Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________BESTSELLER HELL BY JON CARROLL (09/25/97)

"GIFT OF FEAR" AUTHOR GAVIN DE BECKER RESPONDS TO JON CARROLL'S REVIEW OF HIS BOOK.
Thanks for the very kind review of my book, and no thanks for the rather unkind review of me as a person. Because you might write a review of my next (self-serving) book, please note for accuracy's sake:
Your reference to my telling of the Perry case reads: "De Becker says with pride that he managed to keep the whole incident out of the papers ..." Not in my book, I don't say that. In fact, the Perry case was front-page news all over America. Even my client has spoken about it in interviews. I chose not to name my client because I don't name clients unless there is some reason (such as when trying to get a law passed, or when a client and I say something publicly together about a case, or when I am testifying in court on a matter).
You write that the name Olivia Newton-John appears in a "short list of thanks to celebrity victims." On that list of six people I thank for their courage are four people you've never even heard of, hardly "celebrities."
You write: "The book is saturated with celebrities." Not my book. Saturation seems a fairly loaded word for a book that barely contains the names of any "celebrities." You must be referring to the acknowledgments, where I thank some of the people in my life. Some are famous, most are not. I have consulted for two decades with public figures. Knowing them seems an unavoidable occupational side effect, much as is the case for a journalist. Those people who are my friends, who I love, and in one case, who I live with, were hardly going to be left out of my acknowledgments because you might have heard their names.
Also, it was my stepfather I saw shot, not my father.
Mostly, I wrote to thank you for the kind words, and to tell you I enjoyed your comments on "experts" in our society. I really enjoy your writing (and am pleased that we both like Donald Westlake), and I have asked my office to order your book. That said, I also want to focus your attention on your repeated projection that my book is "self-serving." Of course, our work is always self-serving, as your review could be called self-serving, as this letter could be called self-serving. There is, however, an underlying cynicism in your repeated references. The fact is that when I do something good for others (such as using proceeds from this book to fund the L.A. County Domestic Violence Hotline that has served more than 20,000 people, or writing a book to share information people need and benefit from even though taking two years off work cost me much more money than the book could ever earn, or speaking all over the country for free -- way before there was a book to promote), it serves me, but not the way you mean. I do it because I want to give people some freedom from fear. I want to reduce the kind of violence and loss I experienced as a boy. I want something of meaning to come from the pain that I have seen nearly everyday for decades. When I go to a shelter and spend time with kids who are longing to be around men, because they are missing their fathers, violent though their fathers may be, it doesn't market Gavin de Becker or sell books (though if it did, that would be great, because there's value for people in my book).
To be blunt, I have been rich for a long, long while. After growing up on food stamps and welfare, just having a job would feel rich. Money does not "serve" me; I give away more in a month than most people earn in a year. Attention does not serve me; I don't care who knows what I do, or if anyone knows. What does serve me is my knowing. When sharing lessons from my hardest experiences saves someone else from the same type of experience, then it has some purpose. Otherwise, I was a young boy beaten up for nothing, and then a man who daily witnessed pain and fear (in my work) for nothing, and then someone who put my heart and soul into my life's work for nothing. "The Gift of Fear" is, in that sense, one of the most self-serving books in the bookstore.
But that is not the sense you write about. You presume to know what I want (to be "a well-known, high priced media consultant"). You presume to know why I do things (self-serving, of course; the "marketing of Gavin de Becker"). You presume to know my intent ("to promote Gavin de Becker, the product"). You call my discussion of attacks on public figures the "nice trashy payoff" to my book. (I guess the title chapter that focuses on helping people understand the role of fear and worry and anxiety in their lives was not the "payoff" for you, as it was for most readers, and as was my actual intent. Seeing that your intuition is brilliant was not the payoff for you?)
I have read many reviews of my book -- some good, some bad -- but yours was the only review of my character. It told me nothing accurate about me, but the five or so references to my being self-serving may reveal something about you: You don't feel you are doing enough good for others. (It's silly when people project motives onto you, isn't it?)
This much seems clear. You are close to being able to express a favorable opinion about something without wrapping it up in all that self-protecting cynicism. You liked my book, period. Sometimes that period communicates more about a writer's confidence in his work than the "but-I-know-the-real-score" balancing act that most journalists are addicted to.
You are a good writer who will become a better writer (and a happier person) as you become less cynical, period. Don't you agree?
-- Gavin de Becker
JON CARROLL RESPONDS:
It is my belief that anyone who makes himself the hero of his own book may fairly be called "self-serving." It would be best, though, if readers picked up "The Gift of Fear" (which is indeed a passionate and smart examination of an important subject) and judge for themselves whether my characterizations were unfair in any way.

