Talk:JT LeRoy/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sigh...appearently, someone didn't like my cleanup/rewrite. At the very least, could you explain what "Terminator" is suppose to mean, and try to not make the article sound like a vanity page? Thanks. func(talk) 15:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

explain 'terminator' indeed. and perhaps respond to recent rumors that jt leroy has made up the story of his traumatic life. supposedly it's a similar stunt to jerzy kosinsky's 'painted bird'. it wouldn't surprise me- leroy's neuroses seemed phoney when i saw him speak in s.f. zmbe(talk) 20:20, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

'Terminator' was apparently his nickname. These articles all mention it:

• http://www.pw.org/mag/dq_leroy.htm
• http://www.jtleroy.com/press_nyt.html
• http://www.indexmagazine.com/interviews/jt_leroy.shtml

We should probably describe this nickname in more detail than just an extra name in brackets, however.

Also, I think this sentence: "The story itself has many of the elements of The Heart..." doesn't make much sense in the context of the paragraph (which is talking about the same book). I'm not sure how to rewrite it though. --David Edgar 15:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

David Edgar is right. That whole passage was in the wrong place and I have rearranged things in order to fix it. --IslandGyrl 01:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

(In response to zmbe)

agreed - New York Magazine makes a very compelling argument that there is no JT Leroy. http://www.nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/14718/ 65.199.32.2 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

(Above anon comment moved for clarity and signed after-the-fact by IslandGyrl)

The New York magazine article is interesting gossip, but hardly "compelling". It could be that the author of that article has some sort of personal axe to grind involving professional jealousy. -- IslandGyrl 21:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted set of edits by Korny O'Near. Under the guise of "teaching the controversy" they push a POV hostile to the subject of the article. They supply no new information and grossly inflate the importance of one skeptic's opinions. All sorts of rumors about celebrities exist—why single out the Wikipedia entry on Mr LeRoy for special negative treatment? The burden of proof is on us editors, not on the people who are the subjects of articles. "Respond to allegation X or Wikipedia will give you bad press" is blackmail. -- IslandGyrl 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did supply some new information, and just so you know I'm a "he". But in any case, the charge of blackmail makes sense only if there is such a person out there to be blackmailed... which of course is the whole issue. In this case the evidence that there is no JT Leroy is strong, to my mind even stronger than the evidence that he does exist. Given that, he can't just be portrayed as a real person throught the whole article. It's not a personal attack (like "has sex with animals" or whatever), but trying to get at a fundamental truth. I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm leaving your change in, but I'd be curious what you, and others, have to say. Korny O'Near 12:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. This case raises some interesting questions about epistemology (how exactly do we "know" or "prove" anything?) and about the viability of the Wikipedia process. Having taken part in various events over the past 2 years, I happen to "know" personally that JT LeRoy exists. Yet—even if I were willing to breach certain moral obligations respecting privacy and confidences—what I "know" cannot count here. Why? Because it's not verifiable by other editors and would come under the heading of original research. So what to do? Sometimes one (in this case myself) has to accept that on the topics one knows the most about from firsthand experience, Wikipedia may very well go off on the wrong tangent or even spread total lies, simply because editors aren't seers who can magically "know" who or what is truthful from afar, and only reportage that has verifiably appeared in mainstream media "counts".

That being said, my personal take is this. If one wants to argue that "JT LeRoy", "Astor", "Speedie" etc. are pseudonyms, fine. If one wants to present specific Shakespeare/Marlowe type evidence that this or that particular work may have been written by someone else, also fine, if it is done fairly and in a manner worthy of an encyclopedia. But lending credence to the notion that Mr LeRoy doesn't exist at all—which is to accuse his associates, numerous other celebrities, Dr Owens, St Marys Medical Centre, even persons such as myself, of fraud—is a much more serious matter. Without more evidence than Mr Beachy's gossip dossier, spreading such accusations makes one a party to character assassination. What if these stories are being put about by someone with a grudge against Mr LeRoy with the intent of injuring his "marketability" and thus his livelihood?

In the tech sector the tactic is called spreading "FUD" (fear, uncertainty and doubt)—the point is to tag one's competitors with negative psychological associations. Whether the truth emerges later is immaterial, the rumors have already spread far and wide, become household words, and the damage is done. I would be wary of the burden of proof Mr Beachy seems to be trying to construct. What would anyone's likely reaction be if a rival known for having a jaundiced view of one suddenly popped up demanding one show him personal documents or even grant one's therapist permission to talk to him? Such attitudes make me wonder indeed if this isn't akin to blackmail. -- IslandGyrl 15:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's important not to jump to conclusions, but let's get the facts straight. According to the NYMag article, Dr. Owens and St. Mary's have neither confirmed nor denied any parts of the story. Various celebrities have met someone claiming to be him, but I don't know that any of them have gone on the record saying that they definitively know that the person they met was LeRoy. In the article, all of the following people are quoted as being either unsure or believing there's some element of hoax: Lorelei Sharkey, Dennis Cooper, Brian Pera, Joshua Lyon, Mary Gaitskill and Joel Rose. So I don't buy that this is one writer's lone vendetta. Also, I don't know that anyone else, aside from the named culprits, is being accused of fraud. Also, if you google "jt leroy hoax" you can see that no one out there is rushing to defend "him" against the charges.

Of course, as they say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but surely there has to be some sort of rebuttal to the strong direct and circumstantial evidence presented in the article. Can you offer something? Maybe even a description of your own meeting? Korny O'Near 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a typical American phenomenon: girls, who can't get over the fact that they weren't born as boys. They invest a lot of energy to "re-invent" themselves as young males (who never really become adult men) and at the same time reduce their envy by putting boys down (just like in the case of "Anthony Godby Johnson"). Make them suffer all kinds of abuse, turn them into some weak and miserable beings so that you don't have to envy them anymore (it's therefore only logical that Jeremiah has to wear girl's clothes) - that's it, there's nothing more to say actually. People, who still believe that JT LeRoy is a 25 years old man, should maybe ask themselves why they want to believe it. Fulcher 16:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

IslandGyrl explaining 2nd revert

Reverting Korny O'Near's changes again; I hope this does not turn into an edit war. I am sorry I did not have the chance to respond earlier.

"Can you offer something? Maybe even a description of your own meeting?" Yes. I was first personally introduced to Mr LeRoy after this event at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh in 2003. Both he and the red-haired woman known as "Speedie" were among those who read (Mr LeRoy seemed to have to muster a heroic effort in order to overcome his anxiety). Since then, Mr LeRoy and I have been friends, whereby the frequency, degree, variety, and continuity of personal interchange would categorically put the kybosh on the notion that no such person exists and that I have been dealing the whole time with an actor.

As for others, Litsa Dremousis responded immediately on October 10 with this on her blog The Slippery Fish:

I hate to respond to this because it's so absurd, but I've been asked about it more than once, so here goes:

      In order for JT to be a hoax, he would have had to fool Vanity Fair (the U.S. and British versions), the New York Times, BlackBook, Interview, Paper, Index, I-D, Spin, 7 X 7, Viking Press, Bloomsbury Press, Last Gasp Books, Zoetrope, Dave Eggers, Vendela Vida, Bono, Zadie Smith, Madonna, Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Arthur Bradford, Mary Karr, Carrie Fisher, Yoko Ono, Jerry Harrison and, oh yeah, my mom and me, among others. (Maybe you can fool Madonna, but you can't fool my mom.)

      Also, he would have to had raise several thousand dollars over the years for Dr. Terrence Owens' Mc Auley Institute at St. Mary's Hospital, *spontaneously and for no apparent reason.*

Even Dennis Cooper, once a friend and now definitely a detractor of Mr. LeRoy's, talks about him on his blog in terms of him being a real person. What is being questioned, then, is:

• (1) Was that person's childhood as he has described it?
• (2) Did that person—using a nom de plume or not—write Sarah and The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things?

The problem here (aside from the insult, injury, and power game involved in being presented with such a demand) is, how exactly is one supposed to prove "yes" answers to either question? In the case of (1), finger family members and conduct guided tours of where one grew up? In the case of (2), Bruce Benderson makes this point in a letter to the editor in this week's New York magazine:

As someone who has spent almost ten years speaking to JT LeRoy, editing his manuscripts, comforting him, talking to his therapist, reading his work for him in public, and showing his manuscripts to editors (and, finally, to Joel Rose, which led to their publication), I cannot refute Beachy's allegations or theories for one simple reason: Nobody can prove that LeRoy has written a book after it has been published. …

"Hoax" and "fraud" are such strong words that, before irreparable damage is done to someone's career and reputation, the burden of proof ought to remain with accusers to provide more than circumstantial evidence. -- IslandGyrl 20:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'll refrain from making any more changes to this article. If anyone else wants to do it, that's up to them. I find your first-hand description convincing, "original research" though it may be. It could all be made up, of course, but I find it plausible. But that's the only part I find convincing: since Dennis Cooper, as you point out, considered Leroy to be a real person before changing his mind, and Cooper probably had with "Leroy" as much interaction, if not more, than any of the other celebrities you list, it's not surprising that they, too, would be taken in by the hoax, if there is one: most of them probably only met "him" briefly at a literary event or some such.

But I'll let it stand, since it appears you're much closer to the story than I am. I will say, though, that if "Leroy" wants to refute the accusations, there are a few things he could do that wouldn't be that hard: appear in public without the disguise, for one, or find someone who can vouch for knowing him before 1994 or so. Korny O'Near 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious response. Possible honest motives for secrecy and maintaining multiple identities: the problems faced by transsexual, transgender, or "genderqueer" persons. Toward the end of the National Public Radio interview with Terry Gross, Mr LeRoy says that on any given day he may choose to go about dressed as either gender, and does not want his real appearance to be widely known as no one should be able to "walk up to me and say, 'I know what you really are.' And be able to hurt me." The murders of Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo come to mind, and there are many such cases less-publicised that one doesn't hear about.

As a further "original research" :( aside, in June 2003 whilst on a visit to San Francisco, in connection with Mr LeRoy's fundraising efforts for the McAuley adolescent program, I was honoured to be invited to join a trio consisting of the president of St Mary's, the Sister (nun) who originally founded the medical complex, and Margine Sako (executive director of St Mary's Foundation) for lunch. -- IslandGyrl 11:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Organised attack?

First of all, thanks, Korny O'Near, for your gracious response. As an illustration of how an organised campaign to destroy someone might work in the Internet era, see this Amazon user link. A person who has never reviewed a book before on the Amazon booksellers site suddenly pops up on October 16 and posts identical negative reviews for all of Mr LeRoy's books. For the new Da Capo music anthology, the personal attack becomes a rant against the entire "publishing world [which] is so corrupt. You will all pay in hell …." Since Amazon has no defences against sock puppets and "meat puppets", it is no problem to log on (or have confederates log on) as several different people and vote for the new reviews as being helpful, either. -- IslandGyrl 10:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)