Because I'm still learning how to be a thorough researcher and reporter, I want to take a moment to list some of the evident sources Krakauer had to do in order to write this story.
One organization technique (of a different kind) that struck me as I read was that Krakauer would often give the true version of events first before explaining Mortenson's fabricated version. For example, we meet Naimat Gul Mahsud during the more accurate friendly offering (10) rather than the deceptive kidnapping (12). There are a few good reasons to write the piece this way. Foremost, it symbolically privileges the truth by putting it first, which makes sense. Second, it helps Krakauer avoid his piece feeling like a rote list of lie-correction stories. That seems to be more fair to Mortenson in some way, because JK's not just constantly ripping down on him and making the piece very negative; rather, he's correcting, doing positive work, which I admire as authorial restraint. Plus it helps word choice variety to eliminate repetitions of "allegedly" or other hedge words when describing supposed events. In addition, this truth-first strategy starts to correct some of the character assassinations Mortenson committed, like in the case of Naimat Gul, we meet him as a person willing to help a stranger out, not a stereotyped brute. (Though in this particular case I found Krakauer's footnote [73] fascinating--that Naimat Gul wasn't a particularly honest man himself and in some ways perhaps got what he deserved. I can't decide if I admire JK for that choice and understand it as a distraction to the overall narrative, or if it is somewhat crafty to slip such information into a footnote not everyone is going to read.) He does this again with Sarfraz Khan and Ted Callahan's search for medical care (56-58), which is in itself pretty dramatic, so readers of course wonder why Mortenson felt the need to manipulate even that story.
I can only imagine how challenging it was to write "Deceit" because it's not only a ton of potentially dry financial information and corrections of previous works, but it's on the whole an emotionally-driven and upsetting portrait of deception, ignorance, assumptions, and negligence. There's very little redemption here. Krakauer manages to create a readable and interesting narrative, but by the end, I was not only exhausted, but questioning nearly everybody's stories. The piece became about something more than just an ego maniacal con artist and his betrayals; it was about problems in publishing and journalism (like my other post pointed at) and cultural clashes, the sometimes-fuzzy (and not-so-fuzzy) nature of truth, about trust. It's funny that once the truth is out we just can't believe Mortenson got away with all this for so long, when there were so many instances people shouldn't have believed him along the way. The world is strange like that.
- Mortenson's and CAI's tax returns
- Previous stories written by and about M and CAI (books, blogs, TV shows, magazine and newspaper articles, etc.)
- JK contacted Mortenson, M's friends, former employees, financial backers, distant and sometimes remote correspondents in Afghanistan, M's co- and ghostwriters, presumably his family and past acquaintances
- CAI memos and internal communications
- In the Byliner update, he's started investigating M's spokespersons
- Maps of the regions the schools were in
- And obviously way more...
One organization technique (of a different kind) that struck me as I read was that Krakauer would often give the true version of events first before explaining Mortenson's fabricated version. For example, we meet Naimat Gul Mahsud during the more accurate friendly offering (10) rather than the deceptive kidnapping (12). There are a few good reasons to write the piece this way. Foremost, it symbolically privileges the truth by putting it first, which makes sense. Second, it helps Krakauer avoid his piece feeling like a rote list of lie-correction stories. That seems to be more fair to Mortenson in some way, because JK's not just constantly ripping down on him and making the piece very negative; rather, he's correcting, doing positive work, which I admire as authorial restraint. Plus it helps word choice variety to eliminate repetitions of "allegedly" or other hedge words when describing supposed events. In addition, this truth-first strategy starts to correct some of the character assassinations Mortenson committed, like in the case of Naimat Gul, we meet him as a person willing to help a stranger out, not a stereotyped brute. (Though in this particular case I found Krakauer's footnote [73] fascinating--that Naimat Gul wasn't a particularly honest man himself and in some ways perhaps got what he deserved. I can't decide if I admire JK for that choice and understand it as a distraction to the overall narrative, or if it is somewhat crafty to slip such information into a footnote not everyone is going to read.) He does this again with Sarfraz Khan and Ted Callahan's search for medical care (56-58), which is in itself pretty dramatic, so readers of course wonder why Mortenson felt the need to manipulate even that story.
I can only imagine how challenging it was to write "Deceit" because it's not only a ton of potentially dry financial information and corrections of previous works, but it's on the whole an emotionally-driven and upsetting portrait of deception, ignorance, assumptions, and negligence. There's very little redemption here. Krakauer manages to create a readable and interesting narrative, but by the end, I was not only exhausted, but questioning nearly everybody's stories. The piece became about something more than just an ego maniacal con artist and his betrayals; it was about problems in publishing and journalism (like my other post pointed at) and cultural clashes, the sometimes-fuzzy (and not-so-fuzzy) nature of truth, about trust. It's funny that once the truth is out we just can't believe Mortenson got away with all this for so long, when there were so many instances people shouldn't have believed him along the way. The world is strange like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment