“Well, I don’t think you need a fact-checker for the book,†the property caretaker said this morning, when he was showing Joe and Jose what he wanted with the roof of the garage, when the weather’s better.
“Really, I’ve never been there, especially not under the conditions you were, but from all I’ve read of your drafts, if one knows how you are in real life, there’s not anything that stretches the credulity.
"You
really are that careless and reckless and rash."
I know, I said; “maybe I’m being too paranoid about getting all the facts right, but I always remember the ‘blue mailbox’ phenomenon.â€
This was before the caretaker was born, and when I was still a kid.
There’d been a made-for-television movie that came out in 1973, based upon the assassination of John Kennedy ten years earlier, in 1963.
I never saw the movie, and it was years later, when reading old editions of
Time magazine I’d picked up at a garage sale, that I learned about it.
In one scene in the movie, there was a mail box on a street-corner; one of those big old ones not used by the public, but in which mailmen stashed mail they couldn’t deliver on their routes on that day, leaving the mail for the next day.
It was painted all blue.
The movie was depicting events of 1963.
Before 1970, such mail-boxes had always been painted red-white-and-blue; then in an economy move about the same time the post office was demoted from a cabinet position, it was decided to just paint them blue, period.
- - - - - - - - - -
“Why was that little error a big deal?†the caretaker asked.
“Well,†I said, “if one notices a mistake like that, one then starts wondering what other sorts of mistakes were in the movie, mistakes of which one’s not aware, and starts to doubt the credibility of the whole production.
“Fact-checkers are a good thing to have.â€
- - - - - - - - - -
“Or,†I went on, “a more-recent problem.
“There was a book, about three or four years ago, written by a reputable journalist, describing the first hundred days of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
“It was a good book, a great book…..until I abruptly hit a speed-bump.
“The author had identified Helen Gahagan Douglas as a Democrat U.S. Senator from California.
“Douglas ran for the Senate, but lost, and was never a U.S. Senator; however, she’d been a U.S. Congresswoman.
“I contacted the author, who kindly responded that ooops, I was right, assuring me the mistake would be corrected for the paperback version of the book.
“I don’t know if it ever was, because I don’t read paperback books, only hard-cover books; paperbacks are for tightwads and primitives.â€
- - - - - - - - - -
“So I went back to reading about the first hundred days of Franklin Roosevelt, supposing that was the only error in the book.
“But after another hundred pages or so, I hit another speed-bump.
“The author had identified Bennett ‘Champ’ Clark as being a U.S. Senator from New York.
“Which was wrong, way wrong; Clark was a U.S. Senator from Missouri, not New York.
“I thought about contacting the author again, but then just quit reading the book, figuring that with two mistakes like that in it, there were probably a whole lot of other mis-statements of fact, depriving the book of any credibility at all.â€
- - - - - - - - - -
“The next time you’re with me when I’m looking for something in the archives stored in town, remind me to show a few letters, from 1971, when I was still a kid.
“Someone had given me a very large book,
The Glorious Burden by Stefan Lorant, about the presidential campaigns up to 1964; that was about the biggest and heaviest book I’ve ever owned.
“Anyway, on the chapter dealing with the 1960 campaign, there was a photograph of John Kennedy, the Democrat candidate for president, riding in a car in between two other people, campaigning in Maine.
“I forget who the other guy was—either the then-governor of Maine or U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie, one of those two—but the woman was identified as U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith.....a Republican.
“’Whoa,’ I thought, and I immediately sent off a letter to her; in case one’s not aware, Margaret Chase Smith read all of her mail, and personally responded to all letters herself.
“Being rather unimpaired in the
chutzpah department at that age, like Doc, the PCIntern primitive, probably was when he was that age, I asked, ‘Hey, what were you, a Republican, doing, campaigning with Kennedy instead of Nixon back in 1960?â€
“The distinguished Senator, who was unexpectedly defeated by the powers of Mainian greed and primitivity a couple of years later after I'd written her, got a copy of
The Glorious Burden from the Library of Congress, and lo and behold, I was right.
“She then contacted Random House—I think it was Random House—who’d published the book, pointing out that the woman in the photograph next to Kennedy was actually Lucia Cormier, her Democrat opponent that year, not her.
“The publisher wrote her back, apologizing for the error, and told her it’d be corrected for later editions of the book.
“She sent me copies of that correspondence, and in a personal letter to me, assured me that she’d actually campaigned for Richard Nixon in 1960, along with a photograph of the two of them, taken in 1960, in Maine somewhere.â€
- - - - - - - - - -
“It’d be impossible to write a book 100% accurate in the facts, but I’d just as soon write one that’s as near to accurate as humanly possibly; no sloppy mistakes like all those.â€
to be continued