Email Response to Kapuscinski's Article By Andrew Rice

September 20, 2007

5:26 P.M.

Dear Mr. Rice,
.

.....I agree with you when you state that Kapuscinski was not a national spy, but his role as an international correspondent made him into one. ("All journalism is a kind of spycraft, which is one reason intelligence agencies everywhere try to recruit foreign correspondents.") He covered many events in world history and had first accounts of these events; by having this information he was immediately a spy, a different kind of spy. He wasn't a clandestine spy, people knew that he was a reporter and his job was to inform what was happening. His news reports could count as spy work; after all he was informing people of his country about the occurrences in another country.

.

.....It's quite ironic, actually; today in my English class we talked about Kapuscinski as a character and person. He is an "invisible outsider." He was an elusive writer, like you say, always vanishing before his true revelation. However, I have to argue that this was part of his craft. As a journalist and a reporter, you need to stay away from real emotions in order to provide your reader and audience with unbiased facts. All his job required him was to report facts and events, not what he felt. He was taught to write and present his ideas in a specific way, and this clearly reflects in his writing, although there are parts when the reader can see Kapuscinski as just another human being.

.

.....Just as well, this previous point also accounts for the lack of deep political analysis. Newspapers are meant for a very broad audience, some of which isn't always very academic. Uneducated people need to be able to understand the newspaper also; newspapers need to assume that someone who isn't very instructed in a certain subject needs to understand what's going on. If Kapuscinski went very deep into technical details and very big words about what was going on, then average readers would not understand the newspaper. Although, his novels are also written this way, I have to argue that this was because Kapuscinski mastered the art of journalism greatly. He was used to this writing style, and he wanted the man next door to be able to understand what war was like. He wanted to portray his adventures and lessons learned in a very simple manner, so that people could at least grasp something from his horrifying accounts of war.

.

......When you question Kapuscinski's actual accounts as real or imaginary, I have to completely agree with you. All writers use their imagination to some point, don't they, of course, some more than others. Many writers feel that they need to polish the details or fix the ruffles on the dress before going on stage. They need to add flowery detail in order to make a reader interested; if there was no such details and comic relief, then it would be too much for the reader to handle. I mean humanity lives in a bubble; we always expect a better side to war, don't we (well to everything really)? Kapuscinski shouldn't be punished for using his imagination, but with this said the reader needs to be aware of what to believe will he/she reads. Kapuscinski should be praised for recognizing this human flaw, and trying to incorporate it so the reader can see some truth in it.

....I'm looking forward to reading more of Kapuscinski's novel, and making the connection that you did about completing a circle. This is very probable as Kapuscinski was a very mysterious character and writer.

Thanks,

Daniela Cleves