_______________RISING BODY COUNT BY DOMINIC PATTEN (09/16/97)

I was writing to tell you that it's a shame that people have to go out and kill ... and then have the nerve to blame it on a movie! I mean, come on! I'm a 15-year-old kid ... and I know it's just a movie ... and these people need serious help! I didn't go out and have sex with showgirls when I saw that movie ("Showgirls") ... and I don't sing the theme song to "Barney" every time I see that program! It's just an excuse that will probably get them off the hook!
Thanks for listening to me cry.
-- Chris Lamb
Windsor, Ontario

_______________SNEAK PEEKS: A CHILD'S NIGHT DREAM BY GARY KRIST (09/25/97)

While I don't doubt that Gary Krist's review of Oliver Stone's new book, "A Child's Night Dream," is well-deserved, it is no reason to demean and patronize Stone as a filmmaker. There are still discriminating filmgoers who believe Stone is a brilliant, innovative, gutsy, fascinating filmmaker -- one of the few Americans who deals with history and public issues. Surely "JFK," "Nixon," "Platoon" -- content aside -- are examples of brilliant, innovative technical work, not to mention inspired directing of actors. Anyone who criticizes art on the basis of content cannot expect to be taken that seriously.
-- Paul B. Wiener

R E C E N T L Y+| Rising body count by Dominic Patten

Send us more letters
Salon's editorial mailbox is at salon@salonmagazine.com.

