could Oprah be wrong???!?!!?
I’ve been reading about the continued controversy over James Frey’s memoir A Million Little Pieces over the last few days. Some of you may remember that the book got the Oprah seal of approval when she made it part of her book club. However, inconsistencies about his story eventually surfaced, leading Oprah to bring him back on the show to question him and, eventually, stripped the book of her endorsement. (BTW, I saw that episode and she didn’t hold anything back - girl was pissed).
The saga continues as Frey’s publisher, Nan Talese of Doubleday (who it turns out, could be equivalent to Oprah in the publishing world) has repeatedly criticized Oprah’s handling of the issue, particularly on Oprah’s claims that she felt “betrayed” by Frey’s fabricated events in what was presented as a true story. As Talese put it, Frey described himself as a liar, a cheat, and an addict when he submitted his manuscript; consequently, she did not believe she was reading “the New Testament.”
All of this back-and-forth over Frey’s book raised some questions. I’d say feeling betrayed is valid; for example, I think we’d all be pretty upset if we found out that parts of The Diary of Anne Frank were made up. You purchase a book and become invested in the story, possible *because* you believe it to be true. You want facts that can be held up against historical record and proved correct, thereby verifying the author’s experience…maybe.
I have to wonder if we can realistically expect that of a memoir. Memoirs tend to be looked at a subclass of the autobiography - erroneously so, I think - typically giving an account of one’s own life during one specific period or in reference to an overarching theme, rather than a history from childhood to adulthood. The word “memoir” refers to “memory” or “mind,” to personal observations made by the author. I’m not sure solid facts are as important to a memoir as they are to an autobiography. It would be one thing if I published an autobiography stating that I grew up Minnesota and was the first Native American President of the United States - those things are blatantly untrue. But it’s quite another thing if I were to write a memoir now at age 25 and then come back to read it in 30 years - I would probably have a very different perception of what was true.
I realize that my memoir scenario differs from Frey’s situation as he knowingly altered situations in his memoir, but I’m not sure if it matters all that much with all memoirs. There seems to be an emotional truth to what Frey wrote, regardless of what he made up.
Thoughts?
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
My issue is that Frey falsified facts. I think it’s one thing to give your perception of your life, but another to totally lie about things like the number of days you spent in jail. I think that because Frey’s book deals with something as sensitive as addiction, specifically overcoming addiction, it’s inexcusable to make up details about the situation. I think it kind of makes a mockery of readers who feel like they connect with the book because they suffer from the same affliction. That’s just my take.
It’s a good take and I think Frey did take it too far. Good point about the issue of addiction.
I think of a memoir as being a little closer to autobiography than you seem to. I see your point about memoirs being a little more subjective and colored by experience and memory, but I think the general intent for both is to put forth as truthful an account as one is able to do. And I’m not talking “emotional truth” here; that’s a term that has bothered me every time I’ve heard it. It seems to be used only by people who are trying to explain why they lied. Plenty of outstanding writers have used the concept, borrowing from real life to tell a fictional story that in turn reaches a deeper emotional place than the straight facts ever could, but the point there is that they are acknowledging the work itself to be fiction. Kurt Vonnegut drew from his experiences in WWII and wrote “Slaughterhouse Five”; I don’t think anyone would argue that the novel lacks emotional punch just because some parts of the story are different from the real events that inspired them. The sad thing is, to go back to the point Chris made, is that a story that could have meant a lot to a lot of people has lost its credibility because the author claimed things were true that weren’t. If he had just added those four little words, “Based on true events,” we might be talking about what a wonderful book he wrote, and people might be talking about how it chnaged their lives. Instead, he’s got Oprah and the rest of the world calling him a big fat liar. Which, however you dress it up and explain it, is what he is. If you say it’s true and you know it isn’t, kiss the rest of your credibility goodbye.
My God, I’m on the same side as Oprah?!?
Boy, I’ve gotta start being less long-winded on my comments.
I think you SHOULD write a book stating that you grew up in Minnesota and were the first Native American President of the United States…that is a book I would read.
When I write my book, I’m totally going to include that I invented England…and jumping.
I will also remind people that I am reason that stoplights are set up as red, yellow, and THEN green.
Anna, your comment reminded me of this comic - link
BEH - Nah, you just need paragraph breaks. I agree with you.
My opinion aside, I do know the opinion of a close relative of mine who is very much an addict. He realizes the reality of the author’s credibility, and still feels as though no other writing has spoken to the addiction in his own life quite like this book. Whatever it takes to help him recover, I’m for it.