Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"

Автор книги: Лев Гунин

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 63 (всего у книги 88 страниц)

novelist, and a widely published short story writer and critic. He knew Jerzy Kosinski for over twenty years

before Kosinski's death.

A Personal Experience

I recollect, by the way, many years ago talking to a New York Jewish lawyer about Kosinski's book The Painted Bird, partly on the basis of

which this lawyer held the deep conviction that Poles were pretty close to sub-human. When he told me about Kosinski's description of

eyeballs being torn out as an incident that would not be clearly out of place in a Polish household, I replied – to his discomfort – that such

a scene would be about as typical in a Polish household as it would be in an American one. When I added that the only Poles that I had ever

known were intelligent, civilized, and cultured he did not reply, but his manner suggested that I had told him something that was a patent

impossibility.

What's the Relevance?

Why is so much attention given to Jerzy Kosinski below, even to the point of touching on his sexual deviance and other character defects?

As already mentioned above, Kosinski provides a precedent of a calumniator of a Slavic peoples who has been successfully and thoroughly

discredited, and whose example thus may give Ukrainians courage to similarly discredit their many calumniators, chief among whom is Simon

Wiesenthal. Beyond that, however, the Kosinski biography provides unusually detailed information which brings to the fore several

generalizations which may assist in the understanding of the phenomenon of anti-Ukrainian calumny.

The Gang of Ten

Let us begin. Heading the list of anti-Ukrainian calumniators are the following nine: Yitzhak Arad, Dov Ben-Meir, Yaakov Bleich, Alan

Dershowitz, Sol Littman, Morley Safer, Neal Sher, Elie Wiesel, and Simon Wiesenthal. If we expand this list to include prominent calumniators

of Slavs, Jerzy Kosinski makes it a list of ten. In order to express my disapproval of these individuals, and in order to encourage in Slavs in

general, and in Ukrainians in particular, an attitude of bold intolerance toward their misdeeds, I propose that they be called "the gang of ten,"

as I myself do below.

Incidentally, the link to Sol Littman above will take the reader to the very section in "The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes" that deals with Littman,

but only when using a Netscape browser – readers relying on other browsers will have to use CTRL+F to get down to the section titled "Sol

Littman's Mengele Scare."

Examining the gang of ten, it is possible to arrive at several generalizations, the chief of which may be the following:

(1) The gang of ten is Jewish. One notices immediately that all ten of these calumniators of the Slavs are Jewish. This

observation reminds us that in examining those who were responsible for the 23Oct94 60 Minutes story, The Ugly Face of Freedom, seven

out of seven of those in the chain of command proved to be Jews (three being common to both lists).

But are there any non-Jewish calumniators? Of course there are, and where I find them, I impartially include them on the Ukrainian Archive.

Trouble is, I don't find many, and their calumniation does not rank as high. One of these is University of Toronto historian Robert Magocsi,

and another is Harvard University historian Omeljan Pritsak. Offhand, I can't think of any others. But while Magocsi and Pritsak distort, they

cannot compare with any of the gang of ten (or with any of the CBS gang of seven). The really egregious calumniation comes only from

Jews.

Henryk Sienkiewicz. Henryk Sienkiewicz (among my favorite novelists for his Quo Vadis) comes to mind as a Polish calumniator of Ukraine

(in his novel about Bohdan Khmelnytsky, With Fire and Sword), but he is not discussed on the Ukrainian Archive primarily because he is not

contemporary, and also because, like Magocsi and Pritsak, he is more subtle. The Ukrainian Archive restricts attention to contemporaries

whose calumniation is egregious.

The Ukrainian archive does not focus on Jews. It has been more than once remarked that the Ukrainian Archive focuses on Jews, which

is incorrect – which is no more than an additional calumniation of Ukrainians. The truth is that the Ukrainian Archive focuses on

calumniators, and it incidentally happens that the chief of these are Jews. If the leading calumniators of Ukraine had proven to be Czechs or

Poles or Romanians or Hungarians or Russians or Germans or Armenians or Iranians or Palestinians or Chinese or whatever, I would have

impartially and disinterestedly featured them instead of Jews. If someone can bring to my attention prominent contemporary non-Jewish

calumniators of Ukraine that I have been overlooking, I will gladly give them generous representation on the Ukrainian Archive, and if such

non-Jewish calumniators overwhelm the Jewish calumniators by their numbers, then all the better. The prominence of Jews on the Ukrainian

Archive is not to be explained by looking into my psyche, it is to be explained by examining the characteristics of calumniators of Ukraine. It

is not for me to justify why Jews appear so frequently on the pages of the Ukrainian Archive, it is for Jews to explain why no Gentiles can be

found whose anti-Slavic calumnies are able to compete with those of the Jews in the gang of ten (or with those of the Jews in the CBS gang

of seven).

(2) The gang of ten is prominent. One notices too that these are not ten obscure Jews, but highly placed ones. Their

names are recognizable. They constitute a Jewish leadership. They hold high office within the Jewish community, or within society

generally. Two have been spoken of as candidates for Nobel prizes. They frequently appear on television or are quoted in the media or are

cited in the discussion of Jewish affairs. Perhaps the only other Jews who equal or exceed them in prominence fall into three categories: (i)

Jews functioning in a non-Jewish capacity, as for example musicians and scientists; (ii) North American Jewish politicians, particularly

Congressmen, Senators, or Mayors in the United States, but again functioning only in small part as Jewish representatives; and (iii) Israeli

politicians and military leaders. However, restricting our attention to Jews who live in, or who are influential in, North America, and to those

who appear expressly as representatives of Jewish interests, the gang of ten constitutes a dominant clan. They set the agenda for

Jewish-Slavic dialogue. Even the one who lives in Austria (Simon Wiesenthal), and the two who live in Israel (Yitzhak Arad and Dov

Ben-Meir), are able to make their presence felt in North America either during their visits, or in being covered by the media, or by means of

their court room testimony either in Israel or in North America. American Jews such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are also highly

prominent, and do speak on Jewish affairs, but speak primarily of the State of Israel, and – unfortunately – have little to say about the

Slavic world. Overwhelmingly, the Jews who step forward to speak on the Slavs do so only to calumniate. Whereas individual Jews have

occasionally stepped forward to defend Ukrainians, I know of none who does so on an ongoing basis the way that the gang of ten defames

Ukrainians on an ongoing basis.

Raul Hilberg. Jewish historian Raul Hilberg deserves mention as falling in a class by himself. I do not agree with everything he says, but in

cases where I disagree, I do not regard Hilberg as guilty of calumny, but only as falling within the range of responsible but divergent opinion

which is to be expected upon any historical question. Raul Hilberg has amply demonstrated that he is ready to be guided by the evidence to

conclusions without regard to whether they are palatable to Jews or Germans or Ukrainians or other involved parties.

(3) The gang of ten is typified by deception. I understand calumniation to mean damaging utterances characterized

by untruth. An utterance that is true, I do not characterize as calumny no matter how damaging. To not mince words, then, the gang of

ten is a pack of liars. The most fantastic, the most childish, the most palpably untrue statements spew from their lips in profusion, as is

amply documented on the Ukrainian Archive. They suppress evidence, they create historical events out of thin air, they contradict

themselves from one recitation to the next.

(4) The gang of ten enjoys impunity for lying. When the deceptions of any of these calumniators are brought to

their attention, or to public attention, the refutations are ignored. The ten calumniators appear to be able to say whatever untruths they

want with little fear of punishment or censure or even embarrassment. They rarely have to correct their misstatements, or to retract them,

or to apologize for them. Of the ten, only Jerzy Kosinski has lost his impunity, but he did nevertheless enjoy a large measure of impunity over

many years of his professional calumniation. The generalization, therefore, is not that the gang of ten enjoy absolute and permanent

impunity, but only that they enjoy surprising measures of impunity over surprising intervals of time.

