Malcolm 2
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
"Unlike other relationships that have a purpose beyond themselves and are clearly delineated as such (dentist-patient, lawyer-client, teacher-student), the writer-subject relationship seems to depend for its life on a kind of fuzziness and murkiness, if not utter covertness, of purpose. If everybody put his cards on the table, the game would be over."
"Wambaugh was an ex-cop (he was once a detective on the Los Angeles police force), and, maybe even more to the point, he was one of America’s most successful popular writers, who apparently could afford to be blunt (as McGinniss, strapped for cash, apparently could not). “You should understand that I would not think of writing your story,” Wambaugh wrote, and he went on: It would be my story. Just as The Onion Field was my story and In Cold Blood was Capote’s story. We both had the living persons sign legal releases which authorized us to interpret, portray, and characterize them as we saw fit, trusting us implicitly to be honest and faithful to the truth as we saw it, not as they saw it. With this release you can readily see that you would have no recourse at law if you didn’t like my portrayal of you. Let’s face another ugly possibility: what if I, after spending months of research and interviewing dozens of people and listening to hours of court trials, did not believe you innocent? I suspect that you may want a writer who would tell your story, and indeed your version may very well be the truth as I would see it. But you’d have no guarantee, not with me. You’d have absolutely no editorial prerogative. You would not even see the book until publication."
Exactly. Wambaugh is trying to make it explicitly clear that he is unafraid of telling the story in the way that he sees it. It would be his story, not MacDonald’s. He wants to abandon any idea of MacDonald being able to influence or even see the final product.
I agreed with Ayannah and Georges’ points, the Wannbaugh is not afraid to tell everything because he wants to be the protagonist of his story. He wants his story to be told in the way he prefers, as Ayannah wrote, he’s story is raw.
I agree with Ayannah about the rawness, that Wambaugh is putting his cards on the table because he wants his story told. But on another note, like in the next question, perhaps he is putting his cards on the table to gain the trust of the journalist.
I agreed. I guess being overbearing is one of the unique personalities of his writing. He wants his story wrote in the way he wanted without other opinions.
Wambaugh’s fearlessness is evident from his willingness to tell the story. His perspective needs to be clear from expressing the story in this manner. It’s possible that he wants to gain the trust of the journalist, but its not exactly clear.
He is showing what he’s got, which is moxie and a reputation for not allowing an editors influence?
I think it ultimately comes down to a position of power. Wambaugh can only gain from telling a gritty authentic story but, McGinniss would be taking a big risk. Wambaugh has the power in this situation and can afford to be transparent.
Wambaugh is putting his cards on the table because he has already established a reputation for delivering raw content to readers, so he wants the story to be told his way.
General Document Comments 0
It any case it’s never a good idea to put all your cards on the table at once as it halts your input and role and you lose your leverage. That leverage is having someone dependent on what you may have left so that you can still utilize them and get the most out of them that you need as possible. Putting down all your cards extinguishes any sense of control or leverage you have in any given situation in which you need something from the “client”.
I couldn’t agree more with Rand. It’s not good to put all your cards on the table because then, you’d be losing the only leverage you have. There wouldn’t be any incentive for the opposing party to give you anything because they wouldn’t get anything out of the relationship.
This is also true. While putting your cards on the table will remove your leverage for some journalists taking the risk of getting the trust of their subject is worth the risk of losing the story entirely. This can be a very impressionable move on someone who you need to trust you, but has just as much of the risk of losing the subject and the story entirely.
your credibility in the writing world forever.
Which in return will destroy the lawyers “story” because he did not know about that defying detail.
There is definitely a fine line between being able to obtain trust through exposing yourself and making yourself completely vulnerable and relinquishing any leverage you may have had. In some cases, putting all of your cards on the table could very well have the opposite effect and make you even less trustworthy.
I guess the word “roofless” meant less faith worthy. Putting all cards on the table may cause others to question the reliability of the information.
I agree that there are some situations where putting your cards on the table would help you establish a sense of trustworthiness. But I think there’s a fine line between giving it all away and giving somethings away. I agree it does depend on the situation but I think it’s beneficial to have one or two cards up your sleeve.
I think there are benefits to putting your cards on the table. Just like you said, to earn trust. But sometimes, to unburden themselves from any secrets on either side, the subject or the journalist.
I agreed with Rand. Putting all cards on the table at once is taking a risk to let the story being untrue. Also, the journalist could not remember every detail so that will cause the writing less truthful. Telling story should take steps and let the listener take processes.
I wouldn’t say it is a good idea to put everything on the table at once. Just like pouring water into a bottle, pour a large bucket of water all at once will result in the loss of most the water. The same as telling a story, the journalist could not remember every detail so that will cause the writing less truthful.
Right. telling story should take steps or say it strategically but not all at once.
be done sometimes, in order to receive
It’s a risky approach based on possibly losing power within the subject. You can also lose trust as well by exposing yourself. This approach is best when your prepared and confident about coming out unscathed. Your counterpart may also be offended by the aggressiveness of placing all your cards on the table.
It wouldnt be good to put all your cards on the table because sometimes, as discussed earlier with the moral compass, you might need to pull some “sly” work in order to get the truth out. You want to have weapons in your arsenal in order to complete the story.
In general, when you put all your cards on the table, you cede if any leverage you held previously.
But also you gain some level of trust.
It is not a good idea to put all your cards on the table because you are making yourself susceptible and losing whatever leverage you may have established. Also, by doing this you run the risk of losing the trust of the other party, since the subject’s statements aren’t being used to their fullest potential.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments