Uncategorized

  • The Worst Marriage in Georgetown. Murder Mystery and Tragedy

    Illustration by Pat Perry

     

    Photograph by Carroll Williams

    Viola Drath and Albrecht Muth in June 2001.

     

    July 6, 2012
     

    The Worst Marriage in Georgetown

     

    By FRANKLIN FOER

     

    Dinners were served in the basement. Ambassadors, generals with many stars, senior White House officials and closely read columnists — all would walk past the yellowing kitchen, which looked as if it hadn’t been updated since the Ford administration, and down a narrow flight of stairs into the dimly lighted dining room. Guests were arrayed around the table according to rank, with the most important ones squeezed in the center. Although the Old World meals could be quite elaborate — venison paté, duck in bitter orange — they were prepared and served entirely by the host, a stickler for protocol named Albrecht Muth.

    Muth liked to refer to his Georgetown row house, which technically belonged to his wife, the journalist Viola Drath, as the Albrechtory. Guests at their dinners included Anne Patterson, Obama’s ambassador to Egypt; Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift; and Pierre Salinger, the Kennedy courtier, followed by his little white dog. Antonin Scalia was another guest, and Muth liked to joke about the time he asked Scalia to officiate his wedding: “Will you marry me?” Muth inquired. “Well, I’m already married,” Scalia replied. In 2006, even Dick Cheney emerged from his bunker to attend a party that Drath hosted.

    The couple’s cachet had nothing to do with wealth, however. They lived frugally, mostly off Drath’s first husband’s pension. Nor was it based on their résumés. He once started a small NGO; she wrote articles for a German financial daily. What they possessed was an exquisite understanding of the anxieties of the city’s elite — and an awareness of the power of eccentricity in a city that has little of it. Drath was 44 years older than her husband, a disparity in age that was accentuated further when he referred to her as “madam.”

    Albrecht Muth had his own rich lore. According to one tale, he once planted a bug in Madeleine Albright’s master bathroom on behalf of German intelligence, although the device managed to pick up only the sound of running water. Another placed him in Baghdad, working a furtive U.N. mission for Kofi Annan, or Uncle Kofi, as Muth called him. Even Georgetown neighbors who never attended his dinners speculated about the man who carried a riding crop and smoked cigars, which he kept tucked in his breast pocket as he marched past the preppy boutiques on Wisconsin Avenue each morning. After a neighbor once mistakenly referred to the riding crop as a marching baton, Muth sniffed in an e-mail, “I am not Mr. Sousa.”

    On Aug. 12 last year, Muth called 911 and reported that he returned from his morning walk to find his wife splayed on their bathroom floor. A 91-year-old tumbling in a bathroom is hardly uncommon, so detectives didn’t initially investigate her death. It took the medical examiner to point out, a day later, that her scalp was bruised, her thumbnail torn and the cartilage in her neck fractured. She had been strangled and bludgeoned to death.

    Drath’s murder seized the front page of The Washington Post, which was as awkwardly tangled in the story as the rest of the city’s elite. One of The Post’s columnists attended the couple’s dinners, as did the reporter who covered the case for The Wall Street Journal. Over the years, Muth flooded the in-boxes of his media contacts with messages containing his thoughts on the day’s events and knowing tidbits of insider gossip — speculations about covert operations gone awry or rumors about fights between top generals — a habit that didn’t end with his wife’s death. Four days after he supposedly found Drath’s body, Muth forwarded a note that he originally sent to officials in the Pentagon. He intimated that the police considered Drath to be the unfortunate victim of an assassin who was hunting for him. “I have to take a slain wife out to Arlington,” he wrote, “mourn her, then find her killer.”

    When Muth first asked her out in 1982, Drath had been married for nearly 40 years. He was a teenage intern for a lesser-known Republican senator; she was a veteran journalist in her 60s. Muth flattered her by describing his devotion to her column, which he said he started reading in his “youth.”

    The schnitzel joint he picked was said to be Henry Kissinger’s favorite restaurant in town. Muth ordered a bottle of expensive wine and, over the course of dinner, recounted the details of great battles, quoted Oscar Wilde and spoke of landing a top job in the United Nations. Although he had only recently arrived in Washington to study at American University, Muth name-dropped like a native. “He acted very entitled, and she liked that,” says Kathryn Livingston, a former executive editor of Town & Country whom Drath hired to edit her memoirs, which she never had the nerve to publish.

    Because Drath only hesitantly revealed her inner life, the editing of the manuscript required that Livingston prod her with uncomfortable questions. In one of her introspective moments, Drath admitted that while she didn’t consider Muth particularly handsome, she found his appearance appealing. His family fled East Germany, just as hers had, and there was something about his Teutonic face and blue-gray eyes that reminded her of home. She was also attracted to his lust for power, which she knew could be channeled into professional success. “At first, she was dazzled by his potential,” Livingston told me.

    Once upon a time, she was nearly as ambitious. After World War II, when she was in her mid-20s, her husband Francis — the deputy American military governor of Bavaria — rescued her from the ruins of Germany and transplanted her to Lincoln, Neb. Drath adapted well to her new life, even hosting a program on the local public-television channel. But she needed more action than Nebraska could provide. She began jetting off to New York to cover fashion shows for a German glossy, while her husband, whom everyone called the Colonel, took care of their daughters. “She was the husband, and he was the wife,” remembers Parker Ladd, a book editor for Scribner’s who was part of Drath’s new Manhattan circle.

    On her trips, she befriended Norman Mailer, who later stayed in her house as he researched his novel “Harlot’s Ghost.” She began writing essays about German politics for Harper’s and Commentary. In 1968, the Colonel took a government job and bought the Georgetown row house. Soon enough, she could quip, “When I speak German to Henry Kissinger, he starts talking like a little boy.”

    Yet for all her status and success, Drath remained deeply dependent on her husband. When the Colonel found out that he had cancer in the 1980s, she panicked about the prospect of widowhood. Her friend, the political theorist Gary Ulmen, came to stay with her following her husband’s death and discovered the extent of her helplessness. One morning, she turned to Ulmen and asked, “Do you know how to make breakfast?”

    Following their schnitzel dinner, Muth largely disappeared from Drath’s life. But just months after the Colonel’s death in 1986, he began calling on her almost daily. They would drink tea and stay up arguing about politics; evenings usually ended with Muth sitting down to play at her baby grand piano. About three years into his courtship, he donned a tuxedo, carried a bottle of Champagne and proposed marriage. That she chose Muti, as she called him, shocked her friends and family. She had other suitors who were age-appropriate and respectable, but as she told Ulmen: “They are old and boring. Muti is young and interesting.”

    He was also eager and pliant. Eleanor Clift remembers that “he was something like her intern.” Every morning, he raced to read the papers and then brief her on the news. He assumed the domestic responsibilities that the Colonel once performed, only with great formality. When visitors dropped by, Muth would serve them tea, take an exaggerated bow and quietly exit the room. “It looked like his next stop was Maxim’s,” Drath’s friend George Schwab, the head of a foreign-policy think tank, told me.

    Drath hadn’t intended to marry a butler. Her memoir details their campaign to land him a high-ranking job. They cultivated Vladimir Petrovsky, a jowly old Soviet diplomat who ran the United Nations office in Geneva, flying to Switzerland and buying him an expensive dinner. After months of wooing Petrovsky, Muth began appearing on panels across Washington on his behalf, sharing the dais with people like Senator Paul Sarbanes and Joseph Nye, then the chairman of the National Intelligence Council. “It’s amazing how he gets into things,” Drath marveled to Ulmen, who replied, “Viola, you’re introducing him to people; it’s because he’s connected to you.”

    Ulmen was a touch too dismissive. Muth could be hopelessly awkward ­— incapable of small talk, prone to clicking his heels — but he could also display remarkable social intelligence. Betty Gookin, a longtime friend of Drath’s, once gave him a tour of her house in the horse country of Virginia, leading him to a wall of ancestral portraits. Most visitors would half listen to a genealogical discourse, but Muth recited back her family history, drawing intricate connections. It was the same knack he had for scanning an organization and quickly learning its jargon and bureaucratic subtleties.

    In 1999, Muth formed what he called the Eminent Persons Group. His vision for the group was as grandiose as its name — he would bring together a collection of prestigious international thinkers to advise the U.N. secretary general. Among others, Muth enlisted the Pakistani cricket star (and now leading presidential candidate) Imran Khan and former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. A co-chairman of the group was former Prime Minister Michel Rocard of France. George Soros provided seed money. Although the E.P.G. didn’t quite fulfill Muth’s exalted mission, it occupied an important niche, campaigning against the proliferation of small arms, publishing well-researched reports and convening conferences in Washington and London.

    The triumph of the E.P.G. didn’t just gratify Muth’s ego; it was also an act of revenge. His mother had dabbled in politics, working her way up the Christian Democratic Party. But Muth’s father, a doctor in the German Army, died weeks after his birth. For the sake of her family, Muth’s mother turned down opportunities to ascend even higher. According to Livingston, Muth felt that decision had punished him, denying him the perks and privileges that flow to powerful families. Writing to Drath’s grandson, he described the joys of breaching the elite, “where life is great, because it’s fun.” People of power, he went on, “fire at a different level of the human condition.”

    To attract eminences to his group, Muth began by ordering thick stationery that he adorned with a crest of his own design. He signed the letters with an impressive title — Count Albi — which Muth claimed a distant relative who had suffered a debilitating fall from an Indian elephant passed down to him. And he operated according to some key principles that Drath described in her memoir. To score a big-name dinner guest or a favor from a V.I.P. in Washington, there was no point messing around with official channels or wasting time with midlevel functionaries. Underlings fear for their careers and are more likely to examine new acquaintances for potential peril. But there’s an unexpected naïveté among the truly powerful; they assume that anyone who has arrived at their desk has survived the scrutiny of handlers.

    Michel Rocard received one of Muth’s first invitations. “I had never heard of him,” the former prime minister told me. But Rocard liked the group’s mission, and his political career needed new purpose. With Rocard on the masthead as chairman, Muth had no trouble recruiting other V.I.P.’s. When Peggy Mason, the former Canadian ambassador to the U.N., received her invitation, she quickly accepted: “Of course,” she told me, “I figured if these other eminent people were already in. . . .”

    In 2005, Muth sent a flattering e-mail to Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma, who runs a center promoting nonviolence in Rochester. “He gave me the impression that he was highly connected, throwing names around like Kofi Annan, like they were buddies,” Gandhi recalls. Although he knew next to nothing about Muth, Gandhi accepted his offer to pay for a flight to Washington and to put him “in touch with important people.” When Muth arranged for Gandhi to speak at the National Press Club, one reporter from a “small unheard-of newspaper” attended the event, as Gandhi puts it. But that hardly seemed Muth’s goal. He had used Gandhi as the headline attraction for a dinner attended by “high-society people.”

    Muth, in other words, perfected the methodology for his social Ponzi scheme. For parties, he would start with bait. He theorized that Drath’s ties to Nebraska’s representatives in Washington — Senator Chuck Hagel, in particular — would bring in other politicians. Muth would also approach military officials attached to the embassies, who he knew were often lonely figures in town; he understood that their attendance would help him attract foreign-policy columnists. “The whole Western alliance was represented,” according to Roland Flamini, a former Time correspondent. In a 2010 e-mail to Drath, Muth explicitly detailed his approach: “You meet someone of import, check him out, determine [if] he can be of use, you make him yours. At some point you must decide whether to run him as a useful idiot, he not catching on as to who you are and what you do.”

    Before long, however, some of Muth’s colleagues at the E.P.G. began to catch on. “He came to a reception in a full morning suit, looking like a German aristocrat out of the 1800s,” Peggy Mason recalls. “People got a little nervous and started digging around.” His talk about having served in the French Foreign Legion seemed particularly absurd. By the fall of 2001, Soros stopped financing the group and Rocard resigned. “I no longer wish to work with Albrecht Gero Muth,” Rocard wrote, citing “the brutality of his working method” and his polarizing personality. “Some obscurities of his past irritate some of our interlocutors more than ourselves, and this also has its price.”

