Question 2
Recently there has been some rumblings about James Frey's A Million Little Pieces. Smoking Gun suggests that much of Frey's memoir is fabricated, made-up hooey. If this is indeed true ... does it affect how you feel about the book and/or your experience in reading it?
Also ... it's a memoir, not an autobiography ... "A memoir is how one remembers one's own life," ... "while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked." Does that mean one can embellish the truth and change facts to make for a better read?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jamesfrey/0104061jamesfrey1.html
posted by punky @ 5:42 PM
17 Comments
17 Comments:
P, I read a lot of memoirs and I know you can't take them as gospel truth. I'm constantly amazed at how people supposedly remember every freaking detail of something that happened 50 years ago, down to what everyone was wearing and exact conversations.
Frey, however, has clearly crossed a line, not by embellishing what an evil miscreant he supposedly was, but by insisting it is all completely and demonstrably true when it isn't. Period.
I've read about 1/3 of the book so far and will eventually get around to the rest. I never regarded what he told us so far as documentary (a bunch of it was too far fetched), but how I regard him and his book will have to wait until I finish it.
So, does it affect how I feel about the book? Probably. It definitely affects how I feel about Frey.
I personally feel like he should not have called this a memoir. It's fiction with himself as the star character.
In my writing I try very hard to stay within the bounds of truth. That said, I do change certain details to protect the innocent...or not so innocent. Might be a physical description. Always names. Sometimes locations. But the general gist of what I write is true.
So to answer your question, I WOULD be disappointed if I read something touting itself as a memoir that was not.
That said, I haven't read this book yet. There are obviously thing in it that are worthwhile if OPRAH and her HARPO GANG were bawling over it.
TCMH has read this, and thought it was fiction to begin with! Knowing that it's somewhat untrue didn't change her feelings about the book or author.
I think if you're going to embellish, then as Polly says, label it fiction and be done with it. To do otherwise is dishonest, IMHO.
I haven't read this and don't plan on it.
I haven't read it, but I recently heard him being interviewed by Matt Lauer. Actually, it was a repeat of an interview from over a year ago. He mentioned that at one point, he stopped writing the book so he could take time to review what he'd done as he wanted to make sure he got it all correct. Lauer asked him if it was all true. He said it was all true.
It sounds like he wrote a good story, but as he was touting it as true, I've no interest in reading it.
If he really did embellish as much as smoking gun is claiming ... then he sucks ...
I loved the book. I read it at a time when I was dealing with emotions for which I was unprepared. The way he wrote about his emotions and what he went through - true or not true - made me feel less panicked, less crazy and more at peace with the emotionally chaos that was my life at the time.
For that reason alone, I will always love the book.
He, on the other hand, sucks. Again, that's if he did in fact embellish and lie.
Bastard.
Embellishment is a pitfall of storytelling....whether the story is "true" or make-believe. If you take 10 people and have exactly them in exactly the same place at the same time and someone walks in, throws a glass against the wall and leaves you will get 10 different stories...and those 10 stories will change a year from now. Perception and recall are on a slippery slope that gets worse the farther you get from the happening that is being remembered.
That being said, this guy is probably someone who figured out a good way to peddle his book was to swear that his embellishments were 100% the truth. If he stayed reasonably in the general area of the truth, then no foul. If he just made a bunch of crap up and is pawning it off as gospel, then he's a cretin and an asshat.
By the way, I'm now looking for publisher of my "memoir" of the time when Kate Beckinsale seduced me in the backseat of my AMC Pacer. This happened after she stole me away from Liv Tyler at that party at the Chuckie Cheese's.
graz ... I totally remember that night! You looked hawt! And Liv was totally distraught. But I couldn't realy console her because Josh Lucas was sucking on my neck and distracting me. And then I had his baby. Or I think that's what happened ... it's a few years back and a little fuzzy ... but it's the truth. I swear on my Momma's bottle of whiskey.
See ... it's easy. Everyone give it a shot!
I'm disappointed that this is all coming out just as I am reading the book!!! But Punky said that it was really good, so I downl-- I mean, acquired a copy. ;)
I'm enjoying it so far, but worry how all the hubbub will affect my feelings at the end.
Off-topic, but Jeff, your comment above sparked a thought in my head (ouch!):
I'm constantly amazed at how people supposedly remember every freaking detail of something that happened 50 years ago, down to what everyone was wearing and exact conversations.
If I am not mistaken, the very first book of the New Testament was written approximately 50 years after Jesus' death. I don't want to start any religious controversy on Punky's blog, but since we're talking about embellishments... Hmmmmmmmm ?
Oh no you didn't, Leetie.
*hides under desk*
just kidding. I have faith that the people who post on this blog are capable of having a good debate without insulting each other ... I can't say they won't make a voodoo doll of you and poke you in the buttcheek if you say something bad ... but whatever ... it's all fun and games. :) Pin the tail on the bloglit voodoo doll.
Carry on.
I think someone mentioned something about James Frey writing the bible ...
Now THAT's funny! ;D
Tamara, I don't think I've ever pleased another woman so fully. ;)
I agree with Graz. Your memories are subject to change over time and in most causes, different people will remember the same thing differently from what actually happened. I don'thave a problem with autobiographers not getting it perfect if that is what they believe to be true. I do have a problem if they concsciously change it to make it more exciting or to make a point. Than it becomes fiction.
I haven't read the book by the way and don't have any current intentio to read it. Am I missing something special?
Tamara do you have something to share with us?
This just in ---- I just heard that the publisher is offering FULL REFUNDS on the book.
Slight correction; the refunds are only offered to people who bought the book directly from Random House; and the original receipt is needed. And how many people usually do that, and then still have the receipt?
The publishers did suggest that those who bought it at a book store try to return it there.
(I'm picturing Dave's comment here about returning his new book to the bookstore if it doesn't make you rich.)
fsuzkc - I agree.
Oh, heck, he may even be lying when he said he wrote the dang book. I mean, it's a good story told well, so do I care that it may be somewhat fictional? No.
Besides, I bought the book for its cool cover.
Now, if you don't mind, I really should go because Brad Pitt, Pierce Brosnan and Antonio Banderas are fighting over me in my kitchen.
One and only one comment about the bible
The writers of the New Testament had been telling the stories contained within it daily from the time of their occurrence up until they commited them to writing.
Could they have changed? Most likely, but were they drastically different? Probably not.
Now the Old Testament is a whole 'nother story. People who follow that to the word scare me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home