True Story: Murder, Memoir, Mea Culpa
A book by Michael Finkel
Amazon.com -- On February 2002, New York Times Magazine writer Michael Finkel received a startling piece of news: a young man named Christian Longo, wanted for killing his entire family, had been captured in Mexico, where he'd taken on a new identity: Michael Finkel of the New York Times.
The next day, on page A-3 of the Times, came another troubling item: a note from the editors explaining that Finkel, having falsified parts of an investigative article, had been fired. Nonetheless, the only journalist Longo would speak with was the real Michael Finkel, and so Finkel placed a call toOregon 's Lincoln
County
By Dennis Littrell HALL OF FAME TOP 500 REVIEWER
VINE VOICE on January 29, 2006
A book by Michael Finkel
Amazon.com -- On February 2002, New York Times Magazine writer Michael Finkel received a startling piece of news: a young man named Christian Longo, wanted for killing his entire family, had been captured in Mexico, where he'd taken on a new identity: Michael Finkel of the New York Times.
The next day, on page A-3 of the Times, came another troubling item: a note from the editors explaining that Finkel, having falsified parts of an investigative article, had been fired. Nonetheless, the only journalist Longo would speak with was the real Michael Finkel, and so Finkel placed a call to
Excellent Amazon.com Customer Review
5
Stars Brilliantly done, but unsettlingBy Dennis Littrell HALL OF FAME TOP 500 REVIEWER
VINE VOICE on January 29, 2006
I
found this fascinating. I stayed up until two o'clock in the morning to finish
it. It is a true crime story written in a clear, elegant style. Every sentence
is polished, and every sentence is planned and placed in exactly the right
place. There is no obvious striving for effect, no lurid prose, no fancy
writing. Michael Finkel employs what George Orwell once called the invisible
style. The writing is so unobtrusive, so deliberate in not calling attention to
itself that what the reader experiences is the story itself, pure and simple.
Or stories. The book is like a film or a commercial novel in that there is a main plot and a subplot. The main plot is the story of Christian Longo who murdered his wife and three children and then ran toMexico West
Africa . He was disgraced and fallen from the pinnacle of
journalistic prestige. That is the subplot. Both stories are interwoven
together in a masterful way. And the sequence of events is presented in a
dramatic--not a strictly chronological--way so that the tension is maintained
and the reader is led to eagerly turn the pages.
The overall story began when Finkel found out about Chris Longo impersonating him. Struck with the coincidence, he felt compelled to know more about Longo and why the accused murderer took on his name. He contacted Longo and worked hard to establish rapport and a friendship. His motive was to get as much information from Longo as he could in order to write a book. The book would fuse the story of his disgrace with that of a man who had murdered his family. The thread that ties the stories together is not just the initial coincidence but an obsession with honesty that haunted both men and the obvious lack of honesty that they both practiced. Both Finkel and Longo strove again and again to come completely clean about what they had done and what they were doing while using each other under the guise of friendship. Longo used Finkel as somebody to talk to (he had been isolated from the other prisoners and had almost no contact with anyone other than his lawyers) and as a sounding board for his defensive strategy. Finkel used Longo as a source for a story that would restart his career. As Finkel makes vivid, both men were more than a little desperate.
At one point Finkel gives part of the voluminous correspondence he had with Longo to three shrinks. They conclude that Longo has a narcissistic personality. He may indeed be narcissistic, but more to the point, Longo is a psychopath. He has all the classic features: a charming personality; a behavioral record of lies and thefts and murders; a grotesque sense of ultimately caring about nobody but himself; and finally an ability to be completely without remorse and able to party after his crimes, as he did inMexico
Ironically, I think it is Finkel who has at least a touch of the narcissistic personality. We can see this in his tendency toward an exaggerated sense of his own importance, first in imagining that the world would be all that interested in his story (ah, but he made the world interested by his skillful writing) and in this from page 267 (he's talking to Longo's lawyers who want ideas for Longo's defense): He writes, "I felt, at that moment, as though Longo's life was in my hands--that if I said the right thing, he'd be spared the death penalty." We can also see this in the tremendous amount of energy Finkel put into researching and writing this book. He desperately wanted to regain his reputation and to be regarded again as a top flight journalist.
