the Kerouac I like best is the Kerouac of "The Vanity of Duloz," subtitled "The Adventurous Education of a Young Man." It's the polar opposite of egomania. (It's also a book so little read that it's out of print.) [The title actually is "Vanity of Duluoz: an adventurous education, 1935-46."]

Can you clarify for me what is happening with the legal issue raised in the Voice article? [It wonders whether the threat of a defamation suit will hinder the release of "Off the Record." I've seen various publication dates listed, first for February, then for March and now for April.]

Also, I'd like to post your messages in response to my "review," including the [blurb] from Greg Palast.

From: Jan Herman
To: Jason Leopold
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:39:48
and about the subtitle of yr book. it's true that it set up expectations that i felt went unfulfilled. for that -- if it was yr publisher who came up with it -- i do apologize. i should have remembered my own chagrin at the subtitle a publisher gave my biography of william wyler. i disliked it, thought it created wrong expectations. but i went along because the publisher was so dead set on it as a marketing tool. i regretted going along from the beginning and even more when some reviewers took me to task for it. so, my apology for presuming the subtitle was yours.

From: Jason Leopold
To: Jan Herman
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:02:24
Feel free to post my response.

Can you give me an example of "rampant egomania"? What in my book, or what have you read, heard, anything you can identify that would back up "rampant egomania." Please point me to the page number.

From: Jason Leopold
To: Jan Herman
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:02:53
I need examples of rampant egomania, not just an opinion, but examples.

From: Jason Leopold
To: Jan Herman
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:05:50
Yes, I've learned that if my publisher could get away with calling my book "Britney Spears" or something irrelevant like that they would because all they seem to care about is marketing and sales.

From: Jan Herman
To: Jason Leopold
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:17:13
Reviews are opinions, and maybe I should have said rampaging narcissism (a syndrome characterized by grandiose delusions) instead of rampant egomania. Here are some citations:

p. 18: "I seem to have this ability to light up a room and become the center of attention in a way that attracts people to me like flies to shit. More than that, I have an innocence and a naivete that attract people and make them want to help me. There's a vulnerable sweetness that comes through my rough exterior and makes people feel safe around me. You can hear it in my voice when I ask questions and you can see it in my eyes when I understand the answer."

p. 20: "I naively hope that each time I broke news on the California energy crisis, the other reporters covering the story would see me as the next Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein."

p: 30: "I danced around the office and started boxing with my reflection in the window. I started singing the theme song from Rocky III. Then I introduced myself to my imaginary audience. "Ladies and gentlemen will you please welcome the undisputed heavyweight champion, JASON LEOPOLD."

p. 193: "I felt that Fastow and I shared a common bond, not just as Jews but also as criminals." [The reference is to Andrew Fastow, the former chief financial officer of Enron.]

p. 194: "I led each camp to believe that I was its inside source and the only journalist willing to vindicate either of them if they spoke to me exclusively." [A clever, if unethical tactic, but it also illustrates the egomania.]

p. 200: "I felt bad, but at that moment I didn't give a shit about my brother's second marriage. All I cared about was this story and the look of shock on Rebecca's face when she saw my byline on it." [The Rebecca reference is to a rival reporter.]

p. 212: "I felt I'd outdone myself once again. The feeling of power was running through my veins. It went straight to my head."

p. 213: "When it hit cyberspace it didn't make a sound. It just sat out there. Two weeks went by. No impact. I was frustrated. I wanted some attention. I had started the biggest fire and no one seemed to notice that it was burning."

p. 215: "I was completely unprepared for and overwhelmed by the firestorm that came about as a result of this story. It was burning out of control. Salon celebrated the moment. There was talk of awards. I felt like a modern-day version of Woodward or Bernstein."

p. 222: "He made me so angry that I started to wonder how I could get my revenge. I thought about sending him a dozen pizza pies or mailing him a bag of shit. I went to a web site that supposedly sells all kinds of shit, cow shit, dog shit, deer shit, horse shit, and will wrap it up in a box with a bow and mail it to your worst enemy without it ever being traced back to you. I settled on elephant shit, two big logs. But when it came to enter my credit card information, I lost my nerve. I told Carr that he had it all wrong about me. I told him I was a star reporter. ..."

p. 230: "Ever since I was a kid I've had this uncontrollable desire to protect people from persecution."

p. 231: "I'll admit there were times when the only thing I was interested in was advancing my own journalism career. Breaking news is a perfect example. Whenever news broke and I was nearby, I stopped caring about the people affected. I kept a camera and notebook with me and hoped that if I saw a car crash I would be the first one on the scene and report the story and get the Pulitzer Prize-winning story. Then I'd try to literally save lives and be the hero, too."

These citations don't give the anecdotal context of each of them (i.e. the quote from p. 213 expressing frustration about your story not being noticed. That's a common feeling for many reporters. But then you compare yourself to a pyromaniac. I don't doubt that you feel you're being totally honest and that you understand your grandiosity is compensation for the many insecurities you write about. But I'm not sure you really see how much you've rationalized your motives. The book shows either how clever and smart you were (which you are) or how foolish and devious you were. But the tale is always all about me, me, me -- and that wore thin.

Maybe I'm all wet. And anyway, it's only one man's opinion. I wish you the best, too.

PS: You forgot to answer to my question: What is happening with the legal issue raised in the Voice article?