Oprah brings the pain
Posted by David on Saturday, January 28, 2006 at 7:49 AM.
I don't know how many of you have been following the recent furor surrounding James Frey's book "A Million Little Pieces", but even if you haven't, this is fun to watch.
The incredibly brief summary:
- James Frey publishes his memoir about his struggles with addiction, crime, and jail.
- Oprah chooses it for her book club as her first modern selection after her recent "classics" series.
- Lots of people read it, embrace it, change their lives based on it.
- The Smoking Gun publishes an expose that shows clearly that the book is almost entirely fabrication, and that Frey is a lying little frat rat.
- Oprah initially refuses to drop him, and supports him on Larry king.
- Then she takes the path of righteousness and Frey makes the mistake of going back on her show.
There are several more clips up on YouTube.
All of this of course does bring the question: Were people's lifechanging experiences any less true because the book they based them on was a complete lie? Discuss.
BlueNiner, on Saturday, January 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM:
I guess that depends on how you personally value a "lifechanging experience" and if you believe that their is some external universal "Truth" that exists outside the shared meanings that we have created in our society. I'll conceed that Frey most likely violated many peoples 'shared meanings' and going back on the show was not too bright, but then I'm left to wonder in the bigger picture of the world and what I would consider the important things we should focus on, so what? The guy lied. So did P.T. Barnum and the current President. For me personally the curiosity lies not in the specific action, but in what are people really upset about? That he lied and made some money at it or that he shattered the illusion that some external 'Truth' exists? Our personal truth appears to come from the meaning we make out of our experiences that shape our reality so my hypothesis is that the 'outrage' comes more from the second idea than the first. Of coure it could simple be that people feel that they can 'get' to this one where other liars were inaccessable or imune to thier outrage. Bread and circus's baybe and this is clearly part of the cirus.... If nothing else it's entertainment on all side...
Laura Z, on Sunday, January 29, 2006 at 6:33 PM:
While their life-changing experiences based on seeing another person's experience (via the book) are no less true, I can see how they may feel their trust has been violated. All kinds of things can extrapolate out of this (i.e. "WHAT at all can I trust in life, etc.?) and lots of therapy perhaps needed in the future to deal with the larger existential angst.
On another note, if the guy had just said something like "Based on a true story" OR "Fictional account based on true events" in the preface he could have covered his ass.
We're having a huge debate on this in my distance library class in regards to the question of "how much responsbility do publishers have in checking their facts?" On the one hand I can see the publishers should check the biggies (i.e. the person got the degrees they claimed, etc.), but I'm sure it would be expensive and time-consuming beyond belief to check a 300+ page manuscript for accuracy on every potential "fact". Newspapers obviously have to do this (or SHOULD be doing this - don't get me started on the NYTimes), but I'm not sure how we can require that to the same extent in novels.
Karl, on Monday, January 30, 2006 at 12:29 PM:
The cynical bastard inside begs to bash all the poor distraught folks involved, precisely for the reasons that cause them distress. “Don’t believe everything you read”, sound familiar? If a short book can change your life, you may wish to reevaluate your processes. If Oprah is your advice giver, blame her for giving lousy advice all the time. If you believe anyone in the media is ever giving you the full or the straight story, wake up and smell the advertising revenue.
On the other hand, if the book helped you at all to have a better outlook even for a week; if the controversy made you reexamine your skepticism or lack thereof; if anything positive came out of your experience at all, what have you really lost? A little trust with your television personality, a little faith in the media? Isn’t that a small price for the personal assistance you received? Life is rough, wear a metaphysical helmet.
Michelle, on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 12:53 AM:
I haven't been following this whole thing very closely, but there was one detail that caught my attention. He originally shopped his book around as a novel, but no publishers were interested so he started calling it a memoir and then everyone wanted it. Dumbass didn't bother to go back and edit accordingly.
Sarah, on Friday, February 3, 2006 at 7:50 AM:
I am commenting only because they just mentioned the whole fiasco on Sounds Like Canada and I don't want to edit corn genetics at the moment. But I was thinking: I don't recall people getting all upset when they realised that The Blair Witch Project wasn't actually pieced together from footage shot by dead college students? I know a couple of people who only just recently surmised that it was in fact a work of fiction, so it was marketed as real in a fairly convincing way.
Secondly, the thing about the novocaine... he said he wrote it as he remembered it having happened. Isn't that sort of the very definition of a memoir?