Petrelis Files

NYT, Simon & Schuster:
How Gay Sex Addict Tale Was Vetted

The press agent for Benoit Denizet-Lewis' new book "American Anonymous," published by Simon & Schuster, Brian Ulicky, and the communications director for the New York Times, which printed an adapted excerpt from the book, Catherine Mathis, responded to my request for information on the vetting process involved before they separately published Denizet-Lewis' story.

Interesting to contrast the brief note from the book publisher, while the newspaper pulls back the curtain ever so slightly to reveal substance about their decision-making process.

It's disappointing Simon & Schuster brushes off my need for info about the vetting, citing privacy concerns of the author and those he interacted with in his journey out of gay sexual addiction.

I was not asking for the names of his sexual conquests or rejects, just wanted details on how the vetting was conducted, and the publishing house can't talk about it with me.

So will I borrow the book from the public library and read it? Not without any info on the vetting of it from the publisher.

Here is what Simon & Schuster had to say:

Hi Michael – thanks for your interest in the book. The vetting process is an internal matter, and for reasons concerning the privacy of the individuals, among other reasons, we cannot discuss what sort of vetting that we did.

Brian

And the NY Times said this:

Hi Michael,

Happy new year to you!

With regard to the question you asked, Benoit Denizet-Lewis’s essay was subject to the same editorial scrutiny that any article in The New York Times undergoes, with the obvious difference that “Modern Love’’ columns are personal essays and much of what a writer describes are his own thoughts and feelings.

Contributors’ guidelines for the column specify that we do not allow pseudonyms or composite characters or fictionalized events in the essays.

Each piece goes through an editorial process that includes a probing of fact and truth that continues until we feel confident of the story’s authenticity. The process was made easier in this case by the fact that its author is a contributing writer to the Times Magazine and is familiar with the newspaper’s standards.

Are we foolproof? No, because we’re human, but when we are made aware of an error, we publish a correction.

On the point you mention in your blog that raised your suspicions ­ why Denizet-Lewis would need a second computer to circumvent blocking software he imposed on himself ­ the editors cut a parenthetical phrase from the original manuscript, for reasons of space, that would have explained this: the author had asked a friend to keep the password for his blocking software to prevent him from disabling it. We probably should have kept that line.

Best,
Catherine