(5) The gang of ten is typified by modest intellectual capacity. On the whole, the members of the gang of

ten have the minds of children. This is demonstrated primarily in their lying which is primitive and palpable, and which is not merely

occasional, but which permeates their thinking. On top of that, their speech and their writing tends to be illogical to the point of

incoherence. They are strangers to the ideal of being constrained by logic. They don't know the facts, and they don't rely on facts. In not

a single case have I come across anything any of them might have said or written touching on Ukrainian-Jewish relations that one would be

forced to admire – or so much as respect – for its reasoning or its data or its expression. Given their prominence and their power, their

academic and intellectual accomplishments, on the whole, are unimpressive. The bulk of their writing would get C's or worse if submitted in

freshman courses in history or political science or journalism. The only one of the ten to achieve an unambiguous distinction outside his

calumniation activities is Alan Dershowitz – Harvard law professor, media star, defender of O. J. Simpson. He alone among the ten must be

acknowledged to have substantial academic qualifications and to show flashes of intelligence and wit. However, restricting myself to his

statements on Ukrainians or Palestinians, I find Dershowitz's thinking fully as primitive and as childishly self-serving and as duplicitous as that

of the other nine.

The incongruity between low desert and high reward is particularly great in the case of Jerzy Kosinski; the evidence below will demonstrate

that in addition to lacking academic capacity, and in addition to lacking literary skills, every area of his life was crippled by immaturity,

irresponsibility, deception, and perversion.

What picture emerges?

Is there any way of tying all of the above generalizations into a single coherent picture? Why should it be the case that the leading

slanderers of Ukrainians are all Jewish? How can it be that Jewish leaders are so prone to lying, and have such palpable intellectual

shortcomings, and sometimes even remarkable character defects? How does it come to pass that they are permitted to incite hatred against

Ukrainians with impunity? The answers to these questions can be found throughout the Ukrainian Archive.

An individual Pole is persecuted by Simon Wiesenthal

Jerzy Kosinski calumniated the Polish people collectively. Simon Wiesenthal persecuted a single Pole – Frank Walus – individually.

Time For the Quotes

And now for the quotations from Sloan's article:

Jerzy Kosinski's "Painted Bird" was celebrated for its "overpowering

authenticity":

"Jerzy was a fantastic liar," said Agnieszka Osiecka, Poland's leading pop lyricist and a familiar figure in Polish intellectual

circles.... If you told Jerzy you had a Romanian grandmother, he would come back that he had fifteen cousins all more Romanian

than your grandmother ... and they played in a Gypsy band!"

Osiecka was responding to a recent expose by the Polish journalist Joanna Siedlecka, in which she argued that Jerzy Kosinski,

Poland's best-known Holocaust survivor, had profoundly falsified his wartime experiences. According to Siedlecka, Kosinski

spent the war years in relatively gentle, if hardly idyllic, circumstances and was never significantly mistreated. She thus

contradicts the sanctioned version of his life under the German occupation, which has generally been assumed to be only thinly

disguised in his classic first novel, "The Painted Bird," published in this country by Houghton Mifflin in 1965. ...

In stark, uninflected prose, "The Painted Bird" describes the disasters that befall a six-year-old boy who is separated from his

parents and wanders through the primitive Polish-Soviet borderlands during the war. The peasants whom the boy encounters

demonstrate an extraordinary predilection for incest, sodomy, and meaningless violence. A miller plucks out the eyeballs of his

wife's would-be lover. A gang of toughs pushes the boy, a presumed Gypsy or Jew, below the ice of a frozen pond. A farmer

forces him to hang by his hands from a rafter, just out of reach of a vicious dog. In the culminating incident of the book, the boy

drops a missal while he's helping serve Mass and is flung by the angry parishioners into a pit of manure. Emerging from the pit,

he realizes that he has lost the power of speech. ...

"Written with deep sincerity and sensitivity, this poignant account transcends confession," Elie Wiesel wrote in the Times Book

Review. At the time of Kosinski's suicide, in 1991, Wiesel said, "I thought it was fiction, and when he told me it was autobiography

I tore up my review and wrote one a thousand times better."

Wiesel's review sanctified the work as a valid testament of the Holocaust, more horrible, more revealing – in a sense, truer

than the literature that came out of the camps. Other writers and critics agreed. Harry Overstreet wrote that "The Painted Bird"

would "stand by the side of Anne Frank's unforgettable 'Diary'" as "a powerfully poignant human document," while Peter Prescott,

also comparing it to Anne Frank's "Diary," called the book "a testament not only to the atrocities of the war, but to the failings of

human nature." The novelist James Leo Herlihy saluted it as "brilliant testimony to mankind's survival power."