    From their first date, Viola and Albrecht enjoyed provoking one another. At night, they would lie in their separate beds, arguing in German. But every so often, their disagreements would escalate. In 1992, Muth was convicted of beating Drath, the beginning of a rap sheet that hardly reflects the many lesser occasions of abuse. Once when they were staying at the Plaza Hotel, he threw her clothes into the hall and locked her out of the room. “He has all my credit cards,” she told Gary Ulmen on the phone, who rushed to the hotel and lent her cash to buy a train ticket back to Washington.

    Where Drath nursed deep feelings ­and wrote passionately about her love for him, Muth was in the relationship for something else. He described their marriage as transactional, an example of a Washington coupling where husband and wife merge in order to aggregate their talents and social capital. When a local television reporter named Kris Van Cleave asked Muth how his marriage overcame so many obstacles, Muth replied, “Why does Secretary Clinton remain with President Clinton?”

    Perhaps Drath should have suspected that he was gay earlier — he was actively having affairs with men. But once she came to terms with Muth’s sexual orientation, he did little to disguise it. He even briefly moved in with a boyfriend in 2002. “He was the boy, she was the wife,” Muth explained in an e-mail he sent to friends. “You have the one for one set of reasons, the other another, the lives were fully integrated.” They were so integrated that the boyfriend suffered the same abuse as the wife. When Muth threatened to kill him, he obtained a restraining order.

    In May 2006, Drath was eating dinner on her couch while Muth sat on the other side of the room, drunk. Your daughter isn’t a lawyer, he blared to his wife, she’s a saleswoman. (In fact, she is a judge in Los Angeles.) It might have been best to let Muth rant, but Drath defended her daughter, telling Muth that he wasn’t smart enough to get into law school. According to the detectives’ report, he responded by swinging a chair at her, knocking her from the sofa and then repeatedly pounding her head against the floor. The next morning, Drath escaped to her daughter’s home and phoned 911. When the police finally arrested Muth, he left Drath behind — an exit everyone close to her hoped would be final.

    Several months later, the dateline on Albrecht Muth’s e-mails began to read “Villa Zarathustra, Sadr City, Iraq.” Ever since Rocard resigned from the E.P.G., Muth had tried to revive the group. He even demoted himself to deputy executive director and bragged that Kofi Annan’s nephew, someone he called his “Ashanti blood brother,” would serve as the titular head. Muth also began peddling what he said was a plan for ending the war in Iraq. The E.P.G. would bring together the various Iraqi sects, Muth hoped — a mission that could not be completed from the comforts of Georgetown.

    His dispatches were long and filled with jargon. He repeatedly apologized to his correspondents for his fatigue: “I am, to be blunt, somewhat a wreck. The eye is blurry. And I have this tremor in the left arm and hand.”

    The focus of his efforts was the insurgent Moqtada al Sadr, whom he referred to either as Mookie or with the honorific Hojatoleslam. He said that he had implanted himself as an aide in Sadr’s camp so that he could act as a double agent: while he advised Sadr, he would try to steer him and his Mahdi Army away from violence.

    Mookie was a vivid character in Muth’s telling. He described Sadr’s ill-fitting dentures, which caused the cleric to speak with a slight lisp. When Sadr worked himself into a rage, he would remove his false teeth — “an inclination I always discourage,” Muth wrote. While the Americans harped on Sadr’s role in murdering soldiers, Muth portrayed him as “somewhat dimwitted” and sentimental. One morning, Muth wrote, he awoke in Sadr’s compound to the sounds of a Prussian cavalry march blasting from the speakers on the minaret — which Muth interpreted as a loving tribute. From a terrace, he watched as “the honor guard performed, in near perfection, the exercises of Frederick the Great I taught them. The goose steps emanating straight at the waist.”

    Muth’s e-mails reached the in-boxes of the State Department and National Security Council officials who covered Iraq. He sent the responses he claimed to receive from these officials far and wide, although he took pains to scrub their names. These notes often chastised him. “I cannot sufficiently stress how dismayed we are,” one official lectured.

    In his missives Muth assumed the persona of a world-weary freelance operator, comparing himself with T.E. Lawrence. He enjoyed angering the inept Americans, who couldn’t appreciate all the ways he saved their bacon. There were others who shared this assessment. The former Pakistani ambassador to Iraq, a recipient of Muth’s e-mails, wrote a column in The Dawn newspaper that credited Muth with restraining Sadr: “Perhaps [Muth] had been inspired by the sterling example of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, who welded modern Germany.” When Muth forwarded this article to his friends, Eleanor Clift replied: “This is an excellent piece with a perspective that is right on target and gives credit where it’s due.”

    While Muth wrote about reconciling Iraqi factions, he achieved another feat — reconciliation with his wife. “She had a blind spot,” Kathryn Livingston says. “He was her weakness, her obsession, her addiction.” Just as Drath finished her memoir of their relationship (working title: “A Thoroughly Muddled Marriage”), Drath called Livingston to tell her, “I’m going to need a new ending.”

    Muth began forwarding his correspondence with Drath, hoping to demonstrate their return to normalcy. In the fall of 2007, he described his preparations for returning home and asked permission to bring along the Iraqi man who tended to him in Sadr City. “Having the comfort of a manservant, 24/7, is the one luxury this aging militiaman can afford himself,” he pleaded. “He’ll be paid for by the Mahdi Army.”

    The manservant never materialized in Washington, and the note of gratitude he supposedly received from George W. Bush — “I wished you finally took citizenship” — was a touch too familiar. “When I talk to Albrecht, I’m not sure if he’s in Iraq or next door,” Drath told George Schwab. It didn’t help Muth’s credibility that when she answered his calls, the caller ID showed the number of a hotel in Miami, where records show he was employed as a desk clerk from 2006 to 2008 — the very same period he claimed to be at the Villa Zarathustra.

    There’s a long history of fabulists who have ascended Washington’s social pyramid. There was the lobbyist Edward von Kloberg III (the “von” was an affectation, as was the title of baron he used and the silk-lined capes he wore), whose motto was “Shame is for sissies.” Starting in the 1980s, he specialized in representing autocrats like Saddam Hussein and Nicolae Ceausescu. In 2005, he killed himself, plunging from the walls of the Castel Sant’Angelo in Rome. Before Kloberg, there was Craig Spence. In 1989, Time dubbed him “Washington’s Man From Nowhere,” because he never explained the genesis of his wealth. While guests like Ted Koppel and William Safire attended Spence’s parties, he eavesdropped on their conversations with microphones and two-way mirrors hidden in his home. Dressed in a tuxedo, he committed suicide at the Boston Ritz-Carlton, after his enormous expenditures on male prostitutes were exposed. Then there was the pioneering work of Steven Martindale, who legendarily invited Alice Roosevelt Longworth and Henry Kissinger to his home by telling each that he was giving a party in honor of the other.

    Washington’s susceptibility to fakery explains how Muth could continue living his Iraq fantasy. Although there is no evidence — no photos, no sightings — that he ever set foot in Iraq, when he returned to Georgetown, he began walking its streets in an olive uniform and a red beret. “I saw him in uniform at the Safeway talking about Sadr,” Roland Flamini recalls. His e-mails began appearing with the signature “Albrecht Muth, Staff Brigadier General.”

    This would have been ridiculous, except that he increasingly spent time in the company of bona fide Iraqi generals. Baghdad’s military attaché included him in public gatherings. When Gen. Nasir Abadi, the vice chief of staff of the Iraqi Joint Forces, came to town, he attended a lavish dinner, which Muth hosted in his full regalia. “They were treating [Muth] as if he held some kind of significant rank,” George Schwab remembers.

    Several Washington wise men treated him with the same respect. Thomas Pickering, who served in nearly every diplomatically knotty post in the State Department, responded to one of Muth’s Baghdad dispatches: “Thank you for your fascinating reports. They are most welcome.” When Muth asked him to contribute a quote to his Wikipedia page, Pickering — who provided me with hundreds of Muth’s e-mails — obliged: “To the extent Muth has been successful in aligning the Sadrist JAM [Mahdi Army] with the U.S. Army, and the Sadrist movement with U.S. interests, and there is some evidence for that, he has made a major contribution.”

    Three years ago, Pickering redeemed the favor Muth owed him for the blurb. His friend W. Robert Pearson, the former ambassador to Turkey, runs a Washington-based humanitarian group called International Research and Exchanges Board. The Iranians had charged one of its program administrators with espionage. Pickering offered Muth’s help: “I have a lunatic friend who pretends to have relations with the Mahdi crowd,” he remembers telling Pearson. “I’ll ask Albrecht if he can exert any influence.” Muth reported back that he had relayed the message. “Mookie is praying for her,” he wrote. When the Iranians eventually released the administrator — a gesture that was most likely intended to remove unwanted scrutiny leading up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election — Muth was quick to claim credit. “Thanks again for once more being a miracle worker,” Pickering wrote.

    One of Muth’s miracles was an event he orchestrated called Iraq Liberation Day — and because Muth loved nothing more than a good acronym, he gave it the full name of National Observance of Iraq Liberation Day, or NOLID. On a brisk April day in 2010, Iraqi and American brass, joined by mothers of fallen soldiers, gathered at Arlington National Cemetery for speeches and the laying of wreaths. The pictures from that celebration show Muth in his customary role — off to the side, ensuring that the wreaths were laid just so.

    Qubad Talabani, the son of the Iraqi president and the Kurds’ official representative in Washington, delivered the keynote address. At the end of his speech, he announced that the next year’s celebration would take place in Kurdistan. When Talabani extended the invitation, an impromptu gesture of generosity, he had little reason to anticipate the intensity of Muth’s reaction. A wave of memos arrived in his office, and Muth quickly scheduled a meeting. When Muth came dressed in uniform, Talabani couldn’t resist asking about his biography. “He starts telling me stories about how his uncle was the deputy chairman of the East German intelligence and through that they supported the Iraqi security services and helped build Saddam Hussein’s intelligence network.”

    This narrative was horribly calibrated. Hussein, after all, had waged a genocidal campaign against the Kurds. As Talabani stared uncomfortably at his aides, Muth described how he wanted to invite the enemies of the United States — the Taliban, the Mahdi Army — to Kurdistan. Once he gathered them, he would launch the mother of all peace processes. Talabani interrupted before he could finish. “Good luck to you,” he said. “But we want no association with you, the Taliban, the Sadrists.”

    The Iraq Embassy initially considered Muth harmless. He organized lovely parties for visiting dignitaries. It was touching that Muth admired the Iraqi Army enough to wear its uniform (or rather, what appeared to be a hybrid of Iraqi and Jordanian secondhand components). But the embassy caught wind that Muth had gone to the Pentagon, dressed in his uniform, handing out invitations to Iraq Liberation Day. A party costume was one thing, carrying this charade into the inner sanctum of the U.S. military was quite another. The embassy strongly urged its employees to avoid dealing with Muth and asked the F.B.I. to investigate him.

    In September 2010, the State Department received an anonymous fax containing a diplomatic dispatch that a mole had sent to the editors of WikiLeaks. Investigators from the department quickly dismissed the fax as an uninteresting clip job. But as a matter of protocol, they phoned the house that sent the fax. When Viola Drath answered their call, she instantly fingered her husband as its author. Although the agent couldn’t be sure, he thought that he heard “a commotion” on the other end of the line, he later told the police. The phone went dead. He and a partner armed themselves and quickly drove to the house on Q Street, but there was no response to their knocking.

    When the agents later arranged to see Drath, she insisted that they meet anywhere but her house. She arrived at a restaurant wearing dark glasses, which she didn’t remove until asked by the agents. Although Drath claimed that her black eye resulted from a collision with a banister, she also told the agents that she feared for her safety. Could they deport her husband? “She was terribly worried about his anti-Americanism and his vitriol,” George Schwab remembers. “She told me, ‘If something happens, you will know who perpetrated the deed.’ ”

    During her years with Muth, Drath’s social world slowly contracted. Guests flooded her home in response to Muth’s invitations, but she lost touch with old friends. “I have a terrible conscience about the fact that we stopped seeing her,” says Richard Gookin, the former associate chief of protocol at the State Department. “We didn’t invite her over, because we feared that he would come along.” Muth’s embarrassments were mounting. The pastor at her church barred him from the building. The German Embassy axed him from its guest list, for fear of his drunken behavior, and curtailed its dealings with her.

