Former executive editor tells all

Merriam-Webster has two definitions for the three-syllable "fabulist" -- "1: a creator or writer of fables 2: LIAR." The second is perhaps the more appropriate, at least for Stephen Glass, whose newly released book's title -- The Fabulist -- sums up what he was doing until five years ago, when his reputation and journalistic ambitions came crashing down around him. Glass himself was a fabulist in a profession that values accuracy -- the New Republic finally fired Glass in 1998 after discovering the fictitious characters in his "Hack Heaven," and later discovered fabrications in 27 of the 41 stories he had written. Following national embarrassment, Glass all but disappeared, only to emerge five years later, complete with a Georgetown Law School degree and a new book. This time, Glass has returned to his forte -- fiction. Although highly autobiographical, Simon & Schuster's The Fabulist is the admittedly fictitious story of a young writer named Stephen Glass whose lies and fabricated stories eventually led to his demise. "While this novel was inspired by certain events in my life, it does not recount the actual events of my life," Glass's note stated. "This book is a work of fiction, a fabrication, and this time, an admitted one." Still, it was in journalism's cold, hard facts -- at least ostensibly -- where Glass got his start. A former Daily Pennsylvanian executive editor who began freelancing for the New Republic in 1995, Glass soon emerged as an up-and-coming young writer. After all, his stories were interesting ones that everyone wanted to read, complete with the perfect anecdotes and the perfect quotes. "Everything around him turned out to be incredibly vivid or zany or in some way memorable," said current New Republic Literary Editor Leon Wieseltier in a "60 Minutes" interview Sunday night. "At the meetings, we used to wait for Steve's turn so that he could report on his next caper." Glass said he loved the meetings just as much as Wieseltier and was always happy to share his latest, most exciting journalistic endeavor. "I loved the electricity of people liking my stories," Glass said in the "60 Minutes" interview. "I loved going to story conference meetings and telling people what my story was going to be, and seeing the room excited. I wanted every story to be a home run." "He was aching to please," Wieseltier agreed in the interview. But Charles Lane, a current Washington Post staff writer and Glass' editor at the New Republic, said he believes there is more to the story than simply Glass' desire for acceptance. "He's portraying this as though he did it because he felt a desperate need to be loved," Lane said. "You had to be there at the time to see the sort of evident thrill he had in doing all this. He reveled in all this deception. I don't think he was doing this so reluctantly." Yet during the interview, Glass portrayed himself as someone with an illness, and almost an inability to control himself and his lies. Upon seeing one of his fabricated stories run in the New Republic, Glass explained to "60 Minutes" that, "I said to myself what I said every time these stories ran: 'You must stop. You must stop.' But I didn't." The trail of lies had already been set in motion, and his life had become what he described in the interview as "one very long process of lying, and lying again to figure out how to cover those lies." For such a complex web of lies, Glass said the deception began simply enough."I remember thinking, 'If I just had the exact quote that I wanted to make it work, [the story] would be perfect," Glass told "60 Minutes." And so he got it - "I wrote something on my computer and then I looked at it and I let it stand." "I would tell a story and there would be Fact A, which maybe was true, and then there would be Fact B, which was sort of partially true and partially fabricated, and there would be Fact C, which was more fabricated and almost no true, and there would be Fact D, which was a complete whopper and totally not true," Glass explained in the interview. But it was Fact D that sold copies - and eventually landed Glass and the New Republic in serious trouble. "It was the magazine's responsibility to ensure that the stuff that went in was good journalism, and it totally failed in that respect," Lane told "60 Minutes." "The only thing I think you can say in defense of the New Republicwas that we were up against somebody at the time who was really determined to deceive the magazine and that is quite unusual." Glass had an insider's advantage, having been a fact checker at the magazine. "I knew how the system worked and I made it so my stories could get through," Glass said in the interview, describing the series of fake notes, voicemail boxes, business cards and even a website he invented to keep his lies afloat. Glass also explained that he often didn't have to worry about angry sources or letters to the editor. "Much of the time, I wrote fiction stories about fictional people at fictional times doing fictional things," Glass said in the interview. "These people don't write letters." There were real people involved, however, and Glass said that he now understands the magnitude of his actions. "What I did hurt the people I worked with, it hurt my editors, it hurt my family, it hurt my friends, it hurt the readers," Glass said in the interview. Lane, who received a written letter of apology from Glass in June of 1998 --"I'm not saying that that apology back then was perfect or ideal or concluded the story," Lane added -- said he believes that he is not entitled to an apology as much as other writers at the New Republic, who were personally close with Glass. "They went out, hung out together, shared all personal secrets, and there he is just manipulating them and lying to them day in and day out," Lane said. "I didn't apologize to people because I was so ashamed," Glass said in the interview. "I didn't want to give an apology when I didn't yet understand why I had done what I had done wrong." "This is the very beginning of a very, very long process of apologies" -- apologies which began with "60 Minutes" on national television, and coincide with the release of his book. "What you're covering now is contrition as a career move," Wieseltier told "60 Minutes." Similarly, after watching the airing of the show, Lane still remained skeptical about Glass' character metamorphosis. "I'm looking for a little more sincerity as far as his sincerity goes," Lane said. "He's not entitled to the benefit of the doubt anymore, at least not with me personally." And as for The Fabulist?" I don't know how many people are going to buy it," Lane said. "I'm just happy he's not trying to do journalism."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.