Jonah Lehrer: some blame media adoration for his fabrications
It鈥檚 like d茅j脿 vu all over again. Another bright young writer. Another esteemed publication. Another rapid ascent to the pinnacles of the literary world. Another chance discovery of some missteps, followed by a deeper investigation, followed by a devastating admission of fabrication, and a humiliating resignation from said esteemed publication.
It was once Janet Cooke. And Jayson Blair. Stephen Glass. James Frey. Q.R. Markham.
And now Jonah Lehrer. The 31-year-old bestselling author, popular speaker, and staff writer for The New Yorker resigned from the prestigious publication Monday after admitting to fabricating quotes in his most recent bestselling book 鈥淚magine: How Creativity Works.鈥�
It was, as the put it, 鈥渙ne of the most bewildering recent journalistic frauds,鈥� in which Lehrer fabricated quotes from Bob Dylan, one of the most reclusive and closely studied musicians in history 鈥� not to mention one who is still alive. (What鈥檚 more, a good portion of 鈥淚magine鈥� relies on Dylan鈥檚 approach to creativity. The first chapter of the first section is titled 鈥淏ob Dylan鈥檚 Brain鈥� and centers on the singer-songwriter鈥檚 hesitation to parse his own creative process.)
By now, we know the story. Self-described Dylan obsessive and writer for Michael C. Moynihan puzzled over the origin of some of the Dylan quotes in Lehrer鈥檚 book, quotes like, 鈥�'It鈥檚 a hard thing to describe,' Bob Dylan once mused about the creative process. 'It鈥檚 just this sense that you got something to say.'" He communicated with Lehrer, received bogus lies in response, and finally, an admission to fabricating the quotes. The falsification was revealed on 鈥檚 website, Lehrer resigned from The New Yorker under editor David Remnick鈥檚 advice, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt pulled every copy of 鈥淚magine鈥� it could find from bookstore shelves and e-book sites, and statements were issued all around.
鈥淭he lies are over now,鈥� Lehrer said in a statement to . 鈥淚 understand the gravity of my position. I want to apologize to everyone I have let down, especially my editors and readers.鈥�
He added, 鈥淚 will do my best to correct the record and ensure that my misquotations and mistakes are fixed. I have resigned my position as staff writer at The New Yorker.鈥�
Editor Remnick said in a statement, 鈥淭his is a terrifically sad situation. But in the end, what is most important is the integrity of what we publish and what we stand for.鈥�
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt said Lehrer had committed 鈥渁 serious misuse鈥� and promised to 鈥渆xplore all options鈥� and recall print copies of 鈥淚magine."
The 31-year-old Lehrer graduated from Columbia University with a degree in neuroscience and received his masters at Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes scholar. He began his popular 鈥淔rontal Cortex鈥� blog at , where he explained complicated scientific principles and processes in a snappy, culture-oriented approach in the fashion of Malcolm Gladwell. His popular blog then moved to 鈥檚 website, where Lehrer commenced to write six articles for the magazine. Along the way, he wrote three bestselling books: 鈥淧roust Was a Neuroscientist,鈥� a surprise hit published when Lehrer was just 26, 鈥淗ow We Decide,鈥� and the now-marred 鈥淚magine: How Creativity Works.鈥� Lehrer had just become a staff writer for The New Yorker in June 2012 before his late July resignation.
Monday鈥檚 revelation wasn鈥檛 the first. In June, Lehrer was criticized for the awkwardly named offense of self-plagiarism, recycling his own past material in blog posts for The New Yorker. And according to Moynihan鈥檚 article in , questions were raised as early as Lehrer鈥檚 first book, 鈥淧roust Was a Neuroscientist,鈥� in which the young writer was accused of plagiarizing a paragraph from Malcolm Gladwell. Even 鈥淚magine鈥� was criticized for 鈥渕any elementary errors,鈥� for 鈥渂orrowing (heavily)鈥� from economist Edward Glaeser, and for its 鈥渋naccurate, misleading, or simplistic鈥� exegesis of Bob Dylan鈥檚 鈥淟ike a Rolling Stone,鈥� according to the Tablet article.
The question, of course, is what leads a person, and a bright, promising, successful writer at that, to commit such colossal misjudgments, such bald-faced lies, such stupid audacity? Even as he saw his predecessors 鈥� similar rising stars 鈥� fall for the same lies?
As Jayson Blair, of New York Times fabricating fame, wrote for , 鈥淧art of Jonah Lehrer鈥檚 problem had to be his success 鈥� success, of course, brings with it the pressure to make each new publication better than the last.鈥�
And for this pressure, writes Roxanne Gay of , the media and its breathless adoration of the boy wonder, is to blame. 鈥淐onsider,鈥� she writes, 鈥渉ow journalists have referred to Lehrer. At NPR, he is a 鈥� At Tablet, Lehrer is referred to as a 鈥�.鈥� In a Boston Globe article, Lehrer is a 鈥�.鈥� The New York Daily News refers to Lehrer as a 鈥� In the Chicago Tribune, Lehrer is a 鈥�.鈥� The Atlantic calls Lehrer a 鈥�.鈥� The lavish descriptors go on and on and on as journalists try to find just the right words to capture Lehrer鈥檚 promise, his genius, his place as prodigy, to remind us that in that young man, there is (was) greatness.
鈥淭he question isn鈥檛 really why did Lehrer fabricated those Dylan quotations and then lie about it nor is the question why did he plagiarize himself time and again in his highly visible position as a staff writer for The New Yorker,鈥� Gay writes. 鈥淭he question that intrigues me most is how this happened at all, how Lehrer was elevated to a position of such prominence. Are we that enamored by bright young things that they can act with impunity?鈥�
This, we imagine, is only the beginning of the agonizing soul-searching that will follow. For writers like Gay, for Lehrer鈥檚 readers, for The New Yorker. And of course, for Lehrer himself.
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