    Muth no longer left the house much, except to smoke his dime-store cigars. During the day, he lounged on the couch, writing memos on his laptop and collecting details that might help him maintain a credible front. At night, he often drained a bottle of Madeira and read the English-language press in Asia so he could send e-mails that presaged the next morning’s stories about Iraq. Drath knew that he kept careful tabs on her e-mail account — and that he would send notes under her name. One day, while Muth was out, she called a young friend and asked him how she could set up a new address. But she was 90 years old and quickly surrendered to frustration.

    Even though she was usually only a room away, Muth sent lengthy, nasty notes to her via e-mail. He dismissed her professional accomplishments as “fluff,” and he gave himself full credit for all the late-career accolades she received. One note boasted about his “cunning,” which he illustrated with an old story: “George Soros, who financed E.P.G., also told [the French ambassador] that I’m ‘the type of man who would have closed the oven door behind him at Auschwitz.’ He meant it as a compliment, he told the ambassador. I pleaded guilty as charged.”

    One afternoon last summer, Muth arranged a date with a Pakistani man he met on Craigslist. Perhaps out of deference to his companion, who didn’t drink, Muth initially ordered a virgin cranberry spritzer. But as the evening progressed, Muth’s drinks grew more potent and his behavior more belligerent, according to affidavits obtained by the police. When the pair stopped by a small gathering at a friend’s house, Muth expressed his desire for dinner so emphatically that he grabbed another guest to drive home his point. By the time he staggered home, at 10 p.m., he had difficulty stringing together sentences.

    The next morning — the same morning Muth called 911 to report his wife’s death — Muth’s friend wrote him an e-mail saying that they couldn’t meet again if Muth was “going to be that drunk.” Muth replied that he had no memory of the evening.

    When homicide detectives met with Muth the next day, they asked about the scratches on his forehead — a query, the detectives noted, that left him visibly shaken and caused him to suddenly recall that he had slammed his head into his kitchen door. Muth also claimed that he never touched his wife’s corpse. But when the detectives told him that they had uncovered traces of his DNA on her body, he admitted that he touched her hand.

    Later, in an interview room at the department’s homicide branch, a detective asked Muth how intruders could have entered his home. He replied, “It’s your job to investigate, not mine.” And what about the age difference with your wife? It was “a marriage of convenience,” Muth shot back.

    The detectives told Muth that they were taking a break and surreptitiously watched him from the other side of the wall. He rubbed his face and muttered to himself. A few minutes later, a detective returned to the room and handed him a cup of coffee. “It doesn’t look good,” Muth blurted.

    It took the police four more days to collect the evidence to arrest Muth. During that period, they forbade him from entering his home, now a crime scene, so he slept in a Georgetown park wearing a perfectly tailored houndstooth blazer. Muth never had much money — he received an $1,800 monthly allowance from Viola — but he dressed as if he had means. When he stood before a judge in a preliminary hearing, he wore his orange jumpsuit with an upturned collar, an unlikely touch of St. Tropez in Superior Court.

    During his first appearance in court, he complained that corrections officers wanted him to wear underwear: “[I] am a serving officer in the Iraqi Special Forces,” he said. “We don’t wear underwear.” During his second appearance, last November, he announced that he would serve as his own attorney and that he would begin “an unlimited fast,” which he vaguely justified as an imperative of his faith.

    Muth had only recently become Catholic. Antonin Scalia, he claimed, had sponsored his conversion, a perfect Washington detail — and one that a Supreme Court spokesman has denied. On Day 53 of his fast, Muth instructed the court that “under no circumstances whatsoever am I to be given any medical treatment.” In other words, he seemed to be following the grim fate of Edward von Kloberg and Craig Spence, his fellow Washington fabulists.

    When doctors pleaded with him to eat, Muth told them that he was following orders from the Archangel Gabriel. They needn’t worry about his ability to survive, he said. He later compared himself to a camel and then to Jesus. By early February, the Department of Corrections transferred him to the United Medical Center, which had greater capacity to deal with his extreme dehydration and starvation, although doctors now regarded his condition as “extremely grave.”

    Then, just as it seemed the government would have to forcibly feed him, he resumed eating. The next day, according to court testimony, his doctor, a squat, balding man named Nader Marzban, paid him a 6 a.m. visit. As Marzban entered the room, Muth bellowed, “I want to jump up and shake you, because I’m not sure you’re real.” The doctor calmed Muth with a touch of his hand. “You know me,” he said. As Muth became less frantic, he told Marzban that he was a general in the Iraqi Army, recruited by the prime minister to help build a dictatorship.

    The psychiatrists who studied Muth for months wavered in their opinion of their subject. Some evidence suggested mental illness; other signs hinted that he might be feigning his condition. At the end of April, the doctors concluded that while Muth might eventually recover his mental health, he was for the time being unfit for trial.

    Marzban had difficulty talking about his patient in such cold terms. When he described Muth, his voice carried both the anxiety and compassion he felt for his patient. In the hospital, he pleaded with Muth to restrain his self-destructive impulses, and he pressed him to mount a more serious defense in court, even if professional ethics should have probably dictated that Marzban steer clear of discussing the case.

    “If they convict you, you’re going to be in jail for years,” he pleaded.

    “God will take care of that,” Muth replied. “I don’t need to worry about it.”

     

    Franklin Foer is editor of The New Republic and a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation.

    Editor: Greg Veis

     

    Copyright.2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

  • The Training and Deployment of Drones in The Desert. Will Pilots Become Obsolete?


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times


    • Photograph by Sean Hemmerle for The New York Times

     
    July 6, 2012
     

    The Drone Zone


    By 

    Holloman Air Force Base, at the eastern edge of New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range, 200 miles south of Albuquerque, was once famous for the daredevil maneuvers of those who trained there. In 1954, Col. John Paul Stapp rode a rocket-propelled sled across the desert, reaching 632 miles per hour, in an attempt to figure out the maximum speed at which jet pilots could safely eject. He slammed on the brakes and was thrust forward with such force that he had to be hauled away on a stretcher, his eyes bleeding from burst capillaries. Six years later, Capt. Joseph Kittinger Jr., testing the height at which pilots could safely bail out, rode a helium-powered balloon up to 102,800 feet. He muttered, “Lord, take care of me now,” dropped for 13 minutes 45 seconds and broke the record for the highest parachute jump.

    Today many of the pilots at Holloman never get off the ground. The base has been converted into the U.S. Air Force’s primary training center for drone operators, where pilots spend their days in sand-colored trailers near a runway from which their planes take off without them. Inside each trailer, a pilot flies his plane from a padded chair, using a joystick and throttle, as his partner, the “sensor operator,” focuses on the grainy images moving across a video screen, directing missiles to their targets with a laser.

    Holloman sits on almost 60,000 acres of desert badlands, near jagged hills that are frosted with snow for several months of the year — a perfect training ground for pilots who will fly Predators and Reapers over the similarly hostile terrain of Afghanistan. When I visited the base earlier this year with a small group of reporters, we were taken into a command post where a large flat-screen television was broadcasting a video feed from a drone flying overhead. It took a few seconds to figure out exactly what we were looking at. A white S.U.V. traveling along a highway adjacent to the base came into the cross hairs in the center of the screen and was tracked as it headed south along the desert road. When the S.U.V. drove out of the picture, the drone began following another car.

    “Wait, you guys practice tracking enemies by using civilian cars?” a reporter asked. One Air Force officer responded that this was only a training mission, and then the group was quickly hustled out of the room.

    Though the Pentagon is increasing its fleet of drones by 30 percent and military leaders estimate that, within a year or so, the number of Air Force pilots flying unmanned planes could be higher than the number who actually leave the ground, much about how and where the U.S. government operates drones remains a secret. Even the pilots we interviewed wore black tape over their nametags. The Air Force, citing concerns for the pilots’ safety, forbids them to reveal their last names.

    It is widely known that the United States has three different drone programs. The first is the publicly acknowledged program run by the Pentagon that has been operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other two are classified programs run separately by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, which maintain separate lists of people targeted for killing.

    Over the years, details have trickled out about lethal drone operations in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and elsewhere. But the drone war has been even more extensive. According to three current and former intelligence officials I spoke to, in 2006, a barrage of Hellfire missiles from a Predator hit a suspected militant camp in the jungles of the Philippines, in an attempt to kill the Indonesian terrorist Umar Patek. The strike, which was reported at the time as a “Philippine military operation,” missed Patek but killed others at the camp.

    The increased use of drones in warfare has led the Air Force to re-engineer its training program for drone pilots. Trainees are now sent to Holloman just months after they join the military, instead of first undergoing traditional pilot training as they did in the past. The Air Force can now produce certified Predator and Reaper pilots in less than two years.

    But the accelerated training has created its own problems. When I visited Holloman in February, there had been five drone accidents at the base since 2009. Most of them occurred during landing, when pilots have the most difficulty judging where the plane is in relation to the runway. As much as the military has tried to make drone pilots feel as if they are sitting in a cockpit, they are still flying a plane from a screen with a narrow field of vision.

    Then there is the fact that the movement shown on a drone pilot’s video screen has over the years been seconds behind what the drone sees — a delay caused by the time it takes to bounce a signal off a satellite in space. This problem, called “latency,” has long bedeviled drone pilots, making it difficult to hit a moving target. Last year senior operatives with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula told a Yemeni reporter that if they hear an American drone overhead, they move around as much as possible. (Military officials said that they have made progress in recent years in addressing the latency problem but declined to provide details.)

    Stationing pilots in the United States has saved the Air Force money, and pilots at Holloman who have flown drone combat missions speak glowingly about a lifestyle that allows them to fight a war without going to war. Craig, an Air Force captain who is a trainer at the base, volunteered to fly Predators while in flight school. He calls his job “the perfect balance of mission and family.”

    And yet this balance comes at a cost. Pilots have flown missions over Afghanistan in the morning, stopped for lunch, fought the Iraq war in the afternoon and then driven home in time for dinner. Lt. Col Matt Martin, formerly a trainer at Holloman, wrote about the disorienting experience of toggling among different war zones in a memoir, “Predator,” calling the experience “enough to make a Predator pilot schizophrenic.”

    It’s disorienting in other ways too. Can a pilot who flies planes remotely ever be as heroic as the aces who flew behind enemy lines or as Colonel Stapp, whose stunt in the New Mexico desert won him a prestigious medal for valor and put him on the cover of Time magazine?

    Luther (Trey) Turner III, a retired colonel who flew combat missions during the gulf war before he switched to flying Predators in 2003, said that he doesn’t view his combat experience flying drones as “valorous.” “My understanding of the term is that you are faced with danger. And, when I am sitting in a ground-control station thousands of miles away from the battlefield, that’s just not the case.” But, he said, “I firmly believe it takes bravery to fly a U.A.V.” — unmanned aerial vehicle — “particularly when you’re called upon to take someone’s life. In some cases, you are watching it play out live and in color.” As more than one pilot at Holloman told me, a bit defensively, “We’re not just playing video games here.”

    Mark Mazzetti is a national-security correspondent for The Times. He is currently writing a book about the C.I.A. since 9/11.

    Editor: Greg Veis

     

    Copyright 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

  • The History of Hyrdrofoils With Awesome Photography

    With romantic names like “Stormbringer”, “Sputnik”, “Comet” and “Meteor”, these were true rockets of the riverways

    We already wrote at length about fantastic Soviet Ekranoplans, but today we have a special treat for you. 

    The Rockets of the Riverways! Swift and streamlined, like soaring seagulls or flitting swallows, these gracefully poised, surging arrows (all these descriptions were also reflected in their names) – these beautiful high-speed, high-passenger-capacity hydrofoils were the pride and joy of the Soviet Union in the 1960s-1980s. 

    And then… the industry experienced a prolonged slump, with fewer and fewer of these machine in use on the Russian waterways today. We will see some incredibly poetic and, yes, sad photos of the abandoned hydrofoils further in this article.

    But first, there was the Golden Age of “Rocket” Hydrofoils – white, loud, powerful vessels, some of which reached the speeds of 150 km/hr, and could carry more than 300 passengers. 

