BOB KERR: All great lines have probably been used already
|
|
8.10.98
BOB KERR: All great lines have probably been used already |
|
There are great lines I want to use in the next few months. They sing, they sizzle. They could turn a column damn close to poetry. But there is this problem. There is the matter of attribution. Since The Boston Globe had its nervous breakdown last week and decided to try to dump the great Mike Barnicle for lifting lines from George Carlin without giving due credit, the heat of public scrutiny has been cranked up about 50 degrees. There are all kinds of little word sleuths combing the pages now, looking for evidence of dusty old lines claimed as fresh material. They get giddy at every small discovery. Even the Boston Herald, the alternative paper for the hard of English, jumped into the act last week, taking shot after shot at Barnicle's alleged transgressions. That's a bit like a plumber taking issue with the work of a heart surgeon. (If anyone knows where that line came from, please let me know.) But it does point out how hot the question has become as to when words carry owner tags and when they don't. And as we see in the ongoing Barnicle saga, the words don't even have to match up perfectly to have doubt cast on their originality. They only have to come close. In the inexact business of fitting words to thoughts, there is always the danger of wandering into someone else's preserve. And there is always the danger, if you're prominent enough and have pricked the public conscience with consistently sharp insight for maybe a quarter-century, that the small trespass will be used to undo mountains of good work. In the current atmosphere, the sportswriter who describes a quarterback's performance as "far better than anything he has done before" could be accused of poaching on Charles Dickens. (See: A Tale Of Two Cities.) Probably the worst part of what happens when the credibility of someone as prominent and skilled as Barnicle is brought into question is that those who truly despise and fear the work reporters and columnists do feed on it like sea gulls on a scrap of hamburger at the beach. For those who have screwed up, fouled the public trough and had their shoddy work or sleazy dealings exposed in print, the story of a writer under fire is sweet indeed. Ever since a brief series of scattered, isolated incidents occurred this year involving lying, questionnable reporting practices and outright fabrication of characters in newspapers and a magazine, some people with a very personal stake in what people read in their newspapers have tried to use the incidents as a club to beat on the credibility of everybody who reports the news. They are a little desperate and can sometimes be heard howling on talk radio. And they probably score some points with people who don't want their lives complicated with a lot of information. It is in many ways the best of times (See again: A Tale Of Two Cities) for someone who wants to take a few scattered bits and pieces of information and turn them into something dangerously misleading. And now The Globe has served up Barnicle as another example of a powerful writer who slipped below the standard of 100-percent accuracy. The case seems flimsy, but it won't matter to those who salivate at the thought of another newspaperman brought down. Barnicle will be added to a list, which includes his former columnist colleague Patricia Smith, kept by those who call every word written anywhere into question. Barnicle has been among the best. He has been a master of the small story that speaks volumes. He has been a great voice for those who wouldn't otherwise be heard. It will be a tragedy if that voice is lost. And it will be a tragedy if, in silencing him, The Globe adds to the foot-stomping joy of those who like nothing better than seeing a person who delivers the truth put out of work. |
 Previous editions | About The Providence Journal's Writing Program | E-mail us | Writing-related Web links Back to main
Copyright © 1998 The Providence Journal Company
|