"Account," "confession," "testament," "document," "testimony": these were the key words in the book's critical reception. What

made "The Painted Bird" such an important book was its overpowering authenticity. Perhaps it wasn't exactly a diary

six-year-olds don't keep diaries – but it was the next best thing. And in one respect it was better: Kosinski was Anne Frank as a

survivor, walking among us.

"The Painted Bird" was translated into almost every major language and many obscure ones. It was a best-seller in Germany

and won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger in France. It became the cornerstone or reading lists in university courses on the

Holocaust, where it was often treated as a historical document, and, as a result, it has been for a generation the source of what

many people "know" about Poland under the German occupation. At the height of Kosinski's reputation, there were those who

said that somewhere down the road Kosinski was a likely candidate for the Nobel Prize.

(Jerzy Kosinski, Kosinski's War, The New Yorker, October 10, 1994, pp. 46-47)

But turned out to be fabricated out of whole cloth:

According to Joanna Siedlecka ..., Kosinski's wrenching accounts of his wartime experiences were fabricated from whole cloth.

... Siedlecka contends that Kosinski spent the war with his family his mother, father, and later, an adopted brother – and that

they lived in relative security and comfort.

The Kosinskis survived, she suggests, in part because Jerzy Kosinski's father, whose original name was Moses Lewinkopf, saw

bad times coming and acquired false papers in the common Gentile name of Kosinski; in part because they had money ... and

were able to pay for protection with cash and jewelry; and in part because a network of Polish Catholics, at great risk to

themselves, helped hide them.

Siedlecka portrays the elder Kosinski not just as a wily survivor but as a man without scruples. She maintains that he may have

collaborated with the Germans during the war and very likely did collaborate with the N.K.V.D., after the liberation of Dabrowa by

the Red Army, in sending to Siberia for minor infractions, such as hoarding, some of the very peasants who saved his family. Her

real scorn, however, is reserved for the son, who turned his back on the family's saviors and vilified them, along with the entire

Polish nation, in the eyes of the world. Indeed, the heart of Siedlecka's revelations is her depiction of the young Jerzy Kosinski

spending the war years eating sausages and drinking cocoa – goods unavailable to the neighbors' children – in the safety of his

house and yard....

(Jerzy Kosinski, Kosinski's War, The New Yorker, October 10, 1994, p. 48)

Right from the start, Kosinski wrote under duress – an impecunious young man,

particularly situated to be of use to clandestine forces, he could leapfrog to

advancement only by cooperating with these forces. Thus, his first book, the

Future is Ours, Comrade (1960), was published under the pseudonym Joseph

Novak, and appears to have been sponsored by the CIA:

Czartoryski recommends Kosinski to the CIA.

Between Kosinski's penchant for telling more than the truth and the CIA's adamant insistence on telling as little as possible, the

specific financial arrangements concerning the "book on Russia" may never be made public. Indeed, full documentation probably

does not exist. A number of facts, however, argue strongly that there was CIA/USIA intermediation on behalf of the book, with or

without Kosinski's full knowledge and understanding. One major piece of evidence is the name of the original titleholder on the

Doubleday contract: Anthony B. Czartoryski. A further clue was the address to which communications for "Czartoryski" were to be

delivered: the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America at 145 East Fifty-third Street.

The clear presumption is that Czartoryski became aware of Kosinski's notes, suggested the possibility of a book to his contacts

within the CIA, and then had the manuscript delivered to Doubleday, which already was quite familiar with arrangements of this

nature; Gibney served unwittingly to protect the author's identity and the manuscript's origin.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 112)

Surprisingly quick production.

As for the book, not only its instant acceptance but its quick production would remain a mystery for many years. How could a

graduate student at Columbia – struggling with his course work, engaged in various side projects as a translator, and busy with

the details of life in a strange country – how could such a person have turned out a copy that could be serialized in the editorially

meticulous Reader's Digest in less than two years?

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 117)

Exactly what the CIA would have wanted.

