[lit-ideas] Re: fiction or non--longie
- From: Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 02:10:59 -0800
Paul writes:
...it's unavoidable now to learn something about
the controversy.
ck: Since the story was on the front page of the NYT online at the time I
posted, I assumed that the spoiler, so to speak, had already happened. But
what spoiler, really? Oprah and Doubleday say Frey's veracity doesn't matter.
You seem to share that view. I veer in the opposite direction, on principle
only, for I never heard of that book or Frey or Leroy, for that matter, before
I read the flap involving ethical issues.
But then I followed the NYT's link to one of Leroy's travel essays. There,
sticking out of a breezy article on EuroDisney as gracefully as gangrene of the
big toe on a ballerina were whole paragraphs about Leroy's dolorous and
apparently fictitious childhood on the street. What's that doing there? Well,
it's in this Leroy's "voice," thinks the editor, and this Leroy person probably
was encouraged to make the story his or her own, even if it came out like a
homemade botched patchwork quilt. But, I now read, Leroy's audience had
expected some references to his/her own life--and isn't that why the NYT had
assigned the piece to Leroy and not someone else? Hell, they even sent Leroy
and some friends (family?) to Paris for it!
That whole fabrication, with fawning celebs, reminds me of "Being There."
Sounds like this Leroy character pulled off a very good fraud in the tradition
of "Catch Me If You Can." Was this planned from the start? Did Leroy intend to
present herself as a himself? I'm curious about that. Clearly the deception was
highly successful. Clearly, too, literary social circles and the publishing
industry lack the genuine excitement usually generated by the likes of
unconventional writers. Perhaps writers can't afford to publicly indulge in
their idiosyncracies, if they want to be taken seriously by this overly
corporate publishing world.
Considering Frey as well, I wonder if the US hasn't become a land of people
who sheepishly assent to being not lied to but "misled." A lot. Seems vs.
is--no, perception *is* reality, we're told time and again. With Bush et al,
we're so mired in unapologetic wrongdoing that passes, somehow, that the
difference between fact and fiction has just about been obliterated.
I take it as a healthy sign, though, that at least a few reporters and
editors--and readers--object to being tricked, at least in the context of
publishing. Frey seems to have known the difference between what really
happened to him and what he fabricated. The publisher, though, is doing a Bush
on us, and so is ol' Oprah. Why? Probably because they don't want to admit they
were snookered. And following the appalling example set by Mr. Bush, they
certainly won't apologize to readers for failing to detect the fiction, nor for
perpetuating it now. (Mantra of the new millennium: Fiction doesn't sell.)
Eric addressed the writerly issue of writing autobiography and passing it off
as fiction. That's the old dilemma. Some novelists--Phillip Roth is one, as
Paul mentions--rarely write anything but autobiography. I think readers expect
novels to be autobiographical, to some extent, usually early in the author's
career. Getting beyond the particularized self in writing takes practice, I
think, and a good deal more craft than most first novelists possess. But it
seems that both Frey and Leroy inhabit their alter egos quite easily, like
accomplished cons.
Personally, I think the public asked for it: more grit and "reality"--more
sensationalism--in every medium. For some reason, there's been a trend towards
"real" people--idiotic fakery or self-exploitation. I find it dull and
tasteless, so count me among those who want to deepen that sketchy line between
fiction and nonfiction. (When did it happen that fiction became less exciting
merely because it didn't literally "happen"?)
But if it did not literally happen, call it fiction. If it did happen, call
it nonfiction and have the wit to stay with the actual story. Hyping reality to
this extent won't do, unless we're willing to go insane, the lot of us.
Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass made up news stories and got away with it.
Were they sick? So went the mutterings. Shame on them and their editors, who
were hugely embarrassed. But Doubleday barely blinks! Fiction,
nonfiction--what's the diff, went the official statement? And that's just the
problem. They don't know or care.
If I'd bought a copy of either book, I'd return the fakes to the publisher.
Of course, if I had my way, Bush would have been impeached for his so-called
misleading quite a while ago, too.
Harumphing,
Carol
wondering if any of these
strenuous objectors have even read the whole book.
With that, let me take a stab at resuming a very interesting discussion
initiated by Carol and sort of quashed by my response.
CK: Offered up for discussion, in light of our recent experience with a
fictional character participating in this list, and members' planned
reading.
1. Who's who, and does it matter as long as the book is entertaining?
Not if all the names are changed. Anyone who comes out of the woodwork and
says "that's me" is implicating themselves not being 'impugned' by the
author. This book is not remotely 'entertaining' and that's probably why,
if it is fiction, it wouldn't sell as fiction. As a true story, it's
certainly interesting and a real page-turner. If I had unlimited time (you
know, away from work and sleep and stuff) I would probably read it in a
single sitting. Does it matter to me whether it's true? Not really.
2. What's what, and does it matter as long as the book is entertaining?
Has anyone ever read Philip Roth's "Operation: Shylock"? Which
classification is that? How do you know?
3. Is disguising autobiography as fiction less irritating (or wrong) than
telling a fiction and calling it autobiography?
Is it wrong for someone to write "the funniest book of the year" on the
cover of [Margaret Atwood's Robber Bride] a novel which I read without so
much as smiling?
The first quote on my copy of Frey's book says "James Frey's staggering
recovery memoir could well be seen as the final word on the topic"... the
second says "the most lacerating tale of drug addiction since William S.
Burroughs' Junky." And even from the feel-good magazine (People) they say
"Anyone who has ever felt broken and wished for a better life will find
inspiration in Frey's Story".
I cannot even remotely disagree with ANY of these cut quotes.
Perhaps the best one is "ripping, gripping... It's a staggeringly sober
book whose stylistic tics are well-suited to its subject matter, and a
finger in the eye of the culture of complaint... engrossing"
This last one, coupled with Frey's purported denial of AA's 12 Step Program
and his constant denial of GOD is PROBABLY what is, at the bottom, so
contentious about this book. It IS a finger in the eye of the culture of
complaint. The way the James of the novel deals with is situation is very,
very admirable. For someone so obviously weak to be so uncommonly strong is
THE selling point. Whether it's true or not, it's a compelling story. For
me, I'm reading story. It simply doesn't occur to me to think repeatedly
"oh, he survived?" Of course he did, he wrote the book 10 years later. It's
like watching "Titanic" and being amazed at the final outcome.
On a very personal note, I'll tell you, reading this book, as someone who
wavers daily about whether I may be an abuser of alcohol, I have to say
that reading this, if even 1/10 of it IS true, I can honestly say "hmm... I
guess I'm really not that bad."
not that bad, really, no really
Paul
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: fiction or non--longie