    Perhaps the most beautiful high-speed hydrofoil vessel of them all: the Burevestnik (Stormbringer), with two airplane turbine engines on the sides:




    (image via)

    The cabins of these vessels were styled like the 1950s cars, with less chrome finish but similarly streamlined shapes:

    In this rare photograph we can see them in the Port of Odessa on the Black Sea, back in 1984:


    Here are two of these beauties sitting in the port, looking, for all we know, like the Japanese Shinkansen bullet trains! -

    All aboard! Here is a good side view of “The Meteor”:

    Some of the surviving dashboards:

    A Smorgasbord of Lovely Hydrofoil Models

    There was quite a variety of passenger hydrofoil models during the 1960s-1980s (Soviet Union certainly made lots of them: in all, more than 3,000 hydrofoil vessels were in use in Russia and Ukraine) Most of them were designed and built by Rostislav Alekseev and his Bureau in the city of Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod) on the Volga river. Below you can see the commemorative portrait of Alekseev and a monument to him (right image below):


    The “Rocket” (Raketa) was the first Soviet passenger hydrofoil vessel designed in 1957 by the “Red Sormovo” Central Design Bureau (production lasted until the mid-1970s). This vessel was soon followed by compact hydrofoil boat design “Volga” (awarded the Gold Medal at the Brussels Exhibition) – really just a rescue motorboat sporting hydrofoils. 

    First “Raketa” was seen in Moscow in 1957 during the International Youth Festival. “Raketas” immediately became very popular, and even Nikita Khruschev famously said “Enough of stumbling around rivers in some rusty tubs. Let’s travel in style!”.


    Soon the “Raketa” name became synonymous with all ships of this type, regardless of their model names. “Let’s take Raketa on a weekend, shall we?” could be often heard on Moscow River, Volga River, Ladoga Lake, etc.


    (images via)

    The Era of “Meteors”

    The “Meteor” (built from 1961 to 1991) was used for river navigation (his near-twin “Kometa” was used for the sea routes), was faster than “Raketa” and could accommodate 160 passengers. In total, almost four hundred “Raketa” vessels were built, and more than four hundred “Meteors”! Quite a number… “Meteors” were favorite with families for short cruises to a favorite “secluded” beach spot, like this one (what a beautiful lake landscape, too!):


    Here are some rare 1970s photographs of a “Meteor” on Volga river:



    “Meteors” were also successfully used for the river cruises in St.Petersburg:




    (image via)

    “Kometa” (The Comet) was the sea-going variation of the “Meteor”. A total of 86 were built in Feodosiya shipyard between 1964-1981, including 34 for export – plus during 1962-1992, thirty nine “Comets” were built in the Poti shipyards.


    (photo by A. Veselov)

    Here is a “Kometa” steaming toward the Valaam islands (an archipelago in the Lake Ladoga):

    “Kometa” came on the scene in 1961 and boasted top speed of 70 km/hr. Here is a colorful version from 1973:

    “Voskhod” (The Sunrise) was built to replace the aging fleet of “Kometas” and “Meteors” (first one built in 1973, 150 vessels in total). “Sunrise” was also exported to eighteen other countries, particularly to Canada, Vietnam, China, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Thailand, Turkey. 



    (image credit: Ivan90)

    Newly designed “Katran-M” and a larger hydrofoil vessel “Vostok”, designed by the Seatech firm:


    (image via)

    Built as “Kometa-44″ in 1979, this one now is used in Turkey as “Ege Princess”:



    (images credit: Frank Behrends, via)

    “Stormbringer” is arguably the most beautiful river vessel ever produced!

    Futuristic, romantic, surging into the future! “Burevestnik” (Stormbringer) was a masterpiece of industrial design, and was an incredible treat to ride on, or simply observe it roaring along pristine Russian (mostly quiet) waterways:



    High speed vessel “Burevestnik” (also called “gazo-turbokhod”, as it ran on turboshaft-gas-turbine type engine) was used along the Volga river during 1964-1979:



    (on the right is the smaller “Belarus”, seating 40 people)

    The mighty “Burevestnik” sported two IL-18 airplane engines on its sides… It was used on Kuibyshev-Ulyanov-Kazan-Gorky lines on the Volga river; the only surviving ship was dismantled for scrap in 1993; such a shame! -


    There was also 1962 “Sputnik” (the Satellite): similarly imposing, powerful vessel (4x850hp engines), capable of taking almost 300 passengers! Certainly a record… “Vikhr” (the Whirlwind) was its seagoing version:


    Chaika (the Seagull) was a very distinctively shaped prototype; only one vessel was made, but it served for two years on the riverways:

    It only carried 30 passengers, but boasted faster speed of 100 km/hr:

    The streamlined “Olympia” designed by Matveev Bureau:


    Also by Matveev Bureau is this “Katran” hydrofoil:

    From “Morskoi Flot” magazine, 1973: the Comet’s captain and “Kometa-7″ docked for maintenance in Sochi:

    Even today, these formidable in shape and power boats look truly inspiring, working the waterways as cruise ships, or super yacht conversions:


    (image via)

    “Cyclone” is a modern impressive “double-decker” hydrofoil ship, which is currently used in Crimea (on the right is surviving “Kometa”, seen in Sochi):

    Significantly less known and rarely remembered are Taifun (Typhoon) and its Strela (Arrow) incarnation:


    … and don’t forget Lastochka (the Little Swallow):

    This Kolkhida model from the early nineties seats 150 passengers (more info):

    Current Condition of Surviving 1960s-1980s Vessels: Not Good. Definitely, not good (with rare exception)

    Today some of these ships are kept in pretty miserable conditions, some are abandoned, some waiting on their chance for some private river tour company to rescue them:

    Seriously amazing sight: retired “heroes of the riverways”, rusting away in the autumn forest – near Kama Reservoir (Zaoszerskaya shipyards, near Perm):




    (images credit: Ratmir)

    Is it now a restaurant? A forlorn “Sputnik”, seen in Port of Samara:

    One of the “Meteors” was converted into a bar in the city of Kanev, Ukraine:

    And here we see the whole industrial yard covered with them:

    These were spotted in Valaam Bay (left) and totally abandoned somewhere in Kazakhstan:

    Some are transformed into super-yachts, like this one in Krasnoyarsk:




    (image via)

    These “Meteors” are still in good use (photo taken in 2010 in Cherepovets):

    And this river tour company uses a restored “Raketa” vessel with great effect:

    This one ended up in China (in Chang Jiang):


    (image credit: Peter)

    Welcome on board of the Soviet River Time Machine!

    Here are some impressive approach shots of these vessels, currently used in the Gulf of Finland:




    (image via)

    And finally, very poetic shot – a “Meteor”, gliding over the quiet waters… -


    (image credit: Ivan90)

    Watch these vessels in motion: video 1video 2video 3.

    CONTINUE TO “NEW HYDROFOIL & SUBMERSIBLE CONCEPTS”! ->

    CONTINUE TO “AMAZING SUBMARINES”! ->

    READ OUR CATEGORY “AWESOME BOATS / SHIPS” ->

  • F.Scott Fitzgerald and His Correspondence with Max Perkins. Prior to the Publication of His Masterpi

      If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,

    Till
    she cry “Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,

      I must have you!”

     

                        –THOMAS PARKE D’INVILLIERS

     

     

     

    This is some of the most amazing and incredible correspondence I have ever read in my entire Life. When you realize that these two men, both of them literary legends, for different parts of the creative process, are discussing one of the greatest masterpieces of prose ever to have been writen in the language we call English, then every word and nuance has an historical, and retrospective impact. Like being witness to something that happens very rarely, with such long lasting impact. When I read the Great Gatsby it literally brings tears to my eyes. 

     

     

     

     

    Tuesday, 3 July 2012


    The novel is a wonder

     
     

    On October 27th of 1924, 28-year-old F. Scott Fitzgerald sent a letter to his editor, Maxwell Perkins, along with an early draft of his new novel, tentatively titled The Great Gatsby. That missive, and Perkins’s delighted but constructively critical response, can be enjoyed below. Fitzgerald took his editor’s suggestions on board, immediately made some major revisions to the story, and in April of 1925, six months after the initial letter had been sent, The Great Gatsby as we now know it was published.

    The story originally sent to Perkins has since been published in its entirety, titled Trimalchio.

    (Source: A Life in Letters; Image: F. Scott Fitzgerald, via.)

    October 27th, 1924
    Villa Marie, Malescure
    St. Raphael, France

    Dear Max: 

    Under separate cover I’m sending you my third novel:

    The Great Gatsby

    (I think that at last I’ve done something really my own), but how good “my own” is remains to be seen. 

    I should suggest the following contract. 

    15% up to 50,000
    20% after 50,000

    The book is only a little over fifty thousand words long but I believe, as you know, that Whitney Darrow has the wrong psychology about prices (and about what class constitute the bookbuying public now that the lowbrows go to the movies) and I’m anxious to charge two dollars for it and have it a full size book

    Of course I want the binding to be absolutely uniform with my other books—the stamping too—and the jacket we discussed before. This time I don’t want any signed blurbs on the jacket—not Mencken’s or Lewis’ or Howard’s or anyone’s. I’m tired of being the author of This Side of Paradise and I want to start over. 

    About serialization. I am bound under contract to show it to Hearsts but I am asking a prohibitive price, Long hates me and it’s not a very serialized book. If they should take it—they won’t—it would put of publication in the fall. Otherwise you can publish it in the spring. When Hearst turns it down I’m going to offer it to Liberty for $15,000 on condition that they’ll publish it in ten weekly installments before April 15th. If they don’t want it I shan’t serialize. I am absolutely positive Long won’t want it

    I have an alternative title:

    Gold-hatted Gatsby

    After you’ve read the book let me know what you think about the title. Naturally I won’t get a nights sleep until I hear from you but do tell me the absolute truth, your first impression of the book & tell me anything that bothers you in it. 

    As Ever 
    Scott

    [10 days later, he writes again...]

    November 7th, 1924
    Hotel Continental, St. Raphael, Sun.
    (Leaving Tuesday)

    Dear Max: 

    By now you’ve received the novel. There are things in it I’m not satisfied with in the middle of the book—Chapters 6 & 7. And I may write in a complete new scene in proof. I hope you got my telegram. 

    Trimalchio in West Egg

    The only other titles that seem to fit it are Trimalchio and On the Road to West Egg. I had two others Gold-hatted Gatsby and The High-bouncing Lover but they seemed too light. 

    We leave for Rome as soon as I finish the short story I’m working on. 

    As Ever
    Scott

    ———————

    Nov. 18, 1924

    Dear Scott:

    I think the novel is a wonder. I’m taking it home to read again and shall then write my impressions in full;—but it has vitality to an extraordinary degree, and glamour, and a great deal of underlying thought of unusual quality. It has a kind of mystic atmosphere at times that you infused into parts of “Paradise” and have not since used. It is a marvelous fusion, into a unity of presentation, of the extraordinary incongruities of life today. And as for sheer writing, it’s astonishing.

    Now deal with this question: various gentlemen here don’t like the title,—in fact none like it but me. To me, the strange incongruity of the words in it sound the note of the book. But the objectors are more practical men than I. Consider as quickly as you can the question of a change.

    But if you do not change, you will have to leave that note off the wrap. Its presence would injure it too much;—and good as the wrap always seemed, it now seems a masterpiece for this book. So judge of the value of the title when it stands alone and write or cable your decision the instant you can. 

    With congratulations, I am,
    Yours, 

    [Maxwell E. Perkins]

    [Two days later, after re-reading...]

    November 20, 1924

    Dear Scott:

    I think you have every kind of right to be proud of this book. It is an extraordinary book, suggestive of all sorts of thoughts and moods. You adopted exactly the right method of telling it, that of employing a narrator who is more of a spectator than an actor: this puts the reader upon a point of observation on a higher level than that on which the characters stand and at a distance that gives perspective. In no other way could your irony have been so immensely effective, nor the reader have been enabled so strongly to feel at times the strangeness of human circumstance in a vast heedless universe. In the eyes of Dr. Eckleberg various readers will see different significances; but their presence gives a superb touch to the whole thing: great unblinking eyes, expressionless, looking down upon the human scene. It’s magnificent!

