The Myth of Ephraim Tutt: Arthur Train and His Great Literary Hoax

3. The Cooperation of the Press

3 The Cooperation of the Press What mixes you up is that you write Arthur and get a postal card back signed “Eph.” In the upper left-hand corner is the beloved gentleman himself, stovepipe hat on head and cheroot in mouth, puffing away gaily and smiling sardonically at you. If you think the answer is easy, let me just add that I have carried on, and am still carrying on, an extensive correspondence with “Eph.” —Reginald Heber Smith, for the American Bar Association Journal o ne of the most outstanding characteristics of Arthur Train’s publication of Yankee Lawyer is that he somehow convinced major newspapers and other media across the United States to publish reviews that generally encouraged the idea that the book was written b y EphraimTutt. In the realm of literary hoaxes, it is a rare occurrence for the media to kno w about a hoax before reporting on it—and it is ev en more uncommon for reputable newspapers, magazines, and journals to join in the wonder and fun of a grand literary prank. What set Train’s hoax apart from many others is that his was based on an impossible pr emise—a fictional character simply could not publish a book, no less an autobiography. As a result, it seems that those who were called upon to review Yankee Lawyer did not feel duty bound to expose thatTrain wrote Yankee Lawyer (because most readers familiar with Tutt would likely suspect that fact), and instead wrote lively and entertaining pieces that skirted the issue or feigned “genuine” discombobulation over whether Tutt could have written the book. As a book purportedly about “the best known lawyer now alive,”1 discussions about Yankee Lawyer appeared in a variety of publications, from bar association periodicals and law journalsto the mainstream media, such as national newspapers and magazines. In dealing with the book, many reviewers playfully broached the issue of whether the book was tr uly an 72 / Chapter 3 autobiography, and more specifically, whether the book was actually writ ten by a living Ephraim Tutt. Some reviewers found the issue to be a mer e triĀe,hardly bothering to pay any mind to it, and comfor tably proceeded directly to an examination of the contents of the book. o ther reviewers found the issue to be all encompassing and were unable to move past this question, resulting in book reviews that did not examine the substance of the book. In the course of reviewing Tutt’s autobiography, reviewers were forced to confront some unusual dilemmas. How does one go about critiquing a known fictitious autobiography? Should a review mention who the true author is, or would that take away from the whole premise of the book? Would it be wrong to go along with the hoax? To varying degrees, those who reviewed Yankee Lawyer sided with reviewing the quality of the book and commenting on whether it told a story worth recommending. To get around the problem of stating who wrote the book, some reviewers simply referred to “the author”—without stating who the author was.o ther statements that were made could apply equally toTrain or Tutt. For example, when a review stated the book was written b y a “well known lawyer,” it could be referring to either of them. The effect that these reviews had on the public varied. For readers who knew that Tutt was a mere figment of Train’s imagination and were not fooled in the slightest b y Tutt’s “autobiography,” the reviews were often humorous and entertaining. However, for those readers who were not as familiar with Tutt, many of the reviews had the effect of confirming their mistaken belief that it was a r eal autobiography of a living person. The latter phenomenon was compounded by the “books are weapons” campaign , which urged Americans to read books to fight World War II’s “war of ideas.” In performing this patriotic duty, many people turned to books that defined the American way of life. S inceTutt was considered an American icon and was compared to figures such as Uncle Sam and Paul Bunyan ,Tutt’s autobiography was an obvious “weapon” to read. However, this also meant that many people who had not previously read Train’s stories suddenly had a heightened interest in an autobiography that gave all ap- The Cooperation of the Press / 73 pearances of...