A Million Little Pieces

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

When I read novels, I don't expect to read something that the author is trying to pass off as reality to me. When I read nonfiction, I expect the works to have enough truth to them to be respectable and deserving of the label "nonfiction." I don't expect the author to invent entire criminal records, prison stays, drug offenses, involvements in train accidents, and tense meetings in rehab about how they're going to deal with all of the things they've supposedly done. It's deceptive and unfair to the reader.

That's still not really answering for me what the difference is, though. I understand the difference in expectations of literal veracity that comes with reading either fiction or nonfiction. (Also, just so we're clear on terms, when I say "nonfiction" in this thread, I'm just referring to the specific type of nonfiction that includes memoirs and autobiographies, which are of course very different from nonfiction books about history or cooking or flower arranging.) But why do those expectations make a difference in what you get out of such a book?

I think maybe I'm getting ahead of myself and making unstated assumptions, so we're not on the same page yet as far as what I'm trying to ask. So here's an attempt at explication of what I'm trying to get at: By their very nature, memoirs of non-famous people, especially those that are only tangentially or not at all related to well-known public events or history, are more or less novels in just about every aspect except the assumption that a memoir is literally true. Pick your favorite Bildungsroman (Great Expectations?) or first-person novel (Catcher in the Rye?); the only difference between it and a non-famous person's non-historical memoir is that the events described in the memoir are expected actually to have taken place. (Or am I wrong? Is there something else?)

So putting aside whether the author is a dick, how he's acting on television, and all that, and just looking at the book, what difference does it make to you as a reader if you know that the book is a first-person novel or a memoir? How do those differing expectations of truth affect how you read the book and what you get out of it?

Or is it impossible today to put the author aside in a world where any non-famous person who writes a memoir instantly becomes famous and is all over TV and the Internet? Do the author's celebrity persona and real-life actions in the present then become inextricably linked with the book?

[Jyqm]

A new wrinkle:

I just read this on another newsgroup; I asked the person who posted it if they had a source, so I'll post that as soon as I get it. But apparently, Frey and his agent originally pushed AMLP as a novel. They were turned down by seventeen different publishers. When they decided to call it a memoir instead (after thoroughly editing the text), the book got picked up almost immediately.

EDIT: Best non-blog source I can find for this is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Scroll down past Jessica Simpson and Lindsay Lohan: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ent...E?OpenDocument

[Raeven Skye]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

A new wrinkle:

I just read this on another newsgroup; I asked the person who posted it if they had a source, so I'll post that as soon as I get it. But apparently, Frey and his agent originally pushed AMLP as a novel. They were turned down by seventeen different publishers. When they decided to call it a memoir instead (after thoroughly editing the text), the book got picked up almost immediately.

EDIT: Best non-blog source I can find for this is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Scroll down past Jessica Simpson and Lindsay Lohan: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ent...E?OpenDocument

that's interesting...i read all the smoking gun stuff yesterday...puts him in a terrible light

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Raeven Skye

that's interesting...i read all the smoking gun stuff yesterday...puts him in a terrible light

I know I'm in the minority, but I think it puts American consumer culture in general in a much more unflattering light than it does him. I think the whole story reveals a lot more about the piss-poor state of the American literary imagination, celebrity worship, rampant voyeurism, all that crap, than it does about Frey's ethics as an author. I say good for him for exploiting the system and the public.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

That's still not really answering for me what the difference is, though. I understand the difference in expectations of literal veracity that comes with reading either fiction or nonfiction. (Also, just so we're clear on terms, when I say "nonfiction" in this thread, I'm just referring to the specific type of nonfiction that includes memoirs and autobiographies, which are of course very different from nonfiction books about history or cooking or flower arranging.) But why do those expectations make a difference in what you get out of such a book?

It depends on the reader's reason for deciding to pick up such a book and invest so much time into. Whereas I simply picked it up and read it after being told that it was an entertaining read, there could be people out there who decided to read it based on the fact that it was a true account of one man's life and they wanted to gain a better understanding of drug addiction & the effects it had on someone. For those people, I'm sure that there are some who feel fooled by this Frey character and now don't put any stock into what he said. Some of those people now probably feel as if they didn't gain that much by reading the book since it's mostly a work of fiction.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

So putting aside whether the author is a dick, how he's acting on television, and all that, and just looking at the book, what difference does it make to you as a reader if you know that the book is a first-person novel or a memoir? How do those differing expectations of truth affect how you read the book and what you get out of it?

Or is it impossible today to put the author aside in a world where any non-famous person who writes a memoir instantly becomes famous and is all over TV and the Internet? Do the author's celebrity persona and real-life actions in the present then become inextricably linked with the book?

I think that for some people who have read it, they became as attached to Frey as they did to the story being told simply based on the fact that he is a real person who is supposedly writing truthfully about his life. Because he's a real person, I'm sure there are readers who found him more human than they would have if they were consciously reading it as a work of fiction. To find out that the author wrote a book that wasn't the nonfiction cautionary/inspirational tale that it was made out to be seems deceptive and people are obviously going to question what they got out of the book. For example, Frey writes continuously about his drug addiction causing him to lie about all kinds of things in his life to the people around him. What is the reader to think when they discover that this is a man who has supposedly been off of drugs for 12 years and is now lying in his memoir about things that happened to him? It disrupts the trust that the reader may have established with him. No one who picks up the book with the mindset that smoking crack is an okay thing to do, so it's not as if that's what they're reading the book in an attempt to learn. It's being read by and large as a book that outlines one man's struggle with drug addiction and the ways in which he dealt with it. If he's lying about things like his criminal past, he could very well be lying about and glamorizing rehabilitation. You're still going to come away from the book with respect for the character that Frey constructed, but you're going to wonder what the truth is since he's obviously not writing about it.

Speaking for myself, I only read it because it was recommended to me and I'm only insulted over it because I don't appreciate being lied to when I'm told something is nonfiction when, in reality, it's a work of fiction. I still think it's a fantastically entertaining read, even if it's poorly written.

[Raeven Skye]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I know I'm in the minority, but I think it puts American consumer culture in general in a much more unflattering light than it does him. I think the whole story reveals a lot more about the piss-poor state of the American literary imagination, celebrity worship, rampant voyeurism, all that crap, than it does about Frey's ethics as an author. I say good for him for exploiting the system and the public.

I get your point, and I only say that it puts him in a bad light because he so obviously lied about everything, and is trying desperately to stick to his guns (which don't exist). If this was supposed to be a work of fiction, then BFD...but it was supposed to be his autobiography, and people (not me, b/c i'm not "invested"), feel cheated. what should happen? he should tell the truth.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

It depends on the reader's reason for deciding to pick up such a book and invest so much time into. Whereas I simply picked it up and read it after being told that it was an entertaining read, there could be people out there who decided to read it based on the fact that it was a true account of one man's life and they wanted to gain a better understanding of drug addiction & the effects it had on someone. For those people, I'm sure that there are some who feel fooled by this Frey character and now don't put any stock into what he said. Some of those people now probably feel as if they didn't gain that much by reading the book since it's mostly a work of fiction.



I think that for some people who have read it, they became as attached to Frey as they did to the story being told simply based on the fact that he is a real person who is supposedly writing truthfully about his life. Because he's a real person, I'm sure there are readers who found him more human than they would have if they were consciously reading it as a work of fiction. To find out that the author wrote a book that wasn't the nonfiction cautionary/inspirational tale that it was made out to be seems deceptive and people are obviously going to question what they got out of the book. For example, Frey writes continuously about his drug addiction causing him to lie about all kinds of things in his life to the people around him. What is the reader to think when they discover that this is a man who has supposedly been off of drugs for 12 years and is now lying in his memoir about things that happened to him? It disrupts the trust that the reader may have established with him. No one who picks up the book with the mindset that smoking crack is an okay thing to do, so it's not as if that's what they're reading the book in an attempt to learn. It's being read by and large as a book that outlines one man's struggle with drug addiction and the ways in which he dealt with it. If he's lying about things like his criminal past, he could very well be lying about and glamorizing rehabilitation. You're still going to come away from the book with respect for the character that Frey constructed, but you're going to wonder what the truth is since he's obviously not writing about it.

Speaking for myself, I only read it because it was recommended to me and I'm only insulted over it because I don't appreciate being lied to when I'm told something is nonfiction when, in reality, it's a work of fiction. I still think it's a fantastically entertaining read, even if it's poorly written.

That completely answers my question, thank you! And I guess we agree somewhat on the state of the American literary imagination, though I've got a bit less sympathy than you do for those folks who don't or can't get as much out of fiction as they would out of an inspirational memoir. But I guess I've never really made any bones about being something of a literary snob. Now, back to my eighteenth century German epic poetry... (There's centaurs!)

(Now that this relatively intelligent and interesting - if I say so myself, anyway - discussion has reached something of a conclusion, by the way, the rest of you can return to your period of "peace." I hear that Jennifer Aniston did... something... today. Probably.)

