Janet Malcolm
BY CRAIG SELIGMAN
(02/29/00)

In your mesmerizing analysis of the career of Janet Malcolm, you unfortunately perpetuate a significant factual error published in "The Journalist and the Murderer." Indeed, her "masterpiece," as you call it, is riddled with errors of fact. In the 1989 epilogue to "Fatal Vision" -- still in print and readily available -- I enumerate a number of them, but here I shall focus only on the one that you have chosen to promulgate.

Malcolm did not attend the 1987 trial of the civil lawsuit in which the murderer, MacDonald, charged me with various offenses (though not with having published anything he deemed untrue). Her absence placed her at a severe disadvantage in terms of accurate reporting, but perhaps, as a "genius," she considered such mundane tasks unworthy of her. Nonetheless, it led to grievous errors in her writings which you continue to disseminate (albeit in all probability unknowingly) to this day.

As you point out, she stated as fact that the trial ended in a hung jury only because one of the six jurors (whom you label as a "crank," based, I assume, on Malcolm's superficial and malicious portrait of her) held out against a verdict in favor of MacDonald.

Almost nothing could be further from the truth. As deliberations began, the judge gave to the six jurors 69 pages of instructions, as well as a "verdict form" that contained 37 questions. He admonished them to answer each of the questions in order, and not to proceed to a new one until unanimous agreement had been reached on the last.

As it happened, the first question on the form had nothing to do with any of MacDonald's allegations against me. Rather, it asked whether MacDonald had "performed all of the obligations and conditions imposed upon him under the contract." (The "contract" being, in fact, a release MacDonald had signed in which, in return for a minor portion of the book's proceeds, he agreed not to bring legal action of any sort against me, no matter what conclusions I might reach, or might publish. How this matter reached the trial stage despite such a release is another story for another time.)

On this first question, and on this question alone, five of the jurors eventually answered "yes," while the so-called "crank" said no, on the grounds that MacDonald had contracted to tell me the truth about the murders, and by claiming he had not committed them, even after having been convicted of killing his wife and two young daughters, he was in violation of our agreement.

Confused by the wording of the judge's instructions and by the questions on the verdict form (and with the judge himself having departed for Hawaii as the jury began deliberations) the jurors were uncertain of how to proceed. In regard to Question 1 -- whether MacDonald had fulfilled his contractual obligations to me -- the forewoman later said to the Los Angeles Times, "I myself changed my mind twice." Eventually, however, five agreed to answer in the affirmative in order that they might proceed to Question 2 of the 37. One of the six would not agree, saying, "An author must have total freedom to write the truth." Malcolm so distorts this episode -- despite being well aware of the facts -- that to this day her absolutely false version of jury deliberation is swallowed whole by the gullible, who presume that, because what she wrote appeared in the New Yorker, it must be true.

To repeat: The only disagreement among the jurors had nothing to do with my conduct, ethics or morality, but dealt solely with MacDonald's. Nonetheless, Malcolm blithely (and falsely) wrote, "five of the six jurors were persuaded that a man who was serving three consecutive life sentences for the murder of his wife and two small children was deserving of more sympathy than the writer who had deceived him."

There is no basis in fact for this conclusion. Indeed, it is contradicted absolutely by all verifiable fact, the overwhelming majority of which Malcolm chose to omit from her "masterpiece," because it would have posed a severe impediment to her ill-considered rush to judgment. It was only Malcolm -- and not the jurors who were present at the trial, nor any of the journalists who attended, as she did not -- who declared that I had "deceived" the murderer.

"There was an enormous assumption that we were in sympathy with MacDonald and we were going to give him the Earth," the forewoman told a reporter from the American Lawyer, after a mistrial had been declared, adding, "It wasn't true." She further stated, "I would like to have [said] from the outset that MacDonald got what he asked for and McGinniss did what he said he'd do, but ... we got caught up in a thicket of legalities." This comment appears nowhere in Malcolm's "masterpiece."

Much more profoundly important information was available to Malcolm as she composed her article in what you term "cool, considered, perfect prose." Yet she omitted anything and everything that would have contradicted her preconceived notions. Her "masterpiece" therefore, in my opinion -- and as the subject of the articles I am better equipped to point out factual errors, and distortion through omission than would be readers such as yourself, whose sole source of information about the MacDonald matter is the flagrantly distorted version Malcolm has purveyed -- might be more accurately viewed as an extremely clever but malign and meretricious piece of fiction.

-- Joe McGinniss
Williamstown, Mass.

