Over the years, I have had “Letters-to-the-Editor” published
in The Los Angeles Times. I have also had a couple of commentaries
published on their “op-ed” section. I am
demonstrably no stranger to that arena.
Still, when a year or so back, I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine that required
immediate comment, to my surprise,
chagrin and disappointment, I found myself uncharacteristically inert.
I am correcting that error of dereliction – or whatever it
was – today.
I am belatedly writing that Rolling Stone “Letter to the Editor”…
Right here.
Hoping that, like some misdirected correspondence, it will inevitably
arrive at its appropriate destination.
Nah.
I just want to get it out of my system.
And shine a light on a more generalized concern.
I am not a regular reader of Rolling Stone. (When it
comes to magazine consumption, I read The
New Yorker and The Atlantic, although
I have been recently swimming away from The
Atlantic.) (Full Disclosure: I once submitted a commentary to The Atlantic, with an accompanying cover
letter saying that theirs was one of just two magazines I read regularly, and
the only one named after an ocean. They rejected my commentary.)
It was a “Perfect Storm” situation, if a “Perfect Storm,”
can involve only two elements, which may, on reconsideration, not entirely be
enough. Let’s say it was a somewhat
serious storm.
The intersecting elements?
There was a Rolling
Stone profile about Lorne Michaels.
And I was in a doctor’s office Waiting Room. (The doctor determined that the room live up
to its delineated reputation.) I had no
choice but to read it. I had already
flipped through People and Us, and had grown tired of pictures of
pregnant superstars frolicking at the beach.
The Rolling Stone profile
of Lorne Michaels chronicled his inexorable rise to media moguldom. None of the specifics were unfamiliar to me,
as I had known Lorne since the 60’s, when he was my brother Hart’s writing
partner. When Lorne subsequently
decamped on his own to Los Angeles, he soon invited me down there to work with
him.
Included also in our long-ago interaction was the
crossroadsing interlude where Lorne had tried to recruit me to join him during
the fledgling, pre-production period of Saturday
Night Live and I had respectfully turned him down, preferring instead to remain
in Los Angeles and develop a television-writing career of my own.
(Which I did.)
Anyway, early in the Rolling
Stone’s profile – which reads like liner notes from a impending coronation
program – I discover a big, factual – what do they call it in the journalistic
profession? –
Oh yeah. A boo-boo.
Triggering the “Letter to the Editor” that I never wrote,
(if you can “trigger” an occurrence that did not ultimately take place, which I
am now thinking you can’t.)
As I mentioned, I am no alien to “Letters to the
Editor.” I know, for example, that to
have any chance of getting it published, the letter needs to be relevant, short,
and to the point, leaving room for other “Letters to the Editor” concerning global
warming, international terrorism, and dog-walkers who are unwilling to pick up
their pet canines’ poo-poo.
Okay, here’s what happened.
Comedy-writing team Hart and Lorne – the “name order”
reflecting their comparative importance at the time – had gone to Los Angeles
to write, first for The Beautiful Phyllis
Diller Show and, after that show was cancelled, for the megahit variety
series Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In.”
Having been let go from Laugh-In
after half a season, Hart and Lorne then returned to Canada, where, for three
seasons, they produced, co-wrote (with some help), and starred in four TV
comedy specials a year under the exuberant moniker, The Hart and Lorne Terrific Hour.
When that job ended, Hart and Lorne dissolved their
partnership. Lorne eventually went back
to the States, where he went on to create Saturday
Night Live and garner an unquestionably deserved knighthood. Oh, wait.
America does not dispense knighthoods.
So they awarded him the Mark Twain Prize for Humor instead. Even though that honor is traditionally
accorded to writers and Lorne Michaels is primarily a producer. But what are you going to do if you can’t
give a guy a knighthood?
To his journalistic discredit, the Rolling Stone writer (whose name I do not recall) had flipped the order
of occurrences, having Lorne doing the Hart
and Lorne Terrific Hour before
moving on – and up – to writing for Laugh-In,
rather than after.
I do not know why he did that. It could have been accidental. It could have been sloppiness. It could have been because it seemed like it
was a better story that way, elevating Lorne, “straight-line” fashion, from the
Canadian backwater to the “Big Time” in the States, rather than chronicling, as
it actually happened, Lorne’s initial failure in the States, his return to
Canada to regroup, and his subsequent return
to the States, and eventual stratospheric success. (Which, when you think about it, is actually a
more interesting story.)
It is then that I imagined composing an irate “Letter to the
Editor”, a stinging rebuke that, dutifully chastened, I was certain the people
at Rolling Stone would be eager to publish.
It would go like this:
To the Editors of
Rolling Stone: I have read this issue’s
Lorne Michaels profile with great interest.
However I must to inform you that the chronology of the biography has
been inverted. Lorne Michaels wrote for
“Laugh-In” before working on the “Terrific Hour”, rather than the other
way around. I know that, because I was
there.
“You might think this
is hardly an egregious mistake. But it
made me wonder. If you got something I know
about wrong, what else in your magazine is wrong that I don’t know about? And what does that do to my trust in your overall
credibility?
Earl Pomerantz
Santa Monica,
California.
(Author’s Note:
The above letter is too long. But
when it comes to “Fantasy Writing”, there is a tendency to cut yourself some literary
slack.)
The implications here are far greater than the triviality of
a messed-up Lorne Michaels profile.
Think about it.
Your opinions, your understandings, the beliefs on which you
base your personal conclusions.
Where did they originally come from?
And what if where they originally came from got it wrong?
The secret to alleviating such confoundings is ALWAYS take your Kindle with you!
ReplyDelete