    I could go on praising the book and speculating on its various elements, and meanings, but points of criticism are more important now. I think you are right in feeling a certain slight sagging in chapters six and seven, and I don’t know how to suggest a remedy. I hardly doubt that you will find one and I am only writing to say that I think it does need something to hold up here to the pace set and ensuing. I have only two actual criticisms:—

    One is that among a set of characters marvelously palpable and vital—I would know Tom Buchanan if I met him on the street and would avoid him—Gatsby is somewhat vague. The reader’s eyes can never quite focus upon him, his outlines are dim. Now everything about Gatsby is more or less a mystery i.e. more or less vague, and this may be somewhat of an artistic intention, but I think it is mistaken. Couldn’t hebe physically described as distinctly as the others, and couldn’t you add one or two characteristics like the use of that phrase “old sport”,—not verbal, but physical ones, perhaps. I think that for some reason or other a reader—this was true of Mr. Scribner and of Louise—gets an idea that Gatsby is a much older man than he is, although you have the writer say that he is little older than himself. But this would be avoided if on his first appearance he was seen as vividly as Daisy and Tom are, for instance;—and I do not think your scheme would be impaired if you made him so.

    The other point is also about Gatsby: his career must remain mysterious, of course. But in the end you make it pretty clear that his wealth came through his connection with Wolfsheim. You also suggest this much earlier. Now almost all readers numerically are going to be puzzled by his having all this wealth and are going to feel entitled to an explanation. To give a distinct and definite one would be, of course, utterly absurd. It did occur to me though, that you might here and there interpolate some phrases, and possibly incidents, little touches of various kinds, that would suggest that he was in some active way mysteriously engaged. You do have him called on the telephone, but couldn’t he be seen once or twice consulting at his parties with people of some sort of mysterious significance, from the political, the gambling, the sporting world, or whatever it may be. I know I am floundering, but that fact may help you to see what I mean. The total lack of an explanation through so large a part of the story does seem to me a defect;—or not of an explanation, but of the suggestion of an explanation. I wish you were here so I could talk about it to you for then I know I could at least make you understand what I mean. What Gatsby did ought never to be definitely imparted, even if it could be. Whether he was an innocent tool in the hands of somebody else, or to what degree he was this, ought not to be explained. But if some sort of business activity of his were simply adumbrated, it would lend further probability to that part of the story.

    There is one other point: in giving deliberately Gatsby’s biography when he gives it to the narrator you do depart from the method of the narrative in some degree, for otherwise almost everything is told, and beautifully told, in the regular flow of it,— in the succession of events or in accompaniment with them. But you can’t avoid the biography altogether. I thought you might find ways to let the truth of some of his claims like “Oxford” and his army career come out bit by bit in the course of actual narrative. I mention the point anyway for consideration in this interval before I send the proofs.

    The general brilliant quality of the book makes me ashamed to make even these criticisms. The amount of meaning you get into a sentence, the dimensions and intensity of the impression you make a paragraph carry, are most extraordinary. The manuscript is full of phrases which make a scene blaze with life. If one enjoyed a rapid railroad journey I would compare the number and vividness of pictures your living words suggest, to the living scenes disclosed in that way. It seems in reading a much shorter book than it is, but it carries the mind through a series of experiences that one would think would require a book of three times its length.

    The presentation of Tom, his place, Daisy and Jordan, and the unfolding of their characters is unequalled so far as I know. The description of the valley of ashes adjacent to the lovely country, the conversation and the action in Myrtle’s apartment, the marvelous catalogue of those who came to Gatsby’s house,—these are such things as make a man famous. And all these things, the whole pathetic episode, you have given a place in time and space, for with the help of T. J. Eckleberg and by an occasional glance at the sky, or the sea, or the city, you have imparted a sort of sense of eternity. You once told me you were not a natural writer—my God! You have plainly mastered the craft, of course; but you needed far more than craftsmanship for this.

    As ever, 

    [Maxwell E. Perkins]

    P.S. Why do you ask for a lower royalty on this than you had on the last book where it changed from 15% to 17½% after 20,000 and to 20% after 40,000? Did you do it in order to give us a better margin for advertising? We shall advertise very energetically anyhow and if you stick to the old terms you will sooner overcome the advance. Naturally we should like the ones you suggest better, but there is no reason you should get less on this than you did on the other.

    ———————

    December 1st, 1924

    Hotel des Princes 
    Piazza di Spagna
    Rome, Italy

    Dear Max:

    Your wire & your letters made me feel like a million dollars—I’m sorry I could make no better response than a telegram whining for money. But the long siege of the novel winded me a little & I’ve been slow on starting the stories on which I must live. 

    I think all your criticisms are true. 

    (a) About the title. I’ll try my best but I don’t know what I can do. Maybe simply “Trimalchio” or “Gatsby.” In the former case I don’t see why the note shouldn’t go on the back. 

    (b) Chapters VI & VII I know how to fix 

    (c) Gatsby’s business affairs I can fix. I get your point about them.

    (d) His vagueness I can repair by making more pointed—this doesn’t sound good but wait and see. It’ll make him clear

    (e) But his long narrative in Chap VIII will be difficult to split up. Zelda also thought I was a little out of key but it is good writing and I don’t think I could bear to sacrifice any of it. 

    (f) I have 1000 minor corrections which I will make on the proof & several more large ones which you didn’t mention. 

    Your criticisms were excellent & most helpful & you picked out all my favorite spots in the book to praise as high spots. Except you didn’t mention my favorite of all—the chapter where Gatsby & Daisy meet. 

    Two more things. Zelda’s been reading me the cowboy book aloud to spare my mind & I love it—tho I think he learned the American language from Ring rather than from his own ear. 

    Another point—in Chap. II of my book when Tom & Myrte go into the bedroom while Carraway reads Simon called Peter—is that raw? Let me know. I think it’s pretty necessary. 

    I made the royalty smaller because I wanted to make up for all the money you’ve advanced these two years by letting it pay a sort of interest on it. But I see by calculating I made it too small—a difference of 2000 dollars. Let us call it 15% up to 40,000 and 20% after that. That’s a good fair contract all around. 

    By now you have heard from a smart young french woman who wants to translate the book. She’s equal to it intellectually & linguisticly I think—had read all my others—If you’ll tell her how to go about it as to royalty demands ect.

    Anyhow thanks & thanks & thanks for your letters. I’d rather have you and Bunny like it than anyone I know. And I’d rather have you like it than Bunny. If its as good as you say, when I finish with the proof it’ll be perfect. 

    Remember, by the way, to put by some cloth for the cover uniform with my other books. 

    As soon as I can think about the title I’ll write or wire a decision. Thank Louise for me, for liking it. Best Regards to Mr. Scribner. Tell him Galsworthy is here in Rome. 

    As Ever
    Scott

    Comments are now closed on Letters of Note. 
    Have something to say? Get in touch via email or Twitter
    Pre-order the Letters of Note book, out Nov 2012, by clicking here

    Visit the Archives for hundreds more letters. 

    Follow Letters of Note: RSS|Email|Twitter|Facebook 

     
     

     

     

  • Wimbledon 2012: Sharapova silenced by power of Lisicki

    Wimbledon 2012: Sharapova silenced by power of Lisicki

     
     

    Maria Sharapova cut a disappointed figure in the post-match press conference after being knocked out of the Wimbledon championships yesterday

    Maria Sharapova cut a disappointed figure in the post-match press conference after being knocked out of the Wimbledon championships yesterday

    Tuesday July 03 2012

    Prior to facing Maria Sharapova yesterday, Sabine Lisicki had been asked if she would complain to the umpire that the world No 1′s shrieking was putting her off, as she had done, with successful results, in the second round when facing Bojana Jovanovski.

    The young German dodged the question. Come the match, she found another way to silence Sharapova, ending the former champion’s tournament and reversing last year’s semi-final defeat with a stunning straight-sets victory.

    Sharapova continued shrieking to the end, but the cries increasingly sounded like ones of anguish.

    “It’s revenge, for all three times she’s beaten me,” said a beaming Lisicki. There are likely to be many more opportunities for vengeance — with Sharapova aged 25 and Lisicki 22, this could become an enduring rivalry. Both hit the ball hard, but it was the German’s powerful groundstrokes which were more potent in a 6-4 6-3 victory.

    Having failed to take two match points, once putting a simple forehand into the net, Lisicki clinched the match with an ace. She sunk to her knees as if she had won the tournament itself. It was a victory she could not have envisaged a month ago after a very poor spell in which she lost the opening match in six tournaments, including Edgbaston when she was No 2 seed.

    Lisicki retreated to Nick Bollettieri‘s IMG Academy where the 80-year-old coach told her: “Stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop making excuses, get out there and hit it.” Which is exactly what she did on Court One yesterday.

    confidence

    Lisicki explained: “I didn’t play well in my last few tournaments so I went to Florida, I practised, got my confidence and shots back, I had fun again. I felt much better coming in here.

    “Even though I lost the first game I felt great. As soon as I got the break in the second set, I knew I was going to take it home.”

    That break came after a rain delay which seemed to affect Sharapova’s focus. She won just three of the next 12 points, by which stage the Russian, also a Bollettieri graduate, was 3-0 down. There had been five breaks in the opening set, but Lisicki had found her serve. “She hits the ball really hard,” said Sharapova.

    “She likes to be the aggressive one and start the point with a really heavy shot. She came out after the rain delay really firing. There’s no doubt she has a lot of potential. If she plays at this level she belongs at the top, but it is not just about one tournament.”

    Sharapova knows what she is talking about. Lisicki is seeded 15 while Sharapova’s consistency had taken her to world No 1 after her success in the French Open, but Victoria Azarenka‘s 6-1 6-0 drubbing of Ana Ivanovic yesterday means Sharapova will lose top spot, either to the Belarusian or Agnieszka Radwanska.

    Lisicki now plays her compatriot Angelique Kerber, seeded eight. It is the first time two Germans have been in the ladies quarter-finals since 1987, when Steffi Graf was joined by Claudia Kohde-Kilsch.

    Kerber made it a sad farewell to Wimbledon for Kim Clijsters, who was demolished 6-1 6-1 in 49 minutes. Clijsters, like Sharapova, is a four-time Grand Slam champion, but in her case never a Wimbledon finalist.

    That will not change as she intends to retire again, this time for good, after the US Open. Now 29 and that rarest of items on the tennis circuit, a mother, Clijsters saved two match points but was never in the contest.

    She departed without fanfare, just packing up her bag as if she had finished a routine match. “I’m not sorry (about leaving Wimbledon for the last time) as I’ve always given my best. Some days it’s good, some days it’s great, some days it’s not good enough.”

    She said she will, however, take many memories into retirement, among them playing Graf and attending the Champions Ball (after winning the doubles).

    “Watching on television as a junior in Belgium I felt the magic through the TV. This was for me like Disneyland was to another child.”

    Kerber, who conceded only seven points on serve, will be making her Wimbledon quarter-final debut. “I maybe have to pinch myself,” she said. “Pressure? I enjoy this. I have nothing to lose. I lost here in the first round last year; now I am in the quarters. So I will go out and have fun.”

    Forty-eight hours after a Wimbledon women’s record of 23 aces got her out of trouble against Jie Zheng, Serena Williams gave another error-strewn performance in beating Yaroslava Shvedova 6-1 2-6 7-5.

    “I just felt like today I was sluggish out there, just pulling myself together mentally,” Williams said. “But I feel I can do a lot better, which is comforting. If this is my best, I’m in trouble.”

    The former champion will surely need to improve in her quarter-final against Petra Kvitova, the defending champion, on Centre Court or Court One. Yesterday Williams was banished to Court Two and there were chaotic scenes as spectators mobbed her when she left the stadium.

    Putting the 30-year-old American or her sister Venus on a smaller court has been controversial. Williams said security should be taken into consideration. “I was totally mobbed,” she said. “I was almost knocked over.”

    The Azarenka-Ivanovic match began under clouds and finished under the Centre Court roof, but whatever the setting, the second seed was far too good for the former world No 1.

    Azarenka, a semi-finalist last year, now plays unseeded 21-year-old Austrian Tamira Paszek, the youngest player left in the draw and the only remaining non-seed. (© Independent News Service)

    - Glenn Moore

    Irish Independent

  • Alleged ‘queen’ of drug smuggling found in El Monte

    From Los Angeles Times

    July 3, 2012 |  7:30 pm
     
     

     

     

    Anel-rios300pxIn Mexico, the media called her  “La Bonita,” the pretty one, or “La Chula,” the beautiful one  or “La Reina del Crimen,” the queen of Mexican crime.