Give "Freaks" a chance
BY JOYCE MILLMAN
(03/06/00)

Millman has articulated the feelings of a growing group of people, a very important demographic that includes not only writers and critics, but a whole cross section of viewers who seem to be ignored by certain decision makers at NBC. I have heard rave reviews of "Freaks and Geeks" from the elderly to the adolescent. This show strikes a chord that resonates.

-- R.F. Daley

Amen! My sister caught the show when it first aired, and was smart enough to tape the episodes. After a few weeks of coercion (I don't like television. I don't have a television), I watched the three that I had missed, and I've managed to find a television for the episodes that followed. If NBC boots the show, I think I will lose all faith in televised entertainment.

-- Melanie Barker

Simply amazing article about "Freaks and Geeks." As a former geek turned freak from high school, the show acts like therapy for me. I just wish the audience and network could treat it better. Oh well, hopefully your article will help.

-- Steve Fulton

I am utterly confused by Joyce Millman's taste. Just a day after championing the intelligently funny "Freaks and Geeks" she lambastes Fox's "Family Guy" as "the cruddy animated series that just won't die." How about "the hysterical animated show that has been just as screwed as 'Freaks' in terms of having any type of regular time slot and which actually assumes its audience has both brains and a sense of humor?" How can you watch the show and not laugh at Brian, the talking, Martini-drinking dog who chases his tail while drunk on a barstool? My husband and I (and many of our friends) have been eagerly awaiting this show's return.

-- Karen Witham Lynch

How do game developers hack it?
BY DAVID KUSHNER
(03/07/00)

I think it's just plain wrong to glorify the pain ION Storm has put its employees through. It is not, and shouldn't be, a common practice to run 12-hour workdays seven days a week for two or three years.

For example, the game I'm currently working on is shipping shortly; our team has a ratio of "first timers" vs. "veterans" similar to the Daikatana team and has only been in crunch mode for two months out of the total 10 to 11 months of development time.

You need to look for other reasons for ION's problems than "Those kids can't handle the pressure and that's why all of them suck." The same "kids" happen to do a wonderful job in other companies. The problem with Romero's game is much deeper (or higher up?) than that.

-- Iikka Keranen
level designer
Looking Glass Studios

Who owns your DNA?
BY ARTHUR ALLEN
(03/07/00)

The human genome is the collective patrimony of the entire human race. That companies have been able to patent bits and pieces is extremely disturbing. We have completely lost sight of the difference between invention and scientific discovery. To say that someone who has sequenced a gene has thereby "invented" it is like saying that I have written Shakespeare's plays simply because I have read them. With that kind of distortion of language we might as well say that Columbus invented America.

-- Robert J. Yaes, M.D.

I'm a molecular biologist who is decidedly against the bombardment-style patenting of every novel gene scientists at these companies get their hands on. They file for patents with little to no real idea of their function other than what they can tell directly from the gene's sequence. The requirements for patents on biological sequence data should include detailed knowledge of structure, function and expression on the level of patents filed for pharmaceuticals.

That said, an institution like Miami Children's Hospital that has been studying Canavan disease for years and investing large sums of its own time and money in elucidating its causes has a clear right to patents on the use of the genes it has discovered. How Allen can in the same breath hail the discovery of these genes and then condemn the institution whose dedication made this discovery possible mystifies me.

Sure, in an ideal world we would all give our discoveries away to better help mankind. But in this world miracles have costs in time, money and manpower that discoverers have a right to recoup.

-- Gregory L. Dyas

Stealth merchandising
BY SHOSHANA MARCHAND
(02/29/00)

With regard to your "Stealth Merchandising" column by Shoshana Marchand posted on Feb. 29, we would like to clarify why Scholastic Book Clubs has such a wide range of offerings to children and their parents.

The mission of the book clubs is to promote literacy, the joy of reading for all children and to encourage a lifelong love of reading and book ownership. Scholastic Book Clubs reach children who might never have the opportunity or desire to go to a library or bookstore and create excitement about owning a book and reading.

Part of promoting a love of reading is to encourage children to practice their reading skills, not only with the high-quality titles Scholastic offers through its book clubs, but also with leisure fun books. Scholastic Book Clubs offer non-book items in conjunction with books to pique a childs interest in reading. Moreover, Scholastic Book Clubs encourage a home-school connection because parents can buy books that support what their children are learning in school and that encourage their childrens independent reading. Parents are never under any obligation to buy the books. For teachers, Scholastic Book Clubs provide a ready-made recommended reading list to share with parents at prices lower than any other source.

Scholastic Inc. recognizes that literacy is the keystone of every childs intellectual, personal and cultural growth and donates millions of books annually through public, private and nonprofit organizations.

-- Judy Corman
senior vice president
Corporate Communications & Media Relations
Scholastic Inc.