I’m Not Proud, But Sedaris Tickets Were at Stake

I was ready to break up with him. Actually, I’m not sure it counted so much as a break-up as a “let’s not do this thing where we talk over the food and the drinks anymore” since we’d only been out on a handful of dates. I wanted to like him, but the truth was I just didn’t. And no amount of Hartford, Connecticut lonesomeness could make me look the other way and just go with it.

So when he called at the appointed hour for our fireside phone chat, I was prepared to thank him for all the lovely banter over the past few weeks, for pretending that he actually read the newspaper I worked for, and bid him adieu. But then he led with the David Sedaris tickets. He had a pair for the following week and did I want to go? Did I want to go? Is the Pope Polish? (Well, he was at the time.) But it wouldn’t be right. I couldn’t use this kind gentleman I wasn’t remotely interested in for his tickets. I couldn’t sit through another meal and perform like a trained monkey, smiling and laughing and nodding at all the right points. Could I?

It turns out that yes, yes I could. (Again with the Pope and his level of Polishness.) In the words of Whitney, it’s not right, but it’s okay.

Tonight, when I see him perform in Brooklyn, tickets for which I purchased myself (throw your hands up at me, Beyonce!) I will think about this kind gentleman and say an Our Father or two as penance. If that doesn’t ease my soul, I can always have an audience with my Virgin Mary collection when I get home.

David Sedaris: On Foreign Lands and Sibling Secrets

If someone wants a knowledgeable or sensitive take, there are plenty of other people they could be reading. If they want to know about turds, they should come to me. ~ David Sedaris

More where that came from in this great Q & A in The News Journal, written by my former Philly Inquirer colleague, Margie Fishman. I’m ridiculously excited to see Sedaris read next month in Brooklyn. You’d think I’m a 12-year-old with Justin Bieber tickets.

 

From Slate: Story-Truth vs. Truth-Truth?

Source: Wikipedia. The Boyhood of Raleigh by Sir John Everett Millais, oil on canvas, 1870. A seafarer tells the young Sir Walter Raleigh and his brother the story of what happened out at sea.

Dan Kois has a good piece in Slate this week, with the cheeky headline, Facts Are Stupid. Some story commenters called it gimmicky, but I call it thought-provoking. When it comes to non-fiction writing, can there ever be room for fiction if it’s in the name of art? Does muddying the waters of fact sometimes actually serve to clarify a greater truth?

I got my start in newsrooms, where facts and quotes are regarded with reverence. As journalists, we were trained to gather the pieces of a story as best as we knew them and correct the record when we’d learned we’d gotten it wrong. There was room for fact-blurrying or muddying (unless you’re Jayson Blair. And that’s not cool). Still, who among us hasn’t smoothed over a bumbly quote for the sake of clarity? Essay writing gets trickier. Did that incident you’re writing about actually happen in the fourth grade, or was it third? How much does it really matter if you’re not forsaking the salient facts of the story?

As readers and listeners, we put a certain amount of trust in our storytellers. But when a comedian tells us, “True story that happened to me this weekend…” we know it’s code for “this story is pretty much bullshit, but I’m about to reveal a greater truth, so go with it.” And go with it, we do. The same with humor writers like David Sedaris and Sloane Crosley. They’re essentially writing memoir, but we as readers know they’re exaggerating for effect, that they’re calling up memories that the passing of time has forced them to reconstruct, and likely not with entire accuracy. And we’re cool with that. We go along for the ride because we trust that the essence of the story is true.

But where is the line between story-truth and truth-truth? Read the story in Slate and let me know what you think.