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Raeven Skye

I get your point, and I only say that it puts him in a bad light because he so obviously lied about everything, and is trying desperately to stick to his guns (which don't exist). If this was supposed to be a work of fiction, then BFD...but it was supposed to be his autobiography, and people (not me, b/c i'm not "invested"), feel cheated. what should happen? he should tell the truth.

I agree, he is making himself look rather silly at this point by not saying simply, "All right, you got me, it started out as fiction, a lot of it is exaggerated and made up! Oops!"

As for those who feel cheated, though, I think this is almost more an instance of them cheating themselves, assuming this the attitude they take toward literature in general.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

That completely answers my question, thank you! And I guess we agree somewhat on the state of the American literary imagination, though I've got a bit less sympathy than you do for those folks who don't or can't get as much out of fiction as they would out of an inspirational memoir. But I guess I've never really made any bones about being something of a literary snob. Now, back to my eighteenth century German epic poetry... (There's centaurs!)

Meh, at least they're reading something instead of sitting in front of the telly and playing video games for three hours a day.

It is somewhat disconcerting to see what passes for literature these days, we do agree on that, and it's nothing short of depressing to peruse the bestseller lists. I remember getting quite a laugh a year or so back when "1776" by David McCullough was continually sitting atop the nonfiction bestseller lists. You just know that people were only buying it to show it off in their bookshelves and I'd be amazed if 20 percent, a rather high estimate, even read the first fifteen pages or so. I still go to look it up on Amazon just to see it's current position and get a good chuckle. These are the masses who make books by Sharon Rocha and Amber Frey bestsellers.

(Now that this relatively intelligent and interesting - if I say so myself, anyway - discussion has reached something of a conclusion, by the way, the rest of you can return to your period of "peace." I hear that Jennifer Aniston did... something... today. Probably.)

I heard that she urinated and took a breath earlier today, though my source could have bad intel.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by dissention

I take it you've never read Jerzy Kosinski's book, pal. When I read nonfiction, I expect it to be truthful, especially when the prick who wrote it is going around town telling everyone who will listen that it's all a completely true account of his life and something that he wrote in attempt to be honest with himself over his past transgressions. Call me silly, but I think it's pretty disgusting and scummy when someone invents a role for themself in an accident that claimed the lives of two people. Just as it's equally scummy to write a book detailing all of the horrible things that your involvement with drugs were partly responsible for when half of those things were fictionalized in your head. So, what difference does it make to me? A helluva lot. Not to mention the fact that it makes me sick to see him enjoying all the riches and accolades that this book brought him when he lied to everyone so blatantly. Without his truth banner attached to it, it wouldn't have sold or become as popular as it has.

Yeah, I believe it's called ethos, and when an author (be it fiction or non-fiction) has none, I'm not interested. Bottom line.

I'm with you Diss about the train story. What a douchebag.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

Meh, at least they're reading something instead of sitting in front of the telly and playing video games for three hours a day.

Agreed!

And as long we're on the topic of literature, can somebody tell me what on earth that questionnaire thread has to do with Proust? I've been staring quizzically at it for days. (Also, you're all woefully boring people. "In my sleep!" "Quickly and painlessly!" Yeah, great. Time to grow a pair, kids. A mid-air sword fight with Sean Connery after jumping out of a plane. That's how I'm going out.)

[dissention]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I'm with you Diss about the train story. What a douchebag.

And not just any old douche, the cheap water & vinegar crap that you can buy at Price Rite on special two for a dollar.

[BTFLCHLD]

has anyone read frey's followup "My friend Leonard"

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Agreed!

And as long we're on the topic of literature, can somebody tell me what on earth that questionnaire thread has to do with Proust? I've been staring quizzically at it for days. (Also, you're all woefully boring people. "In my sleep!" "Quickly and painlessly!" Yeah, great. Time to grow a pair, kids. A mid-air sword fight with Sean Connery after jumping out of a plane. That's how I'm going out.)

It was a famous birthday party game that Proust played a couple of times and the answers he wrote in the birthday books have been published. He didn't invent it or anything.

His answer to "How would you like to die?" is quite good: A better man than I am and much beloved.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Agreed!

And as long we're on the topic of literature, can somebody tell me what on earth that questionnaire thread has to do with Proust? I've been staring quizzically at it for days. (Also, you're all woefully boring people. "In my sleep!" "Quickly and painlessly!" Yeah, great. Time to grow a pair, kids. A mid-air sword fight with Sean Connery after jumping out of a plane. That's how I'm going out.)

Onward my friend. Just make sure YOU win. I hate Sean Connery.