This seems fair enough although I would say that Hollywood's business isn't truth-telling so it's hard to criticize them for making things up. The vast majority of Westerns are not based in any sort of reality, including "Lonesome Dove." The snakes were the least of it. These are morality dramas, with the props on the stage necessary to make the point. On another point, I don't think Larry half-heartedly asked me to write about him because part of him subconsciously wanted his myths demolished. That's a narrative twist that happens in books, not real-life. I think like many of us he just accepted his stories as the truth. The fiction, in the end, becomes the fact, or resembles the fact enough to pass. Finally, as long as we're going for the truth, it's Lynda Obst, with a Y. Another Times reporter, which is why her book was good.
The spelling of Lynda's name has been corrected, with thanks. Oddly enough, I knew her when she was doing a book for Rolling Stone. I didn't know she'd also been at The Times.
As for the Hollywood stuff: As I wrote, a novelist's job isn't truth-telling either, so I don't really understand your distinction. My interpretation scans well, I think.
Your version of why Larry agreed to have a fact-checker look at his life is based upon your experience, to which I must defer. I will note, however, that several times in the book you mention asking him about his...drifts from the truth, and he acknowledges them. So it's not exactly clear that he accepted his lies as truth. Any decent mind builds a tolerance for ambiguity.
Allegedly Josef Stalin loved Westerns.
Totalitarians make the best sentimentalists.
Your best one yet - nailed it
Thanks!
This seems fair enough although I would say that Hollywood's business isn't truth-telling so it's hard to criticize them for making things up. The vast majority of Westerns are not based in any sort of reality, including "Lonesome Dove." The snakes were the least of it. These are morality dramas, with the props on the stage necessary to make the point. On another point, I don't think Larry half-heartedly asked me to write about him because part of him subconsciously wanted his myths demolished. That's a narrative twist that happens in books, not real-life. I think like many of us he just accepted his stories as the truth. The fiction, in the end, becomes the fact, or resembles the fact enough to pass. Finally, as long as we're going for the truth, it's Lynda Obst, with a Y. Another Times reporter, which is why her book was good.
The spelling of Lynda's name has been corrected, with thanks. Oddly enough, I knew her when she was doing a book for Rolling Stone. I didn't know she'd also been at The Times.
As for the Hollywood stuff: As I wrote, a novelist's job isn't truth-telling either, so I don't really understand your distinction. My interpretation scans well, I think.
Your version of why Larry agreed to have a fact-checker look at his life is based upon your experience, to which I must defer. I will note, however, that several times in the book you mention asking him about his...drifts from the truth, and he acknowledges them. So it's not exactly clear that he accepted his lies as truth. Any decent mind builds a tolerance for ambiguity.