lawlessaydraftishnumbertwo

Darlene McCoy
Margaret Amis
Writing 2
16 April 2010
Big-Wiged Readin'
When he founded The New Yorker in 1925, Harold Ross' aim was to please. He wanted his readers to enjoy a sophisticated humor magazine, full of amusing yet intellectual comments, sometimes vicious satire, and overall – things to make even the most snobbish aristocrat chuckle so heartily that his over sized wig would simply slip off his shiny bald head. To this day, the magazine has persevered through the test of time, and holds true to its founder's intentions. It is no wonder, then, that a witty and well-crafted article such as Judith Thurman's “Counterfeit Roth” would be found in the modern day New Yorker. It is also no wonder, then, that she would use a well-known, and well-loved literary technique, coupled with an amusing tone and other garnishing techniques, to craft a frighteningly funny piece. Irony, the main technique used to amuse, abounds in Thurman's article, and that irony serves to accommodate and bolster the magazine's main purpose – to simply entertain. Yet through the hilarity of it all – a second purpose, the article's own purpose, shines through, and that purpose further makes the article a more profound work.
Counterfeit Roth tells the tale of a man who wrote a piece of fiction – for a newspaper. What's wrong with that? The man, Tommaso Debenedetti, was a reporter, not an author; his misleading words were read as fact. He had reported that a well known American author, Phillip Roth, in an interview, had made some rather unpleasant comments about President Barack Obama; about how his rhetoric about hope and change was empty, comments about his banality, and his failure. Yet, in fact, when asked about his statements in another interview, Roth seemed confused, and said, “It is completely contrary to what I think. Obama, in my opinion, is fantastic” (Thurman 22). He denied the validity of all that Debenedetti had reported, and furthermore explained that those comments could only be a mere figment of Debenedetti's imagination – for he had never met the man, nor even heard of the newspaper he wrote for, Libero. Later, Roth did some research of his own. That research lead him to uncover another false interview, with the same false comments, written by the same man, but with comments attributed to another's mouth. John Grisham, another well known American author, was victim number two! He was also the last victim, for he plans to travel to Italy to sue Mr. Debenetti. And after his exposure, those interviews would be the last reports he wrote; for his career will soon come to a close.
A piece packed with as much irony as Thurman's cannot be considered anything but downright funny. First of all – the article is about a fiction writer uncovering and undermining fiction. It would be more of the norm to find a fiction writer encouraging another to continue writing, continue imagining, and to continue telling tales. Yet, what happens is quite the opposite, is unexpected, and is therefore comical. Another point of irony in the article is the newspaper that Debenetti wrote for sympathized with the Prime Minister of Italy, and his report, which would have been an attempt to make the Prime Minister appear to be less-scandalous, and more well-suited for his position, only made another newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, produce an article praising Roth's harsh criticism of Obama, and implying that the citizens of Italy should evaluate their own non-existent criticisms of their own national leader. Debenetti's intentions were anything but bringing the Prime Minister's administration and behavior into question. Now, it would seem more plausible for a reporter to make up disapproving comments under another's name if that other person was one who actually somewhat believed in those comments. In that case, he would just be exaggerating on a general distaste – but Philip Roth nor John Grisham believe that Obama is a failure. They are in fact, both democrats, who believe that Obama will do good for America. It is very amusing that Mr. Debenetti could pick two people to impostor, and find that they not only simply disagree with the words put into their mouths, but are both on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Thurman's tone and structure is even ironic in the sense that it does not follow the traditional form of an essay. Generally, in a essay, only information important to the argument is presented. Thurman adds additional information, that is not necessarily dire to the explanation and understanding of her argument using parentheses, to create more of a comical effect. In one instance, she writes, “(The only Facebook page bearing the writer's name shows a bearded, curly-haired, young hipster with a goofy expression)” (22). This tone, and the use of the words “goofy” and“hipster,” contradict the usual formality of her article, and the aforementioned idea of only mentioning ideas that support an argument in an essay. Thurman uses dialogue to amuse her readers further, at the end of her article, she mentions that Roth was asked if Debenetti impersonated him well, like the character in his novel, Operation Shylock, to which he simply replied, “No, that was literature, this is merely life, and I certainly did a better job of imposturing. (23)”
Through all of the irony and the other comical effects in the article, a more serious message peeks out from in between the lines. Throughout the entirety, Thurman uses Philip Roth to convey how she feels, and her article's point, “'You have to wonder what the guy was thinking.' Roth concluded” (23). She implies that he was not thinking, and that publishing essentially lies is probably not the best idea he had. She includes Roth's attempt to give reason to the man's idea, to be fair, “The best explanation I can find is that this obscure freelancer had hit upon a way of selling articles by attributing anti-Obama sentiments to famous American writers. It was a good gimmick, and he probably had fun. But I can't imagine what he'll do now – surely his career is over” (23). Thurman uses Roth's words to emphasize her point – passing off false work, or false words, as genuine and true only hurts one in the end.
All in all, “Counterfeit Roth” is a piece that adequately deserves its place in The New Yorker. It is amusing, well-written, and has a point to it besides its entertainment value. Without Thurman's addition of comical effects, especially irony, this article could have very well been just another news story that could have possibly bored its reader to tears, or even death! Yet, without her additional, more subtle message, this article would have been a simple pleasure for the mind – and what snobbish aristocrat would want to read that?