Both men are caught in a moral confusion about lies and honesty, Longo because he's a psychopath who doesn't understand how people can be so upset about lying since it would seen to be the natural thing to do if it might benefit you (sociopaths learn at an early age that they are supposed to be remorseful about lying, and that it's bad, but they never really appreciate why, and so they are fascinated with the dynamics); Finkel because as he freely admits has told many lies in his life including the lies that ended his career at the New York Times. Neither has apparently thought much about Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Neither seems to understand that it is not so much the absolute consistency of what you say as it is your motive for what you say and especially how what you say affects others. That is what counts. Most people know this. Furthermore everybody lies at one time or another, but not when bearing witness and not when the lives of other people might be adversely affected.
I think what fascinated Finkel about Longo was that he could see in him a caricature of himself; and as long as he could imagine that Longo might not be guilty or as long as he didn't look too closely at the murders, that was tolerable. However after sitting through the trial and hearing Longo's grotesque self-serving lies about the murders and the horrific details, Finkel had to psychologically distance himself from his would-be, partial alter-ego. And rightly so since there is something terribly unsettling about their symbiotic relationship.
But in the final analysis I say good for Michael Finkel. This is an outstanding work, a fine addition to a genre I like to call "participatory journalism." What Finkel learned about himself from this chancy venture is possibly as important as what this book has done for his career and for his self-esteem.
Or stories. The book is like a film or a commercial novel in that there is a main plot and a subplot. The main plot is the story of Christian Longo who murdered his wife and three children and then ran to
The overall story began when Finkel found out about Chris Longo impersonating him. Struck with the coincidence, he felt compelled to know more about Longo and why the accused murderer took on his name. He contacted Longo and worked hard to establish rapport and a friendship. His motive was to get as much information from Longo as he could in order to write a book. The book would fuse the story of his disgrace with that of a man who had murdered his family. The thread that ties the stories together is not just the initial coincidence but an obsession with honesty that haunted both men and the obvious lack of honesty that they both practiced. Both Finkel and Longo strove again and again to come completely clean about what they had done and what they were doing while using each other under the guise of friendship. Longo used Finkel as somebody to talk to (he had been isolated from the other prisoners and had almost no contact with anyone other than his lawyers) and as a sounding board for his defensive strategy. Finkel used Longo as a source for a story that would restart his career. As Finkel makes vivid, both men were more than a little desperate.
At one point Finkel gives part of the voluminous correspondence he had with Longo to three shrinks. They conclude that Longo has a narcissistic personality. He may indeed be narcissistic, but more to the point, Longo is a psychopath. He has all the classic features: a charming personality; a behavioral record of lies and thefts and murders; a grotesque sense of ultimately caring about nobody but himself; and finally an ability to be completely without remorse and able to party after his crimes, as he did in
Ironically, I think it is Finkel who has at least a touch of the narcissistic personality. We can see this in his tendency toward an exaggerated sense of his own importance, first in imagining that the world would be all that interested in his story (ah, but he made the world interested by his skillful writing) and in this from page 267 (he's talking to Longo's lawyers who want ideas for Longo's defense): He writes, "I felt, at that moment, as though Longo's life was in my hands--that if I said the right thing, he'd be spared the death penalty." We can also see this in the tremendous amount of energy Finkel put into researching and writing this book. He desperately wanted to regain his reputation and to be regarded again as a top flight journalist.
Both men are caught in a moral confusion about lies and honesty, Longo because he's a psychopath who doesn't understand how people can be so upset about lying since it would seen to be the natural thing to do if it might benefit you (sociopaths learn at an early age that they are supposed to be remorseful about lying, and that it's bad, but they never really appreciate why, and so they are fascinated with the dynamics); Finkel because as he freely admits has told many lies in his life including the lies that ended his career at the New York Times. Neither has apparently thought much about Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Neither seems to understand that it is not so much the absolute consistency of what you say as it is your motive for what you say and especially how what you say affects others. That is what counts. Most people know this. Furthermore everybody lies at one time or another, but not when bearing witness and not when the lives of other people might be adversely affected.
I think what fascinated Finkel about Longo was that he could see in him a caricature of himself; and as long as he could imagine that Longo might not be guilty or as long as he didn't look too closely at the murders, that was tolerable. However after sitting through the trial and hearing Longo's grotesque self-serving lies about the murders and the horrific details, Finkel had to psychologically distance himself from his would-be, partial alter-ego. And rightly so since there is something terribly unsettling about their symbiotic relationship.
But in the final analysis I say good for Michael Finkel. This is an outstanding work, a fine addition to a genre I like to call "participatory journalism." What Finkel learned about himself from this chancy venture is possibly as important as what this book has done for his career and for his self-esteem.
No comments:
Post a Comment