_______________BESTSELLER HELL BY JON CARROLL (09/25/97)
	"GIFT OF FEAR" AUTHOR GAVIN DE BECKER RESPONDS TO JON CARROLL'S REVIEW OF HIS BOOK. Thanks for the very kind review of my book, and no thanks for the rather unkind review of me as a person. Because you might write a review of my next (self-serving) book, please note for accuracy's sake: Your reference to my telling of the Perry case reads: "De Becker says with pride that he managed to keep the whole incident out of the papers ..." Not in my book, I don't say that. In fact, the Perry case was front-page news all over America. Even my client has spoken about it in interviews. I chose not to name my client because I don't name clients unless there is some reason (such as when trying to get a law passed, or when a client and I say something publicly together about a case, or when I am testifying in court on a matter). You write that the name Olivia Newton-John appears in a "short list of thanks to celebrity victims." On that list of six people I thank for their courage are four people you've never even heard of, hardly "celebrities." You write: "The book is saturated with celebrities." Not my book. Saturation seems a fairly loaded word for a book that barely contains the names of any "celebrities." You must be referring to the acknowledgments, where I thank some of the people in my life. Some are famous, most are not. I have consulted for two decades with public figures. Knowing them seems an unavoidable occupational side effect, much as is the case for a journalist. Those people who are my friends, who I love, and in one case, who I live with, were hardly going to be left out of my acknowledgments because you might have heard their names. Also, it was my stepfather I saw shot, not my father. Mostly, I wrote to thank you for the kind words, and to tell you I enjoyed your comments on "experts" in our society. I really enjoy your writing (and am pleased that we both like Donald Westlake), and I have asked my office to order your book. That said, I also want to focus your attention on your repeated projection that my book is "self-serving." Of course, our work is always self-serving, as your review could be called self-serving, as this letter could be called self-serving. There is, however, an underlying cynicism in your repeated references. The fact is that when I do something good for others (such as using proceeds from this book to fund the L.A. County Domestic Violence Hotline that has served more than 20,000 people, or writing a book to share information people need and benefit from even though taking two years off work cost me much more money than the book could ever earn, or speaking all over the country for free -- way before there was a book to promote), it serves me, but not the way you mean. I do it because I want to give people some freedom from fear. I want to reduce the kind of violence and loss I experienced as a boy. I want something of meaning to come from the pain that I have seen nearly everyday for decades. When I go to a shelter and spend time with kids who are longing to be around men, because they are missing their fathers, violent though their fathers may be, it doesn't market Gavin de Becker or sell books (though if it did, that would be great, because there's value for people in my book). To be blunt, I have been rich for a long, long while. After growing up on food stamps and welfare, just having a job would feel rich. Money does not "serve" me; I give away more in a month than most people earn in a year. Attention does not serve me; I don't care who knows what I do, or if anyone knows. What does serve me is my knowing. When sharing lessons from my hardest experiences saves someone else from the same type of experience, then it has some purpose. Otherwise, I was a young boy beaten up for nothing, and then a man who daily witnessed pain and fear (in my work) for nothing, and then someone who put my heart and soul into my life's work for nothing. "The Gift of Fear" is, in that sense, one of the most self-serving books in the bookstore. But that is not the sense you write about. You presume to know what I want (to be "a well-known, high priced media consultant"). You presume to know why I do things (self-serving, of course; the "marketing of Gavin de Becker"). You presume to know my intent ("to promote Gavin de Becker, the product"). You call my discussion of attacks on public figures the "nice trashy payoff" to my book. (I guess the title chapter that focuses on helping people understand the role of fear and worry and anxiety in their lives was not the "payoff" for you, as it was for most readers, and as was my actual intent. Seeing that your intuition is brilliant was not the payoff for you?) I have read many reviews of my book -- some good, some bad -- but yours was the only review of my character. It told me nothing accurate about me, but the five or so references to my being self-serving may reveal something about you: You don't feel you are doing enough good for others. (It's silly when people project motives onto you, isn't it?) This much seems clear. You are close to being able to express a favorable opinion about something without wrapping it up in all that self-protecting cynicism. You liked my book, period. Sometimes that period communicates more about a writer's confidence in his work than the "but-I-know-the-real-score" balancing act that most journalists are addicted to. You are a good writer who will become a better writer (and a happier person) as you become less cynical, period. Don't you agree? -- Gavin de Becker JON CARROLL RESPONDS: It is my belief that anyone who makes himself the hero of his own book may fairly be called "self-serving." It would be best, though, if readers picked up "The Gift of Fear" (which is indeed a passionate and smart examination of an important subject) and judge for themselves whether my characterizations were unfair in any way.
_______________RISING BODY COUNT BY DOMINIC PATTEN (09/16/97)
	I was writing to tell you that it's a shame that people have to go out and kill ... and then have the nerve to blame it on a movie! I mean, come on! I'm a 15-year-old kid ... and I know it's just a movie ... and these people need serious help! I didn't go out and have sex with showgirls when I saw that movie ("Showgirls") ... and I don't sing the theme song to "Barney" every time I see that program! It's just an excuse that will probably get them off the hook! Thanks for listening to me cry. -- Chris Lamb Windsor, Ontario
_______________SNEAK PEEKS: A CHILD'S NIGHT DREAM BY GARY KRIST (09/25/97)
	While I don't doubt that Gary Krist's review of Oliver Stone's new book, "A Child's Night Dream," is well-deserved, it is no reason to demean and patronize Stone as a filmmaker. There are still discriminating filmgoers who believe Stone is a brilliant, innovative, gutsy, fascinating filmmaker -- one of the few Americans who deals with history and public issues. Surely "JFK," "Nixon," "Platoon" -- content aside -- are examples of brilliant, innovative technical work, not to mention inspired directing of actors. Anyone who criticizes art on the basis of content cannot expect to be taken that seriously. -- Paul B. Wiener