    Mexican authorities long alleged Anel Violeta Noriega Rios, 27, was a top operative in the La Familia drug cartel working out of the United States. They claimed she helped smuggle drugs from Mexico into the United States, once using a gardening company to move drugs brought by sea into Long Beach.

    But when authorities arrested Noriega Rios at a modest El Monte apartment last week on immigration charges, there were no indications the woman had a 5-million peso reward on her head.

    “It is the last place you’d expect to find someone who was supposed to have run so many drugs,” a source familiar with the investigation told The Times.

    When announcing Noriega Rios’ arrest on Tuesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement called her a “main U.S.-based operative” in the La Familia cartel, a group often characterized as ruthless and cult-like, known for moving mostly methamphetamine – but cocaine and marijuana too — into the U.S. from the Mexican state of Michoacan.

    Authorities began watching Noriega Rios in El Monte upon request from Mexican officials, who received a tip indicting she was living in the working-class San Gabriel Valley city. After authorities were able to determine the woman was in fact Noriega Rios, they arrested her without incident.

    They confirmed her identity later using fingerprints, sources said.

    Immigration officials said Noriega Rios was arrested in the United States and deported to Mexico five times between 2004 and 2005 but has no criminal convictions in the U.S.

    She was handed over to Mexican authorities in San Ysidro on Friday.

    Mexican authorities have arrested several top-level La Familia leaders in recent years, moves not only heralded by some officials as significant blows to the cartel, but that also led to internal struggles within the organization. Sources told The Times that about two dozen cartel operatives have been captured in the U.S. by various federal agencies in the last two years. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.

    Noriega Rios was frequently mentioned in Mexican press reports. She was purportedly a contact between the Michoacan cartel and the powerful Sinaloa cartel and its leaders, including top cartel boss Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, a man whom the U.S. Treasury Department declared the world’s most powerful drug trafficker in January.

    Law enforcement sources said they were puzzled to find such a wanted woman seemingly hiding in plain sight in El Monte.

    “It is not clear if she was just hiding or just had fallen on hard times,” one source said.

     

    Copyright. 2012 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

  • Black Velvet

     

     
     
     An all time favorite video!
     
     
     
     
     
     
  • Opulent Photographs of Luxurious Subjects

    A Couture Power Couple | Kristen Stewart and Karl Lagerfeld in Paris Photograph by Mario Testino

     

    A Couture Power Couple | Kristen Stewart and Karl Lagerfeld in Paris

    Photograph by Mario Testino

        • JUNE 28, 2012, 3:52PM

        •  

    Private Paradises | Talitha G Photograph by Alex James

    Private Paradises | Talitha G

    Photograph by Alex James

      • JUNE 27, 2012, 11:36AM

         

        Copyright. 2012 VF.com All Rights Reserevd

      •  

  • Whatever Happened to First Class?

    Rowan Barnes-Murphy

    More Photos »

     

    Multimedia

    Champagne, Showers and a Double Bed

     

     

    More Photos »

     

    February 10, 2012
     

    Whatever Happened to First Class?

     

    By JESSE McKINLEY

     

    AS a longtime veteran of the coach cabin and all the horrors therein — the battles for overhead space, the wheelie-bag traffic jams, the knee-numbing legroom — one can only imagine my thrill when I boarded a recent American Airlines flight from San Jose, Calif., to Dallas. There I was, after all, in the first row. My seat was wide, the armrest was enormous, and the guys behind me were talking, businessman-style, about real estate and golf, bankruptcies and bogies. This was the high life, I figured, a conviction that only intensified when the flight attendant approached with a silver tray and addressed me — unprompted — as “Mr. McKinley.” Then he handed me, well, a towel.

    Or sort of. Maybe it was more of a wipe? It was basically the size of a cocktail napkin. Or perhaps it was a piece of the pilot’s long-lost security blanket. Whatever it was, it was marginally warm, borderline damp, and had the unmistakable, oft-used texture of a bargain washcloth.

    Ah, first class.

    Once an enclave of elegance, fabulous fliers and V.I.P.’s with sights to see and places to be, these days, judging from a recent informal survey I undertook of several of the nation’s bigger domestic carriers, the experience is often reminiscent of what one used to find in coach. Same kind of pillows. Same kind of blankets. Same kind of guy in sweats, a fleece and a ball-cap letting his knees expand to the widest possible angle while downing a free drink.

    Indeed, what I noticed over the course of several short jaunts, hub-to-hub hauls and cross-country treks was that the airlines’ gutting of almost all niceties from economy class seems to have had a perverse effect on first. Rather than be defined by the benefits it bestows, it is now defined by the deprivations it doesn’t. “You go into first class,” said Joe Brancatelli, the editor of JoeSentMe.com, a Web site for business travelers, “because it’s less horrible than coach.”

    Not that there’s always that much difference, mind you. Consider a recent US Airways flight I took from Charlotte, N.C., to Newark — I bought a $75 upgrade — whose amenities were a bigger seat, a tiny pillow, a big bottle of water and a choice of nuts or cheese snacks, delivered in what an airline spokesman later called a “relatively heavy snack basket.” On my American flight from San Jose, there wasn’t even a pillow, though the flight attendant noted I could rest my head against the adjustable (and that’s a generous term) flap in the headrest.

    And while there’s ample debate as to when the Golden Age of First Class was — the Stratocruiser ’50s? The Pan Am ’60s? The steak-and-silverware ’70s? — the growing consensus among airline observers is that decades of deregulation, harsh economic swings, increased competition and consolidation, and, most recently, upgrade-hungry frequent fliers, have left the domestic first-class compartment more of a letdown than a luxury.

    “The style is gone, the attention to detail is gone, the amenities are gone,” said Henry H. Harteveldt, a founder of the Atmosphere Research Group, a travel industry analysis firm. “The fact is that domestic first class today simply means little more than a wider seat and a better chance of getting your bag in the overhead bin.”

    It wasn’t always thus. In the glory days of first-class travel, according to Roland H. Moore, president of the Eastern Airlines Historical Foundation, luxury was the sell. Attendants wore hats, stockings, white gloves and tailor-made suits. Passengers dressed up. Meals were an event, with high-end chefs from restaurants like the “21” Club in New York catering meals that would be served on Rosenthal china with stainless steel silverware, starched white napkins and tablecloths. The pillows were large, the cases starched white, and the candies were hard (to comfort the ears on takeoff, of course).

    “Furs would be folded with the lining outside,” said Frank Victor, a board member with the National Airline History Museum, who fondly recalled days of lobster thermidor and chateaubriand carved at your seat. And, he added, “The curtains were closed between first and coach.” (And not those decorative hospital-style curtains you see nowadays.) Most agree that deregulation in the late ’70s was the beginning of major changes for first class — and first-class passengers — as government-decreed fares gave way to competitive pricing. Pre-deregulation fixed fares, you see, meant airlines had to compete in other ways for customers, namely through better service, not better prices.

    So while deregulation has “hugely democratized” the skies, said Gary Leff, a founder of milepoint.com, a frequent flier community, it has also meant “that without high fares, the airlines don’t spend on amenities the way that they used to.”

    There were also low-cost carriers like Southwest and People Express that didn’t mess with first class at all. Later, 9/11, rising fuel costs and the recession all continued to pummel the airlines, forcing a protracted era of cost-cutting.

    Airlines had also developed loyalty programs, allowing frequent fliers to pay for upgrades with miles, and letting regular Joes percolate up into first class. What really opened the flood gates, though — and that first-class curtain — was a more recent decision by some carriers to offer upgrades to their most frequent fliers, gratis, rather than let those seats go empty.

    And that, say some, has justified the airlines’ rationale in making the first-class experience less than premium. “Once they are giving it away as a perk,” Mr. Brancatelli said, “why would you go out of your way to make it glamorous?”

    And while Mr. Harteveldt — like everyone else — loves his free upgrades, he said that the practice galls him from a business standpoint. “Let’s say you go to Macy’s and buy a generic $49 shirt,” he said. “The clerk doesn’t then take that back and hand you a shirt by a name-brand designer.”

    But, to be frank, at these prices, who can afford to pay retail? A recent search of first-class fares on Orbitz.com, from Kennedy Airport to Los Angeles, found nonstop fares as high as $3,116 on United, $3,113 on American. And that was one way. (By comparison, both coach tickets were $149.)

    Airlines won’t say how many people are paying the full first-class fare — Mr. Brancatelli estimates it to be 2 percent, while others estimate up to 10. Some first-class cabins, according to the airlines, are more stocked with customers paying full fare than others, but as a passenger it can seem that the front of the plane on many domestic flights is packed with upgraded travelers. On a recent transcontinental flight out of Philadelphia on Delta, for example, exactly 2 of 16 first-class passengers had paid full fare, according to a gate agent there. And one of those big spenders was me.

    With tens of millions of upgradable frequent fliers, airlines have taken to adding seats with slightly more legroom and other perks in coach — call it Coach Plus — to accommodate loyal customers shut out of the front of the plane.

    American, for one, is making an effort to up their number of “economy class premium,” with more of such seats on its new Boeing 777-300ERs due this year. American has also kept three separate cabins — coach, business and first — while others have gone strictly bicameral (coach and first), and says it’s intensifying its efforts to get Wi-Fi on more planes, said Alice Liu, managing director of onboard products. It is, she said, part of making first class “a seamless transition from everyday life to the airline.”

    “It shouldn’t be an interruption,” she said.

    Other airlines also strongly contest the assertion that first class isn’t what it used to be, saying that they’ve poured ample resources into maintaining and improving service with everything from new seats — from cloth to leather, for example, on United — to better menus and wines. There are also flashier entertainment devices, power outlets, new online services and, of course, the ever-important issues of more legroom and larger seats.

    Airline officials acknowledge that some changes in the front of the plane have occurred over the years, but largely because of the changing expectations and demands of their customers. “I think it used to be that the flight was as much a part of the vacation as the beach in Hawaii or touring the Eiffel Tower,” said Rahsaan Johnson, a spokesman for United. “Now people just want to get on and do what they want to do. And they are far more likely to say, I wish I had a place to plug in my laptop than I wish we had flowers in the lav.”

    To be sure, not all first-class experiences are created equal. On some flights, first class doesn’t even mean a meal. US Airways, for example, doesn’t serve prepared food in first class for any flight less than three and a half hours long. When the food comes, it does not always inspire, like an omelet-and-home-fries breakfast I had on American — part of a $986 full-fare one-connection, one-way flight from West Coast to East — where omelet and home fries had appeared to merge like something out of “The Fly.” But the airline did better on a Dallas to Philadelphia afternoon flight: I was given a nice cold salmon salad, a bowl of warm nuts and yes, a hot towel. (By this point in my research, I was politely saying no.)

    Airlines tend to load the extras onto their longer, transcontinental flights, which can feature meals designed by celebrity chefs, seats that extend to lie flat and computer tablets loaded with movies and video games. (Details on extras are in the accompanying article.)

    First class also has staffing on its side — often two flight attendants for a dozen or so people — and its own commode, of course.

    And those are just the perks on the plane. According to Fern Fernandez, managing director for marketing and customer loyalty of US Airways, for some customers they pale in comparison with the biggest prize of all: less time waiting to get on.

    “Domestically, it’s that ability to have an expedited experience in the boarding process,” he said. “And having a little extra space.”

    But while avoiding the epic security lines — reserved for those suspicious economy-class types — is certainly a perk, the first-class treatment apparently doesn’t always get you past the velvet rope. Holding a first-class ticket does not guarantee access to terminal clubs, something I discovered at Newark Liberty International Airport, where my $759.70 ticket — one way — wasn’t enough to get me into the United lounge, despite the fact that I was wearing my best (and only) suit.

    AIRLINES insist that first-class customers have always been — and always will be — special. “First class remained a priority,” said Chris Kelly Singley, a spokeswoman for Delta. “Because the folks who are sitting in those seats are typically paying higher fares.”(If, of course, they are paying.)

    Sure enough, on a Delta flight from Philadelphia to Los Angeles in mid-January, the airline did well. The plane, a Boeing 737-800, came with seatback entertainment systems with free movies and television shows. The meal — grilled chicken, fresh salad, chocolate cake — was yummy, and the drinks were, well, ample. My aisle-mate, separated from me by a wide armrest, drank several glasses of red wine, and only spilled part of the last one on my leg. The Delta flight attendant, like every first-class flight attendant I encountered, handled it with aplomb — and a real cloth napkin.

