A million little excuses
James Frey is a liar. Writing a "memoir" with a lot of fake information, or "embellishments," as Frey likes to call them, is lying.
Oprah Winfrey, who is already teaching the children that it is cool to wear fur and to be a famous animal abuser, is now teaching them that it is okay to lie. She defends Frey's book, A Million Little Pieces, by saying "What is relevant is that he was a drug addict... and stepped out of that history to be the man he is today and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves."
Excuse me. What is relevant is that he is a drug addict (or is he?!) and drug addicts lie. As anyone who has suffered substance addiction knows, putting away the substance does not put away the behavior. And the message is that you can stop using drugs, con thousands of readers, get an American icon to cover your back, and make a ton of money.
Winfrey, who endorsed A Million Little Lies for her book club, just needed to say "Hey, the guy conned me, too." Instead, she is not only defending Frey, she is blaming the publisher for now knowing the book contained "embellishments." Now, I could quickly make a long list of things publishers do that infuriate me, but failing to exercise supernatural powers would not be on it.
The madness does not end with Oprah. Consider this headline in the South Bend Tribune: "Book provokes debate on memoirs." What debate? The lead reads " Does the author of a memoir have an unspoken contract with readers to be true to the facts?" That a journalist would even stoop to ask this question tells you what you need to know about the place of honesty in American culture.
Several years ago, the term "creative nonfiction" came into being as a way to describe vibrant nonfiction narrative. Personal essays, for example, are creative nonfiction, as are not quite so personal descriptive narratives. Once the term came into being, however, writers immediately rushed to assume it meant the writer could make things up. I cannot tell you how many seemingly intelligent writers thought that the existence of such a genre gave them a license to "embellish" their descriptions of actual events.
We do not know whether anything in Frey's book is true because we now know he is a liar. But even if we assume that the things he says are true really are true, he has still produced a literary sham, and the best we can do is debate whether it is okay to do so.
Oprah Winfrey, who is already teaching the children that it is cool to wear fur and to be a famous animal abuser, is now teaching them that it is okay to lie. She defends Frey's book, A Million Little Pieces, by saying "What is relevant is that he was a drug addict... and stepped out of that history to be the man he is today and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves."
Excuse me. What is relevant is that he is a drug addict (or is he?!) and drug addicts lie. As anyone who has suffered substance addiction knows, putting away the substance does not put away the behavior. And the message is that you can stop using drugs, con thousands of readers, get an American icon to cover your back, and make a ton of money.
Winfrey, who endorsed A Million Little Lies for her book club, just needed to say "Hey, the guy conned me, too." Instead, she is not only defending Frey, she is blaming the publisher for now knowing the book contained "embellishments." Now, I could quickly make a long list of things publishers do that infuriate me, but failing to exercise supernatural powers would not be on it.
The madness does not end with Oprah. Consider this headline in the South Bend Tribune: "Book provokes debate on memoirs." What debate? The lead reads " Does the author of a memoir have an unspoken contract with readers to be true to the facts?" That a journalist would even stoop to ask this question tells you what you need to know about the place of honesty in American culture.
Several years ago, the term "creative nonfiction" came into being as a way to describe vibrant nonfiction narrative. Personal essays, for example, are creative nonfiction, as are not quite so personal descriptive narratives. Once the term came into being, however, writers immediately rushed to assume it meant the writer could make things up. I cannot tell you how many seemingly intelligent writers thought that the existence of such a genre gave them a license to "embellish" their descriptions of actual events.
We do not know whether anything in Frey's book is true because we now know he is a liar. But even if we assume that the things he says are true really are true, he has still produced a literary sham, and the best we can do is debate whether it is okay to do so.
posted by Diane at 11:13 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
...Probably why so many contemporary writers have left off using the term "creative nonfiction," and now refer to such writing by its more accurate predecessor: "literary narrative."... This is at least true in the more progressive writing programs and in literary big city circles....
There's also a need to acknowledge the larger context here -- why do we expect "honesty" to be meaningful, to be anything other that a curious artifact in a period of late capitalism? Honesty is the mead of suckers and losers in a capitalism -- neo-liberals are laughing their ways to their banks while the rest of us -- naive --and light years behind the curve of history -- practice a outmoded piety of sorts.
The expectation of honesty in any consumer market these days strikes me "pathetic" in the rhetorical sense....so fascinating why we are so suprised at the obvious.
Yet still we blather on about how we might incorporate a virtue ethics into ugly free markets. Frey's a good, exemplary capitalist. He's only enacting the "virtues" of capitalism. So...why aren't we angry at capitalism rather than a mere practicioner in this system? Seems as if our critiques are grossly misplaced...or is it we are loathe to do the real work? Some speculations anyway....
By
Anonymous, at
4:04 PM
I am not sure that any memoirs/biography/autobiography is ever entirely 'truthful'. We assume a clearcut distinction between fiction and nonfiction (or fiction and history) but I think this is a largely arbitrary distinction. Some events that a novel describes are generally accepted by the majority of people as being 'true' yet the work is considered a fiction. Events that a history text describes are accepted as truth but often they are a) assumptions or projections since there is little available information and/or b) are inevitably and unconsciously influenced by the culture/gender/ideological perspective of the historian. (e.g colonial interpretation of the aborigines in Australia and the effect of colonisation on them).
That's not to say that we should condone outright fabrication in historical texts but that it is too simplistic/idealistic to demand truth when the mere act of writing is one of creation.
I think this applies particularly to memoirs. We are all guilty of looking back on our lives in a biased way - it is impossible for us not to. That this memoir was published and has been hugely successful opens it up for criticism in a way that other memoirs have not been. I wonder whether Frank A'court's biographies entirely, stringently stick to the truth. I somehow doubt it.
An autobiography by the novelist Janet Frame deliberately plays with truth/fiction. By doing so she points out that basically all memoirs contain fictional elements. What Oprah says about the 'emotional core' rings true to me - the author's emotional experience of addiction is the 'truth' of the memoir that has appealed to readers. The actual details of events are his interpretations and may be either intentionally or unintentionally fictionalised. I personally would read a memoir with the same expectation of truth that I hold for fiction - a truthful emotional/philosophical core.
By
Anonymous, at
6:13 PM
a.,
Well said. But I don't see it as an either/or proposition; I am happy to blame both capitalism and--since I still believe in the concept of personal responsibility--Frey, also.
Fiona,
Of course there are factual elements in novels; that is called "setting." But the story is still made up.
And of course we are all trusting that what we call the latest version of "history" is factual, to a great extent.
And yes, a person's memory does play tricks on her. I wrote a personal essay some years ago and learned later that I had gotten events turned around in time. But rather than think I had made the honest mistake of a memoirist, I felt embarrassed.
Frey apparently did a lot more than just look back on his life in "a biased way." He made things up.
By
Anonymous, at
6:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home