LAURA ADAMS
209
see , I don't want to get into situations where I start dominating material ,
just for the sake of dominating it-which is, of course , what I'm accused of
doing. I only move toward material which makes me feel I have something
to bring to it. I did this last book on graffiti· because I looked at pictures of
subway graffiti Larry Schiller showed me that Jon Naar had taken and
thought , " Something is going on there that's interesting ." Interesting to
me , obviously. So I wanted to write an essay on it and did. But what I'm
getting at is I don't think the history ofour time is any more apt for me than
any other history.
Int:
I see what you are doing in light of some lines from "The Political
Economy of Time' , in which you said, "Form is the record of every intent of
the soul or spirit , its desire to reveal the shape, which is to say the mystery of
the time it contains in itself. " It seems to me that you have a vision and that
you perceive certain events of national importance in terms of your vision,
choosing the ones that have most significance to you , but writing about
them in those terms rather than being the relatively passive observer most
other working journalists are.
Mailer:
That could be true. But , if so, a price is paid for the philosophy.
There's always the loss of a sensuous perception of the event if one is
thinking in categories as one perceives the event. That can happen if one
has a coherent philosophy. On the other hand, you could say that you end
up writing best about those historic events which have a magnetic relation
to your own ideas and tend to write less well about situations where that
doesn ' t occur. I think, for example ,
Miami and the 5iege of Chicago
is
probably a better book than
5t. Georgeand the Godfather.
For a number of
reasons including the fact that the conventions themselves were more ex–
citing , but also because there was a polarity in '68 more congenial to me than
in '72. Still, I didn't warp it, I didn't go around violating what! saw, did II
Int:
It's not a criticism but an observation : you act upon opposed forces,
becoming the opposing force yourself if necessary, in order, it seems to me,
to create a synthesis, an altered form , not simply to control these forces but
to
move us toward that alteration of consciousness we spoke of earlier.
Mailer:
Maybe the question is how to verify the observer. What are my
passions , prejudices, and particularly my infirmities? It's terribly important
who the observer is. That's why I always try to put myself into these works of
journalism so the reader can have his sense of me . It's important to be able
to
decide whether I'm perceiving well or where I'm perceiving badly.
Whereas, if! attempt to present to readers what I consider the end product
of objective truth , it 's likely to be nothing more than the harshly digested
conclusions I came up with in my somewhat unbalanced soul. (What else is
most journalism
I)
Whereas I believe the fun in reading comes from
.
The Faith a/Gra/fill :
New York : Praeger. 1974.