    United Continental also did well on a San Francisco-bound jag, with a menu complete with freshly baked garlic bread, mezzaluna pasta and vanilla ice cream with hot fudge. (You could gain a lot of weight in first class, which might explain the bigger seats.)

    Much depends on the type of plane you’re on, with some models allowing for the ultimate in first-class elitism: the ability to turn left when you board the plane. Older planes, however, can struggle to keep up with the times. Consider an American Airlines MD-80 I recently boarded only to discover that the jack below my first-class seat was a round DC outlet like one you might find in your car’s cigarette lighter. Which would have been great had I been driving, but left my PC bereft at 35,000 feet. (The airline promises that it is converting the outlets.)

    Still, the view from 35,000 feet is the same no matter where you’re sitting, something I was reminded of on a US Airways flight to Newark: a sunrise over the Atlantic, an eyeliner-thin trace of pink over an unmade bed of clouds. Looking out, I felt that often-forgotten sensation of wonder, of flight, and the excitement of travel to a different place. (Even if that place was inNew Jersey.) My first-class amenities weren’t much: a bag of cranberry nut mix and some organic Cheddar cheese snacks. But the takeoff was flawless and the scenery divine. Settling back into my wide seat, I had a deep thought: I had become spoiled. For even if first class wasn’t as fine as I’d hoped, it still wasn’t coach.

     

    Kenan D. Christiansen and Rachel Lee Harris contributed reporting.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

  • On YouTube, Amateur Is the New Pro

     

    How to be a YouTube Celebrity: A mashup of advice from the people who know YouTube best: the amateurs.

     

     

    Christiaan Felber for The New York Times

    YouTubers Maangchi Kim, Jimmy Wong, Meghan Camarena, Richard Ryan, Matt Giudice, Franchesca Ramsey, Meghan Tonjes, Peter Bragiel and Bryan Odell.

     

    June 28, 2012
     

    On YouTube, Amateur Is the New Pro

     

    By ROB WALKER

     

    A kid from Nebraska shows up in New York City to make it big. This kid was Bryan Odell, a 21-year-old college dropout who lived with his parents. Gangly, with curly blond hair, he looked and talked­ as if he arrived straight from central casting. (“I was just a kid from Nebraska,” he says.) But central casting had nothing to do with it. As an aspiring YouTuber, he cast himself.

    Odell’s destination was the Manhattan office of Google Inc., YouTube’s corporate parent. He was among the 25 winners of a competition called Next Up, which is aimed at “accelerating the growth of the next big YouTube stars,” as an official YouTube blog explained. The prize included four days of tips and training from “YouTube experts” in New York. It also included a $35,000 check, no strings attached.

    Founded in 2005 and owned by Google since 2007, YouTube today contains multitudes: 72 hours of video are uploaded onto the service every minute. For some, it is an infinite museum of moving images: Patti Smith singing “You Light Up My Life” on a 1970s kids’ show; Mike Wallace puffing Luckys through an interview with Salvador Dalí; forgotten teenage dance shows. For others, this is the medium of the one-off “viral” video — the often accidentally funny home movie or blooper that is e-mailed, linked and tweeted into collective consciousness. There is also an endless variety of produced material: “supercut” mash-ups, TED Talks, book trailers, brand campaigns.

    Then there are the YouTube stars — people like Ray William Johnson, Mystery Guitar Man, Smosh, Michelle Phan, the ShayTards, Jenna Marbles, Freddie Wong, What the Buck or Philip DeFranco. If these names mean nothing to you, trust me: these are famous, successful YouTubers. Their videos get millions of views, and because they get a share of the resulting ad revenue, they are almost certainly among the “hundreds” that the company says earn six figures or better from their videos.

    YouTube executives sometimes refer to such YouTube stars as having been “born on the platform”: they built careers through skillful use of YouTube itself. Given the numbers of viewers involved, it makes sense that YouTube, which places revenue-generating ads on videos, might take an interest in creating more of these stars. This was the goal of Next Up, to which several hundred YouTubers applied. While the final selection process was murky, I was told that the winners were chosen based more on metrics (views per video, subscriber growth rate, uploads per month) and ability to whip up fan support than with some entertainment executive’s opinion about quality.

    The winners were a curious mix. Aside from Odell, who interviewed the members of touring metal bands, there was Meghan Camarena, a sweet young woman from Modesto, Calif., who made the grade with her video blogging and lip-synced pop songs. J. Brent Coble created college-humorish skit videos in Denton, Tex. Richard Ryan, originally from small-town Tennessee, destroyed high-tech gadgets with guns and explosives in the Southern California desert. Franchesca Ramsey made comedic videos, and Meghan Tonjes sang earnest songs into her webcam. Others uploaded travelogues, cooking shows, makeup tips, craft tutorials, basketball lessons and stop-motion videos of Lego figurines.

    Lately YouTube has received more attention for its focus on a very different approach — household names. Not long after the Next Up winners were named in May 2011, YouTube announced an initiative in which mainstream celebrities like Madonna, Shaquille O’Neal, Ashton Kutcher and Jay Z would curate “channels” of content. A New Yorker article summed up the meaning of this strategy: “YouTube, the home of grainy cellphone videos and skateboarding dogs, is going pro.” YouTube would shell out something like $100 million for these deals, which makes the $875,000 doled out to the Next Up winners look paltry.

    But YouTube’s homegrown stars tend to be self-starters. They understand the intimacy of the platform in a way most Hollywood A-listers don’t. YouTube is not just television on a computer, and YouTubers, whether established or aspiring, are their own breed. The Next Up winners are an almost random group of nonfamous people with an idiosyncratic range of talents, striving to succeed and fully conversant in the culture of this relatively young medium. And this medium definitely has its own culture. Any YouTuber could tell you that.

    One useful place from which to consider YouTuber culture is the parking lot next to the Granada Theater in Lawrence, Kan. Behind three or four grimy tour vans and a Tioga camper, Bryan Odell and two buddies set up his Canon Vixia HF-10 high-definition camcorder on a tripod. Odell wore a bright blue Aeropostale hoodie that was inadequate for the cold November twilight but indispensable as his on-camera uniform.

    We had driven the three and half hours from Lincoln to Lawrence so that Odell could interview four bands that were playing together on a tour organized by the independent hard-rock Fearless Records label. Thanks largely to his Next Up winnings, Odell moved out of his parents’ house and bought a new computer for editing his videos. “BryanStars Interviews” had become more or less his full-time job. When the camera was set, Odell stood between two members of a French group called Chunk! No, Captain Chunk! and began by asking each what his ideal “porn name” would be.

    Odell is no Johnny Carson. But he is a heartland showbiz striver, with one notable Web-era difference: He’s not looking to leave Middle America. Though his show, subjects and audience have little to do with where he lives, he prefers staying close to family and friends. Besides, he doesn’t need to move. He told me the number of people who subscribe to his videos has roughly doubled (to about 90,000 when we went to Lawrence). A few months earlier, he started selling BryanStars T-shirts and wristbands. He predicted that he would be recognized in Lawrence, and he was right: a couple of the kids who were already queued up several hours before the show knew him from YouTube. He seemed slightly disappointed that they weren’t more fawning — he had told me several times about fans asking for his autograph — but otherwise he radiated enthusiasm. YouTube, he told me repeatedly, changed his life.

    As a senior in high school, Odell won a C-Span contest with a video report about gas prices. While majoring in broadcasting at the University of Nebraska, he interned at an NBC affiliate doing local stories for a segment called “Omaha Buzz.” He found himself reporting from an event called Rib Fest, and he had an epiphany: He did not care about Rib Fest.

    Some of his reports, however, involved covering concerts. (“I’d go to a show, and I had a camera with me, so all of a sudden I was V.I.P., you know?”) In November 2009, he uploaded one of his concert-story clips to YouTube, picking the handle “bryanstars” without much thought, and was thrilled to see it rack up 100 views. Then he interviewed the members of Slipknot, the over-the-top metal band, as they were passing through Omaha. The band’s rabid fan base pushed the number of views of that clip past 5,000 in a day. “That’s when I knew that this could be something,” Odell says. “The fact that you could just throw something up from the middle of Nebraska and get thousands of people from all over the country interacting with it was . . . was huge.”

    What made BryanStars Interviews go from promising to profitable was YouTube’s Partners Program. Until recently, becoming a partner entailed an application process. Odell and several other Next Up winners told me it took four or five tries before they were accepted. Meanwhile, they uploaded scores or even hundreds of videos and built up views and subscriber momentum, without making a dime. But being chosen meant they got more than half the ad revenue their videos generated. By 2011 there were 20,000 participants in the Partner Program. That same year, YouTube bought Next New Networks, a company that works with entities like the Gregory Brothers (creators of “Auto-Tune the News”) and Barely Political (known for the “Obama Girl” videos). The Next Up program followed soon after, conceived as a way for the company to both help and learn from “people who are looking at YouTube as a platform to build their own career in a way that has never been possible before,” Tom Sly, director of strategic content at the company, told me.

    The Partner Program forbids participants to reveal specifics about their ad-share revenue. Rates can vary depending on the size and demographics of the partner’s audience and an array of other metrics. But through conversations with partners and others knowledgeable about the program, it’s possible to come up with ballpark figures. Someone like Odell — who now has around 125,000 subscribers, is averaging about two million views a month and posts a lot of videos, often with 15-second preroll commercials — can make more than $4,000 a month. (Odell and YouTube declined to comment on that estimate.)

    It’s not a bad salary for a clean-cut, cornfed, mall-preppy kid interviewing tattooed, pierced, black-clad guys in gothic makeup, using liberal profanity and often-crude questions. If the interviews are not-ready-for-prime-time, the advertising is: spots for the Mini Roadster and Stihl saws pop up on his videos. Besides, Odell is pretty sure his future has nothing to do with prime time, or covering Rib Fests, or moving to New York to scrape for attention from TV bigwigs. “In college, other people decided what would happen to me,” he says. “With YouTube, it’s really not up to anyone but me, and the audience.”

    About half of the Next Up winners live in and around Los Angeles, and I assumed they were attracted to the area by the idea of Hollywood, with its showbiz ecosystem. That turned out to be not quite the case. Many had come not for Hollywood but for other YouTubers. A parallel ecosystem has taken root, built by born-on-YouTube creators who “went pro” years ago and are now supported by production companies and agencies with a YouTube-specific focus.

    I met Jimmy Wong and Meghan Camarena at Wong’s apartment in downtown L.A. At 24, Camarena has a sweet-little-girl quality about her, with bright eyes, a camera-ready smile and a singsong voice. She talks about how hard it was to move away from her close-knit family in Modesto, about 90 miles inland from San Francisco. As a child, she told me, she watched Nickelodeon and wondered how she could get inside the television set and be on that screen. Later she discovered YouTube, and the skits and home movies and music videos from all kinds of people, delivered to a different screen. “If they’re doing this all on their own, then that means I can probably do it,” she remembers thinking. She got a video camera for Christmas in 2007, and under the handle Strawburry17, she started video-blogging and “lip-dubbing” songs by up-and-coming bands.

    Camarena used her Next Up money to move to L.A., where her roommate, Catherine Valdes, is another YouTuber she met online. Camarena’s life is now grounded in the local YouTuber community and the business infrastructure it has spawned. When we met, she was about to travel to India to make a video for the nonprofit Water.org. The job was arranged for her by a year-old firm called Big Frame. (Big Frame describes itself as a “network” representing about 75 YouTubers and brokering moneymaking and audience-growing deals.) She had also just signed a six-month contract to make videos for Teen.com — a property of Alloy Digital, the entertainment and branding firm, which has been signing up its own network of YouTube talents — with Valdes and another cute young YouTuber friend named Joey Graceffa.

    She and Graceffa and another YouTuber also formed a band, of sorts, called the Tributes, to record songs and videos inspired by “The Hunger Games.” The movie was coming out in March, and Camarena told me they needed to get out in front of the release with appropriately tagged content, so that they would benefit from the inevitable online search frenzies. “If you’re gonna jump on the bandwagon,” she explained, “you have to do it soon.”

