Wednesday, September 14, 2005

The Case of Daniel Handler Part II: The Other E-Mail

At the bottom of Daniel Handler's first, 9/11, e-mail to me is attached a copy of an e-mail I'd sent him on June 27th. This reminded me that I HAD sent him an e-mail about the fake letter, over two months ago. What prodded my e-mail?

On June 24th I received an e-mail from a mystery person named "g smithe." I regularly receive a lot of e-mails from mysterious persons. Much I ignore. Many I delete. I had to check back to see if I'd saved this one. I had.

The 6/24 g smithe e-mail read, in part,
"You should know that King Wenclas's derisive letter to Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snickett) is getting passed around by the literati-- not the ULA's strongest statement of purpose. Don't know if your "king" has been hitting the bottle or what, . . . ."

I replied that I'd sent no letters to anyone lately, that I wasn't sure who Handler/Lemony Snickett was, that the language described didn't sound like me, but I couldn't be sure unless I saw the letter.

"g smithe" responded with an e-mail 6/26:
"Thought it seemed out of character. Don't have a copy of the letter-- it was passed around at a party, not electronically-- but you can ask the man himself. . . ."
"smithe" included Handler's e-mail address.

On 6/27 "smithe" sent me another e-mail:
"Looks like McSweeney's & Co. are prepping a response . . . if you really didn't write him a letter you'd best nip this in the bud. . . ."

Though I thought the whole thing was a made-up prank, in order to cover myself I immediately sent Handler an e-mail:
"The letter supposedly from me being handed around at parties is a fake.
Anything you can tell me about the matter would be appreciated."

I also posted a comment on my blog on June 29 publicly disclaiming any connection to any such letter, then forgot the matter. Whether or not Handler read the June 29 post (aware as he now was of my blog, as he said), he received and read my 6/27 e-mail, as shown when he attached it to his 9/11 message.

Handler was aware on June 27 of my denial-- yet he gave the fake letter to The Ruminator anyway, which is highly unethical behavior, maybe libelous.

I'll gladly forward a copy of my 6/27 e-mail to any lit-blogger interested in the truth. I doubt, though, that anyone wants to touch this.

Know this about the Eggers gang: Even when they're wrong, they're not wrong. They're not wrong even when caught red-faced and red-handed, as they've been time and again. They're never wrong, and never can be, simply because they're such wonderful people.

Call it the arrogance and insularity of privilege, success, and power.

2 comments:

King said...

For their part, The Ruminator, faced with a letter with no return address, no phone number, no signature, no postmark, no envelope, showed not the slightest concern, care, or caution before publishing it-- and has shown no interest since in discovering the truth of the matter.
And where does David Sedaris come in?

Anonymous said...

petrol http://gotuc.net/members/Garage-Door-Openers/default.aspx jorge http://gotuc.net/members/Area-Rugs/default.aspx paver http://gotuc.net/members/Omeprazole/default.aspx northfield http://gotuc.net/members/Vacuum-Cleaners/default.aspx modernists http://gotuc.net/members/Annuity-Calculator/default.aspx orally http://gotuc.net/members/Bariatric-Surgery/default.aspx stuyvesant http://gotuc.net/members/Electric-Blankets/default.aspx isna http://blogs-new.bestfriends.org/members/Furnace-Filters/default.aspx lumping http://blogs-new.bestfriends.org/members/Vending-Machines/default.aspx mindseye