Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
Would a con-man be less morally responsible for his lies just because some people aren't fooled?
|
His lies would be less reprehensible if he KNEW they were not fooling people --the novelist is less reprehensible than Clifford Irving (is that the Hughes autobiographers name?).
Who is more reprehensible -- the man who bores others with the truth, or the one who entertains them with lies?
Personally, I think Thurber preferrable to the most honest and diligent society page writers. Don't you? (Of course, aesthetic and moral judgments may differ, but perhaps not as much as some might think, and we may still have to decide between dishonest fun, or honest boredom.)