The Runner: A True Account of the Amazing Lies and Fantastical …
There is something in us that bends over to the zipper-dropping con man. We like the prospect of a bargain. Unlike most Europeans, Americans tend to tolerate the stranger with a story, even if his narrative is stitched so obviously with entreaty. We trust because we expect others to trust us: as the ethicist Bernard Williams points out, it is fundamental to our image of ourselves that we see others as having the veracity we assume we possess. It is easier to trust, less stressful than suspicion and more conducive to psychic peace. It becomes a habit. Like the dying family pet, we instinctually raise our paw to everyone, even the vet whose glove hides the waiting needle full of pentathol.
The con memoir reached its post-war high tide with Geoffrey Wolff’s Duke of Deception (1979), the story of Geoffrey and Tobias Wolff’s legendary sire-snookerer, a man who faked prep school, military and college records to land himself on the boards of General Electric and ITT. John le Carré’s father was also a celebrated broker of non-existent real estate and thoroughbreds, continuing it on into his children’s adulthoods by begging them, prostrate, for bail money with hands around their knees and cries of “Not prison again, not at my age.” It worked.
Now comes David Samuels’s The Runner, the story of a brilliant petty thief, James Hogue, who re-tooled himself as the self-educated ranch hand Alexi Indris-Santana. Hogue’s cons would classify him as crazy under many sections of the DSM-IV, but to look on his actions that simply would be to miss the fact he latched on to the American Dream and the way it allows, encourages, even decorates the wide latitudes sometimes necessary for self-invention.
Tags: colorado, marathon
May 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Absolutely. As in the title, this is a “primer” on externalities, for those who may have never thought the concept through..and then stumble upon an article like W.W.’s and are tempted to believe that hands off is the be all end all to all the problems. Considering externalities raises the bar of thought and debate on the topic and brings it into reality. The idea of a hands off economy being the most moral is particularly offensive.I understand that a key factor in Adam Smith’s work was that the factory owner lived in the town, or was a member of that community. That is certainly no longer the case and presents a whole new set of challenges as the owner can preside over negative outcomes and may never directly suffer from those outcomes.Just as many over-zealous income redistributing liberals need a dose of libertarian and free market education..or basic economics 101. Those who believe the idea that ‘if the market produces it, it must be good, and the price must be right’, need a dose of certain practical realities and limitations in the market. Even basic principals such as Public Goods. I see it all as a continuum and respect most beliefs on that continuum as long as they understand and recognize certain facts. As opposed to folks that want to double the minimum wage tomorrow so that everyone has a “livable wage” and never consider the potential catastrophic damage that could cause our economy. Or on the flip side, folks that believe that everyone on welfare are just free-riding and should just get off their asses and work, and that the american dream is available to everyone..this is equally myopic.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Don’t forget the alter boys.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
And yet most libertarians talk about how “the market will solve everything” which is naive, just as naive as saying the government can solve all problems.There needs to be a balance between the two, especially when it comes to environmental issues (to use an example).
May 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
How do you insure/protect against accidental/unknown/unrecoverable damages to the earth caused by business that see short-term profit and lack long-term foresight to prepare for people more than 2 or 3 generations away? What if these things just aren’t fixable? I myself was expecting the article to address this sort of thing.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
never called into account for its failure? What the fuck are you talking about. There is a story going on right now about a church being sued for millions of dollars because of exploiting a handicapped person.What “organization” thinks they are better than everyone, and doesn’t care about anyone else, including poor people? Athiests.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Of course markets don’t fail. That annoying boom-bust cycle in which a bunch of banks go out of business and all their customers lose their life savings every half decade or so are just examples of the never-failing market correcting itself. Those losers should have picked better places to store their money.:P
May 5th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
What a ridiculously high bar in this silly example!Life is uncertain: there’s no getting around that. Ignoring the author’s narrow focus, the market has produced a wonderful mechanism for transferring risk: insurance.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
right…
May 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Read this.