    Her fellow Next Up winner Jimmy Wong, an accomplished musician, had a far less systematic approach to YouTube. During his senior year in college, he watched his older brother, Freddie Wong, start building freddiew, a channel for action-comedy shorts that has become one of the most popular channels on YouTube. Jimmy was unsure about devoting himself to YouTube so completely. But then his third video went viral. It was a musical-parody response to a very unfortunate video made by a U.C.L.A. student complaining about Asians in the school library. He ended up discussing “Ching Chong! Asians in the Library Song” on NPR — and that helped him become a Next Up winner.

    At first, he couldn’t figure out how to capitalize on that one success. He resisted comedic music for a while, making serious music videos, but they didn’t catch on. By November he was thinking about making more parodies. But in January, he arrived at a completely new idea: A funny cooking show, making fanciful recipes for foodstuffs that exist only in books or movies, called “Feast of Fiction.”

    Because there is no such thing as a prime-time debut on YouTube, creators work their way up from small audiences with whom they tend to interact directly on the site’s comments boards and who play a vital role in promotion. While this makes building an audience a challenge, it also means the audience actively and intimately creates its stars. Thus YouTubers constantly exhort viewers to “like,” to forward, to leave a comment.

    This bond between YouTube creator and audience is of increasing interest to some advertisers. Some brands will pay stars at Freddie Wong’s level six figures to create an ad and upload it to his or her channel, says Margaret Healy, YouTube’s head of partner engagement. That money is over and above what the YouTubers earn through the ad revenue-sharing Partner Program. For top YouTubers, then, the platform isn’t a farm system for the “real” entertainment industry. It is what they do.

    Camarena is far from the Freddie Wong apex. Based on her monthly views, her Partner Program ad-split revenue probably brings no more than $1,000 or $2,000 a month. But having tapped into the YouTube universe, she has found other ways of leveraging what fame she has. She wouldn’t tell me specifics, but she did say that a majority of her income probably comes from side deals like her Teen.com contract and various one-offs for other entities.

    Five years ago, “brands would not touch this stuff,” says Barry Blumberg, the former president of Disney television animation who now runs Web sites and YouTube channels for Alloy Digital. Even now, he suspects that many mainstream advertisers don’t quite understand the dynamic between YouTubers and their audiences: “The audience thinks they know them.” And that, he says, can be monetized.

    A history of the entertainment business could be framed as a series of experts asking, “Who the hell wants to watch that?” When the answer is “more people than you think,” the definition of profitable entertainment changes. And those people might converge by the hundreds on the Buena Vista resort, outside Orlando, Fla., to meet their YouTube heroes.

    Playlist Live is a cross between a fan convention and an entertainment festival. This year, it took place over three days in late March, drawing more than 2,000 attendees who paid between $50 and $80 to get in. On a stage at one end of the hotel’s sprawling ballroom, a rotating series of YouTubers sang, told jokes, showed clips or answered questions; elsewhere fans lined up for autographs, meet-and-greets and cellphone pictures with their favorite stars of the very small screen. A huge kiosk sold T-shirts featuring YouTuber-specific designs and logos.

    Surveying the noisy scene, I heard a squeal from the corridor outside the ballroom and turned to see the people I was here to meet: Meghan Tonjes, a singer, and Mike Falzone, a fellow YouTube musician, had just been recognized by a few of their enthusiastic admirers.

    Tonjes, 26, is another Next Up winner. In college, she wrote a paper about YouTube when it was a new phenomenon, speculating on “what it says about us as a culture that we put ourselves out there.” Within a year, she was putting herself out there, making videos of herself in her bedroom singing and playing guitar (an instrument she took up at 19 and learned to play largely by watching instructional videos online).

    And who the hell wants to watch that? Well, bedroom singers are an established genre on YouTube, and Tonjes was at Playlist to meet fans and perform. Before Next Up, she had one major star turn on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” in January 2011. She built up audience support in other ways, like “Request Tuesdays,” in which her viewers suggest songs she should cover. And she gets personal: in a recent video, “I Am Fat,” she sassily rebukes the “trolls” who leave nasty comments about her weight. When I first spoke to Tonjes last October, she had used a chunk of her Next Up money to pay off student debt and bought a real camera and a better microphone. She had just arrived home from a monthlong tour.

    Her video view count is far lower than, say, Bryan Odell’s, but Tonjes didn’t seem that concerned with making it big. She was living near Allentown, Pa., and YouTube just seemed to be one tool — along with selling her music through iTunes and BandCamp and using social media to promote shows — that allowed her to forgo a day job and be an entertainer. She and Falzone, who lives in Connecticut and whom she met via YouTube, had made their way in her car to Playlist, stopping to play in clubs and coffeehouses. This was her goal: Traveling, playing live shows with people she likes and supporting herself through “music and YouTube.”

    Playlist Live draws “fan boys and fan girls,” says Kevin Khandjian, the chief information officer of AKT Enterprises, which runs the convention and sold about $2 million of YouTuber merchandise last year. Many are in their teens and accompanied by parents, and many are aspiring creators. The crowd I saw was diverse but mostly young and consistently sporting T-shirts for YouTube stars, or just for YouTube. Many attendees carried video devices, and plenty paced around, recording and narrating. (YouTube itself was represented with only a modest booth.)

    Samantha Rider, a young woman from Sanford, Fla., bought her Play­list ticket months in advance. Until a year or so ago, Rider paid little attention to YouTube. “I thought it was people with cats,” she said. But she stumbled on a Tonjes video during a difficult period in her life, and the connection was immediate. Rider sent Tonjes a long letter about what an inspiration she was — her voice, her poise, her frankness about weight, her confidence. “I was incredibly nervous to meet them,” she says of Tonjes and Falzone.

    Actually the stars at Playlist are almost aggressively accessible — more likely to give fans a hug than a “don’t bug me” — but even second-tier YouTubers can inspire borderline burst-into-tears-level fandom. This is partly a byproduct of online interactivity and the homemade feeling of many YouTube productions. The way people physically experience these videos must matter, too. On a computer or other device, the image is 18 inches away, not across the room. Frequently a YouTuber addresses the camera directly. More often than not, the YouTube viewer watches alone, not in a group, and studies suggest we engage more deeply in that circumstance. It’s possible to feel as if you’re in on something new and special, no matter how many people may have watched before you.

    Rider tells me she has only one friend who really “gets” YouTube. Everyone else she knows looks at the videos that interest her and says, “Why are you watching that?”

    A few weeks after Playlist, YouTube gave a party for the advertising industry at the Beacon Theater in New York, featuring a performance by Jay Z. A new era had arrived, the gathering seemed to suggest, in which a slicker and glitzier YouTube, with what it called its “originals” strategy, ought to attract higher ad rates. The message seemed to be: The future of YouTube is mainstream celebrities.

    Interestingly, about a third of the new channels that are part of YouTube’s $100 million “originals” strategy were actually created by the production companies formed by born-on-the-platform YouTubers. Philip DeFranco, whose popular YouTube show delivers a witty, high-octane take on current events (punctuated with gratuitous discussion of sexy girls), is producing a show called “SourceFed,” which racked up 100 million views in its first five months. “I think the channels that are going to thrive are the ones backed by YouTubers, or ones that partner with them,” DeFranco told me. Outsiders fail to understand how demanding it is to cultivate an audience and maintain that sense of community. “I think we understand the space,” DeFranco continued. “Being a ’tuber — it’s a grind.”

    A few weeks later, DeFranco devoted several minutes on his YouTube channel to discuss the state of YouTube itself. The platform remains a unique vehicle for creative “awesomeness,” he began. But he speculated that “the YouTube community” — the people who make and support born-on-the-platform content — may feel marginalized by YouTube’s mainstream-focused evolution. “Smart YouTubers,” himself included, have been adjusting to make sure they maintain their audiences. “But it hurts me,” he continued, “to see a lot of these smaller YouTubers squirming” because they feel YouTube doesn’t care about them. He wrapped up by addressing YouTubers directly: “There are many people in YouTube that know that you are the heart and soul of this Web site,” he said. “It just seems like there’s less and less of them every day.”

    With or without Hollywood, it’s getting tougher to break through to YouTube stardom and become the next Phil DeFranco. The stringent partnership rules of the past have been dropped, and the number of wannabe YouTube stars chasing ad dollars has exploded. Perhaps inevitably, the weird originality gets harder to maintain as new aspirants try to replicate what is already popular. Young as it is, YouTube has already evolved its own genres. This niche-i-fication is reflected in the sequels to the Next Up program, which focus on categories — Next Chef, Next Comic, Next Vlogger. “YouTube is doubling down on content creation as a core feature of its site,” Richard MacManus argued on ReadWriteWeb. “It is doing this across the whole spectrum of content creation: from amateur to professional, with a lot of gray in-between.”

    Whether YouTube sees grass-roots creators as “the heart and soul” of the platform, the company seems to recognize them as a secret weapon that no rival currently possesses. Aside from the hope that Next Up creates more bona fide stars, the real goal is to continue advancing the story of YouTube culture in general, says Tim Shey, the director of YouTube’s Next Lab, a division devoted to making the most of what the platform gives birth to. “StrawBurry17’s story, we hope, inspires 100 more people like her to get excited,” he says. “And make videos.”

    Strawburry17 — that is, Meghan Camarena — was at Playlist to meet fans and sign autographs. The videos she and her friends were making for Teen.com started to run out; she mentioned plans to make a scripted Web series this summer, and to start a “clothing line,” as well as Strawburry17 perfume and Chapstick. (“My merch sells really well,” she told me.) She and her YouTuber roommate set up at a table, and a line formed. Sam McGillivray, a high-school student from London, Ontario, was there with her mother, Mary. “I like how she’s trying new things,” Sam explained somewhat bashfully of her admiration for Camarena. “And she’s so nice.”

    Jimmy Wong had to cancel his Playlist plans because he landed a role in a movie called “Resident Adviser.” Five months after its debut, “Feast of Fiction” had a respectable 50,000 subscribers and about two million total views for its 15 or so episodes. His viral hit “Ching Chong” now seemed less like a launching pad than an interesting one-off. “I almost feel wistful about my first couple of videos,” he told me — the ones he made before he was thinking about audiences and revenue.

    Easily the biggest viral-hit video to emerge from the Next Up crew was from Franchesca Ramsey, who had been making comic videos since about 2007 while she pursued acting and stand-up comedy and got a degree in graphic design from the Miami International Institute of Art and Design. She moved to New York, kept making videos and built up some decent numbers. In January, her parody response to another popular YouTube video — hers was titled “Stuff White Girls Say to Black Girls” (of course the real title had another word where I’ve substituted “stuff”) — attracted millions of views and landed her on Anderson Cooper’s afternoon talk show. “For a long time, I worked so hard, and I felt like no one was watching,” she told me in April. “I wasn’t getting the numbers that, you know, cat videos were getting.” When we spoke, she was negotiating to host an online series, as well as pursuing more mainstream options, like a TV writing gig and developing a pitch for a network show.

    In the months since I visited Bryan Odell, his audience grew steadily, and he posted a constant stream of new interviews and videos. In one, from January, he spoke directly into his webcam about complaints from some viewers that he’d been rude to a band. He seemed exasperated and exhausted by the ’tuber grind. “What you don’t see,” he said, is the time he spends researching, driving, waiting, editing. “I’m a person; I’m not a corporation. . . . I have feelings.” Then he made an abrupt pivot: “I do this for you guys,” he declared. “This is everything to me.” When I spoke to him in April, he had rebounded. He was looking for ways to push his “formula” further, perhaps interviewing unsigned bands, being a champion to the underdogs. “I want my viewers to relate to me,” he explained, as he rattled off his latest stats. “And to see that I fight my way through it.”

    For all these YouTubers — and for YouTube — the future is about the fans. A few days after Playlist, Samantha Rider told me that finally getting to see Meghan Tonjes live was a highly emotional and deeply gratifying experience. Tonjes’s performance made her cry. When it was over, she found Tonjes and gave her a hug. “I’m actually pretty sure I’m going to find a way to start making videos now,” Rider told me. “I really want more of that community in my life.”

     

    Rob Walker is a contributing writer. His last article for the magazine was about Kinect.

    Editor: Vera Titunik

     
     
    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved