> I came to be in Jeffrey Epstein’s house .... etc.
That tells me all I need to know about Wolff. Reading thru your article I became suspicious about his what I now understand to be pseudo-philosophical reasoning.
Reading his BS about Epstein's house confirmed it for me: he is fake, and potentially a liar as a client of Epstein's services. Michael Wolff, no thanks.
if they hope to keep on writing, writers and journalists [both] need to protect sources. no one would trust them again if they blabbed.
there’s piece of this which is very much about how a writer’s OUTPUT in the form of creative nonfiction imparts better understanding about subject matter (like how poetry does). but i think the INPUT of Wolffe’s information is driving a lot of concern. the poetry is the output and the ethnography is the input.
seems to me that Wolffe takes fire due to the appearance of being a *participant observer*—like how you’d study a tribe of cannibals. ppl wonder how much flesh he’s eaten, so to speak. it’s hard to know where Wolffe-the-writer ends and where Wolffe-the-person begins.
____
speaking of ethnography, this essay actually reminds me of the rumors swirling around Hunter Thompson prior to his demise—that he was working on something RE ‘snuff’ subculture. doesn’t really matter to me if the rumors were true or not. it’s a plausible topic for him. he’d likely have crossed paths with the subculture via any number of unsavory characters in his Rolodex, and the subject matter would’ve been right up his alley (esp given the dour tone of his late work).
the HST rumors fit neatly into everyone’s speculation. they could be used to speculate on why he’d be suicidal…but could also point to a motive if it wasn’t suicide. BONUS, the suggestion that he was a *participant observer* in that particular subculture (if it exists) gave ppl that disgust response that makes you want to ignore the whole thing altogether.
either way, ethnography can be dangerous business—just ask Michael Rockefeller 💀
From the beginning of all this “journalistic” pearl-clutching about Michael Wolff, I’ve been thinking to myself: Haven’t these people ever heard of Truman Capote? Geroge Plimpton? Tom Wolfe? Hunter S Thompson?
Again, I wonder why nobody seems to be practicing “journalism” about the money laundering and tax evasion that was the ongoing criminal enterprise of Jeffrey Epstein and his erstwhile pals like Donald Trump, Wilbur Mills, and Leon Black? Are these so-called “journalists” afraid of biting the hand that feeds them, now that all the papers are owned by the oligarchs who lived in Epstein and Trump’s “Eyes Wide Shut” world?
Not too hard to do. The “Maison de l’Amité” deal between Trump and Rybolovlev is well documented and might not even require suboenas to report. Some of the recent email dump reveals that Epstein’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler, then a partner at Latham and Watkins and now an executive at Golden Sacks, was investigating Trump’s dirty financial dealings at Epstein’s behest in 2019 just before the DOJ revived the Dead Hand of his deferred prosecution agreement a dozen years before. A connection? A real “journalist” would want to connect the dots.
Instead “journalists” continue to discredit Epstein as a “pedophile,” which is actually defined as “an unnatural sexual interest in pre-pubescent children” generally under the age of 14. While Epstein and Maxwell apparently did “groom” one child, their slimy brainwashing, sexual abuse, and pimping involved post-pubescent minors who they likely believed to be past the age of consent. Neither of those two creeps were charged with or convicted of “pedophilia” yet this rightly vile canard is constantly thrown about by “journalists” — I wonder if to discredit Epstein and Maxwell’s credibility about the financial crimes of their bosses?
> I came to be in Jeffrey Epstein’s house .... etc.
That tells me all I need to know about Wolff. Reading thru your article I became suspicious about his what I now understand to be pseudo-philosophical reasoning.
Reading his BS about Epstein's house confirmed it for me: he is fake, and potentially a liar as a client of Epstein's services. Michael Wolff, no thanks.
if they hope to keep on writing, writers and journalists [both] need to protect sources. no one would trust them again if they blabbed.
there’s piece of this which is very much about how a writer’s OUTPUT in the form of creative nonfiction imparts better understanding about subject matter (like how poetry does). but i think the INPUT of Wolffe’s information is driving a lot of concern. the poetry is the output and the ethnography is the input.
seems to me that Wolffe takes fire due to the appearance of being a *participant observer*—like how you’d study a tribe of cannibals. ppl wonder how much flesh he’s eaten, so to speak. it’s hard to know where Wolffe-the-writer ends and where Wolffe-the-person begins.
____
speaking of ethnography, this essay actually reminds me of the rumors swirling around Hunter Thompson prior to his demise—that he was working on something RE ‘snuff’ subculture. doesn’t really matter to me if the rumors were true or not. it’s a plausible topic for him. he’d likely have crossed paths with the subculture via any number of unsavory characters in his Rolodex, and the subject matter would’ve been right up his alley (esp given the dour tone of his late work).
the HST rumors fit neatly into everyone’s speculation. they could be used to speculate on why he’d be suicidal…but could also point to a motive if it wasn’t suicide. BONUS, the suggestion that he was a *participant observer* in that particular subculture (if it exists) gave ppl that disgust response that makes you want to ignore the whole thing altogether.
either way, ethnography can be dangerous business—just ask Michael Rockefeller 💀
> seems to me that Wolffe takes fire due to the appearance of being a *participant observer*
I agree, he was probably a client of Epstein's, purely as a way to sample the merchandise, so he could write about it.
Excellent distinctions here, Brook. Valuable.
From the beginning of all this “journalistic” pearl-clutching about Michael Wolff, I’ve been thinking to myself: Haven’t these people ever heard of Truman Capote? Geroge Plimpton? Tom Wolfe? Hunter S Thompson?
Again, I wonder why nobody seems to be practicing “journalism” about the money laundering and tax evasion that was the ongoing criminal enterprise of Jeffrey Epstein and his erstwhile pals like Donald Trump, Wilbur Mills, and Leon Black? Are these so-called “journalists” afraid of biting the hand that feeds them, now that all the papers are owned by the oligarchs who lived in Epstein and Trump’s “Eyes Wide Shut” world?
Not too hard to do. The “Maison de l’Amité” deal between Trump and Rybolovlev is well documented and might not even require suboenas to report. Some of the recent email dump reveals that Epstein’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler, then a partner at Latham and Watkins and now an executive at Golden Sacks, was investigating Trump’s dirty financial dealings at Epstein’s behest in 2019 just before the DOJ revived the Dead Hand of his deferred prosecution agreement a dozen years before. A connection? A real “journalist” would want to connect the dots.
Instead “journalists” continue to discredit Epstein as a “pedophile,” which is actually defined as “an unnatural sexual interest in pre-pubescent children” generally under the age of 14. While Epstein and Maxwell apparently did “groom” one child, their slimy brainwashing, sexual abuse, and pimping involved post-pubescent minors who they likely believed to be past the age of consent. Neither of those two creeps were charged with or convicted of “pedophilia” yet this rightly vile canard is constantly thrown about by “journalists” — I wonder if to discredit Epstein and Maxwell’s credibility about the financial crimes of their bosses?
Terrific analysis, Thomas!
Wolff himself remarked in the piece that the "rules" of journalism often benefit most the the news orgs making the rules. The world is the world.
Thomas
I rarely make blanket proscriptions. But if you are trading emails with Jeffry Epstein, then I have no choice other than to shun you.
Carrying on a conversation with Epstein is like reading "Playboy" for the literary reviews. Most will doubt your intent.
Certainly one of the choices. No problem in that.