All in all, the book is everything an American propaganda agency, or the propaganda arm of the CIA, might have hoped for in its

wildest dreams. In broad perspective, it outlines the miserable conditions under which Soviet citizens are compelled to live their

everyday lives. It shows how the spiritual greatness of the Russian people is undermined and persecuted by Communism. It

describes a material deprivation appalling by 1960s American standards and a lack of privacy and personal freedom calculated to

shock American audiences. The Russia of The Future is Ours is clearly a place where no American in his right mind would ever

want to live.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 129-130)

As Kosinski's veracity in The Painted Bird came increasingly under question, his

support came most noticeably from Jews, reinforcing the hypothesis of a Jewish

tendency to side with coreligionists rather than with truth, despite the consequent

lowering of Jewish credibility:

Byron Sherwin at Spertus also checked in with his support, reaffirming an invitation to Kosinski to appear as the Spertus award

recipient at their annual fund-raiser in October, before 1,500 guests at Chicago's Hyatt Regency. He mentioned a list of notable

predecessors including Arthur Goldberg, Elie Wiesel, Philip Klutznick, Yitzhak Rabin, and Abraham Joshua Heschel himself; the

1978 recipient, Isaac Bashevis Singer, had recently won the Nobel Prize. Kosinski was deeply moved by this support from

Sherwin and Spertus, and its direct fallout was a move to make Spertus the ultimate site for his personal papers, with Sherwin

serving as coexecutor of his estate. At the same time it accelerated his movement back toward his Jewish roots. In his greatest

moment of crisis, the strongest support had come not from his fellow intellectuals, but from those who identified with him as a

Jew.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 389)

Not only did the Jews get mileage out of The Painted Bird, but so did the

Germans, at the expense of the Poles, of course:

The German edition was a hit.

The book was doing reasonably well in England and France, better certainly than in America, but the German edition was an

out-and-out hit. For a Germany struggling to shuck off the collective national guilt for World War II and the Holocaust, its focus on

the "Eastern European" peasants may have suggested that sadistic behavior and genocide were not a national trait or the crime

of a specific group but part of a universally distributed human depravity; a gentler view is that the book became part of a

continuing German examination of the war years. Perhaps both views reflect aspects of the book's success in Germany, where

Der bemalte Vogel actually made it onto bestseller lists.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 234)

Attempt to dilute German guilt.

The Warsaw magazine Forum compared Kosinski to Goebbels and Senator McCarthy and emphasized a particular sore point for

Poles: the relatively sympathetic treatment of a German soldier. Kosinski, the review argued, put himself on the side of the

Hitlerites, who saw their crimes as the work of "pacifiers of a primitive pre-historic jungle." Glos Nauczycielski, the weekly

publication of the teaching profession, took the same line, accusing The Painted Bird of an attempt "to dilute the German guilt for

the crime of genocide by including the supposed guilt of all other Europeans and particularly those from Eastern Europe."

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 236)

Although Sloan does not speculate that the French may have had similar motives

to the Germans for promoting Kosinski's book, we have already seen the French

buying protection from accusations of complicity in the Holocaust, and wonder

whether the high honor they paid The Painted Bird may not have been motivated

to further deflect attention from their own collaboration:

Kosinski returned to New York on April 14, and only two weeks later received the best news of all from Europe. On May 2,

Flammarion cabled Houghton Mifflin that L'Oiseau bariole had been awarded the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger – the annual

award given in France for the best foreign book of the year. Previous winners included Lawrence Durrell, John Updike, Heinrich

Boll, Robert Penn Warren, Oscar Lewis, Angus Wilson, and Nikos Kazantzakis. New York might be the center of publishing, but

Paris was still, to many minds, the intellectual center of the universe, and Kosinski had swept the French intellectual world off its

feet. Any who had doubted the aesthetic merits of The Painted Bird were now shamed into silence. The authority of the "eleven

distinguished jurors" was an absolute in New York as in Paris; Kosinski's first novel had swept the board.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, pp. 234-235)

The question has been raised on the Ukrainian Archive of what

conditions are likely to lead to the creation of a great liar. One such

condition might be a modest intellectual endowment which limits the

achievement that is possible by legitimate means. In Jerzy Kosinski's

case, Sloan drops many clues indicating that Kosinski's academic

career was a disaster, among these clues being political maneuvering

on Kosinski's part as a substitute for performance, which

maneuvering occasionally degenerated into "the dog ate my

homework" quality excuses, in this case being made on Kosinski's

behalf by patron Strzetelski:

Kosinski had used his time fruitfully, Strzetelski argued, in spite of his impaired health and "the accident (combustion of his right

hand) which made him unable to write during almost the whole 1959 Spring Session." It was the first and last mention in the file

of the injury to Kosinski's hand, which had not impaired his ability to produce lengthy correspondence.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 123)

Kosinski was unable to rise to academic standards. He disappointed

his friends. He was shunned by responsible scholars:

Unlike Kosinski, Krauze took the discipline of sociology very seriously; he was deeply committed to his studies, and it troubled

him that Kosinski was so blithely dismissive of its rigor and of the hurdles required in getting the Ph.D. By then Kosinski was busy

looking at alternative ways to get approval of his dissertation. One of them involved Feliks Gross: he proposed a transfer to

CCNY, where he would finish his doctorate under Gross's supervision. In Krauze's view, Kosinski had simply run into a buzzsaw

in Lazarsfeld, his Columbia supervisor, a man who could not be charmed into dropping the rigor of his requirements. Gross too

promptly grasped that Kosinski was trying to get around the question of methodological rigor; he politely demurred and excused

himself from being a part of it.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 169)

The pedestrian task of writing an examination, for Kosinski became a

trauma, and his capacity for academic work deteriorated to the level

of the pitiable:

[H]e had neglected the necessary preparation for his doctoral qualifying exam, the deadline for which now loomed.

On February 19 [1963] Kosinski sat for the examination as required. Midway through, he informed the proctor that he was unable

to continue. [...] [H]is flight from the doctoral exam marked a low point in his life in America – his academic career blocked, with

no alternative in sight.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 186)

But Kosinski was not only a student who could not study – he was

also, and more importantly, a writer who could not write:

Kosinski did well enough in spoken English, to be sure; his accent and his occasional Slavicisms were charming. But writing was

a different matter. He was, quite simply, no Conrad. In writing English, the omission of articles or the clustering of modifiers did

not strike readers as charming; instead, it made the writer appear ignorant, half-educated, even stupid. Conrad wrote like an

angel but could not make himself understood when he opened his mouth; with Kosinski, it was exactly the other way around.

Which might not have been such a handicap had not Kosinski been a writer by profession.

From the beginning of his life as a professional writer, Kosinski had to protect a terrible secret: He could not write competently in

the language in which he was published. Whenever he wrote a simple business letter, his reputation was at risk. Even a letter he

wrote to his British agent, Peter Janson-Smith, required a hasty followup; the solecisms and grammatical errors were explained

as the result of failure to proofread.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 174)

In view of Kosinski's inability to write, it is little wonder that he was

accused of using ghost writers and translators who contributed more

than their translation. He was also accused of plagiarism:

On June 22, 1982, two journalists writing in the Village Voice challenged the veracity of Kosinski's basic account of himself. They

challenged his extensive use of private editors in the production of his novels and insinuated that The Painted Bird, his

masterpiece, and Being There, which had been made into a hit movie, had been plagiarized from other sources.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 6)

The accusation that Kosinski's Being There was plagiarized was

particularly easy to document:

In its protagonist, its structure, its specific events, and its conclusion, the book bore an extraordinarily close resemblance to

[Tadeusz] Dolega-Mostowicz's 1932 novel The Career of Nikodem Dyzma, which Kosinski had described with such excitement

two decades earlier to his friend Stanislaw Pomorski. The question of plagiarism is a serious one, and not susceptible of easy

and final answer; ultimately the text of Being There resembles the text of Nikodem Dyzma in ways that, had Dolega-Mostowicz

been alive and interested in pressing the matter, might have challenged law courts as to a reasonable definition of plagiarism.

(James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 292)

As in the case of other great frauds like Stephen Glass, Jerzy Kosinski

for a time appeared unassailable no matter how outrageous his

falsehoods. The reference below is to a letter from Jerzy Kosinski to

The Nation literary editor Betsy Pochoda: