A Million Little Pieces - or is it Lies?

[Not Afraid]

Here's a VERY down and dirty synopsis of what seems to be going on with this book and the recent fervor and discussion it has created.

James Frey wrote an account of his recovery from addiction and alcoholism from just before he entered rehab until immediately afterward. The bulk of the book takes place in a "well know rehab facility in Minnesota" ie: Hazeldon (duh). The book was published as a "Memoir" and subsequently was chosen for the "esteemed" Oprah's Book Club. The book has sold millions of copies and, it has been said, helped many people.

Last week The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html)published an article that purports that Frey's Memoir is filled with "fakery, fabrications and falsehoods" and is really an account of literature and not a memoir. Larry King invited Frey to his show and Oprah called in to say that she still supported Frey because of the good work his book has done for other addicts and alcoholics.

What I've seen since then is almost daily articles about truth in memoir or fact in fiction. The arguments are both interesting and tiring.

I've read the book and was on the last 60 pages when the article first surfaced. I had my own feelings about the author and his experience, but I've been on the inside and have personal experiences. But, the discussion that has been taking place is more about truth vs fiction and if an "objective truth" in a memory is even possible. Oprah calls it "Emotional truth" and supports Frey and his accounts. Other have gone as far to say that the public has been hoodwinked. (The LA Times had 2 back (http://www.calendarlive.com/columnists/rutten/cl-et-rutten14jan14,2,6045692.column) to back (http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-memoir13jan13,2,6763.story)articles that rake Frey over the coals and many, many more (http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=james+frey&target=article).)

I thought I'd open this discussion up to this board since we always have some decent thinking that goes on here. I'd also be interested to know what buzz you've been hearing and what your take is on it.

[wendybeth]

Oh, I defiinitely have thoughts on this one, but I have to get the kiddo to bed. I can say that regardless of whether or not the account is entirely truthful, I still liked his style of writing and I appreciate his message of personal responsibility. It's true- a memoir isn't a biography; it's (usually) a series of recollections that are very subjective and may or may not dramatically enhanced or altered for effect. Usually, one would indicate this in the preface, which I hear Frey will be doing in all future publications. So far, I think his alterations are pretty innocuous, but if it comes out that he never did the rehab, etc, then I will be a little cranky. It's still a memoir in my mind, but it's teetering on the brink of fiction. I must admit there were parts of the second book that I seriously questioned, but I still loved it.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I can understand falsification of facts in a memoir if it's minor. Memory is sneaky, and life isn't suited to narrative form.

From what I've heard, however, there are major plot points that were much closer to fiction than fact. I can accept slight embellishment of or trimming off outlying events that aren't of chief importance to the story of your life. I can accept mixing up details here and there. But I hardly think that (from what I understand is) fictional prison time qualifies as minor.

It depends on the style of memoir, too. If Dave Eggers, whose style always feels very "did-this-really-happen?" to me, had pulled this kind of stunt, I'd have found it appropriate for the work. I have not read the book, but I get the impression that Frey's style doesn't suggest that you should take his words with big blocks-o-salt.

I'll try to put this in perspective for myself by referring to my own writing. Some of you have read a short story I posted on LoT, "The Amigo." It's a personal essay about a situation that actually happened. It's what I'd consider memoir, not fiction or auto-biography. The bulk of it, the major points and interactions, definitely happened, and to my memory, exactly that way. But as I suggest that life doesn't befit narrative, I had to soften details or sharpen them (like re-focusing a camera lens) in order to tell the story. For instance, the store greeter was not the man who came to help me lift the wheelchair into the car. It was some other man. In a short story, where sparse is more, adding another character in for one sentence would have detracted. And the greeter is nameless in the story, just like the man who helped me in real life. He might as well have been that man. They were blurry in my memory of the day.

In my adaptation of that situation for film, which pulls me completely out of the story but leaves in a character that quite resembles my mother, I felt much more comfortable embellishing. It is fiction instead of memoir. So that greeter becomes a fully developed fictional character who becomes more important to the story. But I never, ever, would have done this in the memoir short story. That would have been falsification to a degree that I couldn't stand by ethically.

[Alex]

I've had the discussion several times in other places so I don't know if I have the energy to get worked up about it again.

But here's the synopsis of my opinion:

I'm all for "literary memoir" as long as it is presented as such. I also realize that fabrication in memoir (particularly celebrity memoir) is not a new thing. I also accept that memory is subjective.

That said, James Frey wrote the book as fiction, couldn't sell it and then when a publisher said they'd take it as memoir didn't change a word before sending it to print (similarly the guy who wrote Jarhead tried to sell it as a novel and then made significant revisions when the publisher said they'd prefer a memoir).

There is a difference between subjective memory and simple fabrication and Frey engaged in the latter. Much of what he wrote is uncomfirmable, but when almost everyting in the book that can be confirmed ends up being completely made up or extremely exaggerated I see no reason why anybody would take him at his word that the rest is any more true.

As one commentator said, "there is a word for something that is spiritually true but not literally true: a novel."

Also, when confronted with critics early on who said parts of it didn't seem realistic, Frey didn't say "yeah, things are exaggreated to reflect how I felt" but rather said that to the best of his ability it was all true as told and his publisher had fact checked it.

[Gemini Cricket]

I buzz I have heard is that he tried to publish this book with several other publication houses (I heard 20 or so) as fiction and they wouldn't buy it. So he changed its category to 'memoir' and it sold quickly. (This is coming from a work colleague who is a journalist who leads meetings on literary works weekly.) I haven't read it. But I'm curious.

What kind of bugged me was how the media seemed to be laying blame on Oprah for all this. I would think the blame lies with the publisher and author for not disclosing information? I'm not sure.

[Alex]

As told he submitted to 17 publishers getting rejections. It was apparently the publishers idea to present it as memoir (which apparently isn't uncommon with biographical novels, see this interesting piece (http://www.identitytheory.com/lit/bauman_jumping.php)).

I don't blame Oprah for the problem, though she gets attached to it because while the book was doing good business before it was sent into the stratosphere by its selection for her book club.

I mostly blame Frey, with some blame for the publisher (not sure how the interaction went so without details I'll give them the benefit of the doubt). I would prefer that Oprah had taken the opportunity to say that while the message of the book is powerful, intentional deceipt is a terrible thing and Frey should be ashamed.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

This is why I won't write a memoir. It'll be way too boring. Nope, my only-in-my-head stories are nearly always semi-autobiographical but actually fiction - and I'd never bill them as otherwise. If I actually wrote them, that is.

[Not Afraid]

Alex's first post in which he mentions:
That said, James Frey wrote the book as fiction, couldn't sell it and then when a publisher said they'd take it as memoir didn't change a word before sending it to print
was the first I had heard of this switch. Nothing I had read so far had mentioned this wrinkle.

If that's the case, I think the publisher is at fault for not clarifying or putting a disclaimer on the book so the reader knows there is a fictional component.

Frey's story, as it is told in the book, is not unbelievable in the least. I've known several rehabilitated addicts whose stories are as bad or even worse. It's not uncommon in that world to have lots of "color" in your story at all.

Two other things have been bothering me about the book and the revelations of truth.

In the book, Frey spands a lot of time focusing on what "right true" to him. AA and the 12 Steps do not "ring true" but, upon reading the Tao Te Ching he finds that "these words are true". He spends a lot of time throughout the book talking about finding truth in people, in ideas, in writing. I just find it ironic that there is any level of falsification in his own writing when truth is so important to him.

Secondly, Oprah stands by Frey because of the Emotional Truth in the book and the fact that it has helped so many people. I question the second part of her reasoning. No doubt there have been people who have read it and decided to quite imbibing based on the sheer willpower of decision. To me, that's wonderful. The end product is what's important. But, I really wonder how many people this account has actually helped. That seems to be an empty claim to me and one used for sheer justification. Maybe I'm missing some facts here, but it strikes me as odd.

Lastly, the following quote from the LA Times seems very compelling to me and worth further thought.

Frey rejects the conception that addiction is an illness and attributes it to an irrational weakness in character — sort of like a resistance to flossing. Similarly he objects to the 12-step AA-based methods of recovery, such as the one that sobered him up at Hazelden. In his book, he derisively describes a counselor's attempt to suggest that his problems may have begun with an inadvertent childhood trauma.

"I just won't let myself be a victim," he wrote. And then, "People in here, people everywhere, they all want to take their own problems, usually created by themselves, and try to pass them off on someone or something else…. I'm a victim of nothing but myself, just as I believe that most people with this so-called disease aren't victims of anything other than themselves…. "

Frey and his publishers have made a lot of money peddling these sentiments. If they were based on his actual analysis of his actual experience that would be one thing. But precisely what are they, if they are based — as we now know they are — on a lurid series of fictions. What sort of people appeal to a "higher" or "essential" literary truth in urging suffering individuals to disregard sound medical and psychological advice?


I really liked the book, the writing, the story - but I can relate on a personal level. I understand how people have issues with AA and the 12 Steps. I have no qualms if people choose other methods to get sober. THe end is what is important and, while AA workd for many, it may not work for all. Recovery has an EXTREMLY low success rate no matter what path is chosen to achieve sobriety. But, what bothered me about Frey's approach is his seemingly subtle jabs at the 12 Steps as a working method of sobriety. I hope he isn't suggesting that AA disappear to be replaced by his "white knuckle" method. To each his own - there are many paths to a singular place.

[Ghoulish Delight]

But, what bothered me about Frey's approach is his seemingly subtle jabs at the 12 Steps as a working method of sobriety. I hope he isn't suggesting that AA disappear to be replaced by his "white knuckle" method. To each his own - there are many paths to a singular place.Like so many people in so many areas of life, they project their own experience onto the world. In reality, there are many different factors that can lead to alcoholism, and just as many different factors that will lead an individual to the right treatment for them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://www.nbc4.tv/irresistible/6465606/detail.html

:rolleyes: Is it just me, or is this really pathetic from Oprah. "I stand by him, it's the message that matters, not the details...oh, everyone else thinks this is bad? Okay...ummm...then...uh...you're a bad, bad man Mr. Frey."

[Not Afraid]

Frey acknowledged to King that he had embellished parts of the book, and he told Winfrey Thursday that the same demons that fueled his addictions caused him to mischaracterize himself.


Where is that bit about "delusions of grandeur"? ;)

[Snowflake]

http://www.nbc4.tv/irresistible/6465606/detail.html

:rolleyes: Is it just me, or is this really pathetic from Oprah. "I stand by him, it's the message that matters, not the details...oh, everyone else thinks this is bad? Okay...ummm...then...uh...you're a bad, bad man Mr. Frey."

No, it's totally pathetic. You're right on the money

[Not Afraid]

This is what happened on the Anarchy board. I thought the discussion continues to be interesting and wanted to make sure all of the information was contained here in case further discussion was warranted.


I think Oprah didn't realize how much of a hole she had dug herself into when she called Larry King, and how big this really was. She ripped him a new one yesterday during the show and he just sat there like a little kid and knew he was in big fat trouble.

So her next book is Night, by Elie Weisel, a holocaust "memoir", and there is already controversy around that too!



The LA TImes had an article about the Oprah show yesterday. Frey couldn't even confirm that the root canal story was factual.

For those who haven't read the book, I use tags:
Spoiler:
I have NEVER heard from any doctor or recovering addict that anestesia for dental work is out of the question. It is locally applied and doesn't effect the addict in a way that would cause cravings - at least not in my experience.




What a dolt.

And Oprah just upped his book sales, TYVM. Negative publicity is better than no publicity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SusieP.
So her next book is Night, by Elie Weisel, a holocaust "memoir", and there is already controversy around that too!

It's different though isnt it?
Something about it having been used as fiction for years, and "NOW" because of all this hoopla they are cinsidering moving the book into non-fiction?
Or is it the other way around.

I think that Night is widely known to be a book based in fact, that was then extrapolated on in order to tell the story.
Please if I am wrong, straighten me out. http://www.xenarchy.com/LoT/images/smilies/smile_lot.gif



Actually I have to say after reading the posted link I'm sympathetic with Oprah on this one. My first reaction to the bruhaha - was, 'It's a memoir - who expects truth in those things anyway."

This continued as I tried to find out what all the "embellishments were and whether or not they really mattered - this involved pestering Not Afraid with a thousand questions since I didn't read the book or the Smoking Gun Article. The results of that inquiry left me like Oprah, "who cares, the bulk of the book really doesn't turn on these events."

But yeah, as you dig deeper to find the book was unsuccessfully shopped as a novel and then repackaged as a memior, it clearly should have born the "Based on a True Stroy" disclaimer statement and I think Oprah was right to return to this to clear up notions that she thought "lying was okay" - and other such media simplifications.

An unfortunate set of events, but one easily avoided - and in the end, I'm not sure that anything was really settled other than the birth of more disclaimer statements.

[Not Afraid]

Continued:


I wonder how she got him on the show. I mean, who wants to do a show w/ Oprah when you know she's gonna be mad at you. Do people get paid to go on Oprah's show?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket
I wonder how she got him on the show. I mean, who wants to do a show w/ Oprah when you know she's gonna be mad at you. Do people get paid to go on Oprah's show?


Eh at this point it's the best thing for him to do - confess his sins on national TV. At least now the lies are over, but the book sales continue to soar. Oprah wasn't likely going to plug his next book anyway.



I just posted this on Retroland, but I think it sort of sums up my current feelings (subject to change without notice) nicely:

Quote:
read this book and finished it as all of the hullabaloo was erupting. Memoirs are subjective at best. They tell a story from one person's perspective that will have granules of subjective truth as well as false recollections. I have no problem with that. Frey's story is a compelling one even if I don't agree with his methods of "recovery". He has apparently stayed sober on sheer willpower and, if that has worked for him, great. It doesn't seem to work for many so I don't discount the methods used as Hazeldon or other AA-based recovery clinics. I think what bothers me the most about Frey's accounts are the sheer embellishments for the sake of storytelling. If, in fact, his excruciating account of dental work is not true, then I have issues with Frey and the rest of his story. If his jail time did not take place, than how can I believe the rest of his story? If the suicides didn't really take place, than how am I supposed to believe that willpower alone is going to keep be sober? I think it just snowballs from there, unfortuantely. Oprah's first line of defense was that his book has helped a lot of people. I think that's great! I hope it continues to do so. But, I don't think that was his primary reason for writing his story, nor does that make his "embellishments" OK. I think Frey crossed a line here - and I didn't think so at first. I have changed my opinion and, while I don't feel "violated" I just feel a bit disgusted.





I agree with that completely. If you're selling the book as "an inspirational true story," and it's THAT far from the truth, I think you're running the irresponsible risk of leading people down a dangerous path of false hope.

As for Oprah, I can certainly understand having an initial reaction that is altered as more facts come out...what I have a hard time understanding is someone going out of the way, and with such conviction, to come to his defense without all the facts at hand, only to retract that defense later when the facts and public opinion make it inconvenient to maintain that stance. I just think her actions should undermine her credibility in the future with any rational person. Of course, who's to say that it's the rational people that she cares to appeal to.


NA & GD - If I thought it would count I'd mojo you both. I'm way too exhausted right now to formulate any worthwhile addition to this thread other than to say "hear, hear".


I don't know - we're often called to act without the benefit of making a full analysis. Oprah followed her heart, and then had a change of heart. Since I experienced the same thing, I can't really fault Oprah for doing it in public since that's the realm she dwells in. Perhaps that makes her less precise or credible, but I don't think it makes her less sincere - which probably matter more to her audience.


Do you really think that Oprah "followed her heart"? Honestly? At this point, Oprah is less of a person and more a corporation with an Oprah mask. The Oprah book club is primarily a money-making venture and anything else is gravy. Having long since given up on following this story - I ask those still interested: "Does Oprah own the movie rights?".


I, of course, have no idea what Oprah's motivation for defending the book was, but that won't stop me from speculating. I think Oprah was embarassed to discover that she'd been had. Her initial defense of the book struck me as an attempt to save face. I applaud her for going public with her change of heart as it takes a lot of courage to publically admit you're wrong.


I read a post from a blogger (Harry Shearer) over at huffingtonpost.com who posits that in defending the author and then denouncing him, Oprah was able to make headlines twice and that might have been her intention all along. A cynical view to be sure, but not one that would surprise me if it turned out to be spot on.

Quote:
Oprah had James Frey back on her show today, denounced him, apologized to us, and the consensus of the Larry King panel tonight was that it was a great Oprah show.


I observed a while back that construction unions were as happy to demolish large public works as to construct them. Put them up or pull them down, we still get paid.
Now, by endorsing a liar then adamantly walking away from him, the divine Miss O gets two hours of TV out of the deal. Plus all the free publicity on the "news".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-...l_b_14539.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/the-truth-is-servedcol_b_14539.html)


I know one thing, I'll be watching Oprah twice as often as I used to from here on out.


Or is it half?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mousepod
Do you really think that Oprah "followed her heart"? Honestly? At this point, Oprah is less of a person and more a corporation with an Oprah mask.


Perhaps - but I don't buy into the whole Corporations are evil conspiracy theory thing. And as stated before, I think my opinion (granted decidedly uninformed), seemed to follow the same peaks and valley's that Oprah's public/corporate persona took. Perhaps that's why it seems genuine to me - as I can't characterize my own feelings as dishonest or disengenuous.

In that respect I find it easy to be forgiving of Oprah - though I can't say the same for Frey or his publisher.


Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
Perhaps that's why it seems genuine to me - as I can't characterize my own feelings as dishonest or disengenuous.

I agree for the most part...I wouldn't say that I think her change of heart in and of itself is dishonest or disengenuous. Her initial move was perhaps a bit irreponsible and dumb, and the apology necessary. What I found crossed the line for me was the song and dance she then played by having him on and going after him. That's where it starts to seem to me desperate and pathetic. Instead of just appologizing for making an uniformed empassioned statement in the heat of the moment, she took it to the other extreme. Instead of simply owning up to making an error in judgement, she rather dramatically poitned the finger back saying, "He made me do it, this evil, evil man!" Just appologize for your error and move on.

But I also agree that her errors in judgement are far outweighed by those of Frey and the publisher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Instead of simply owning up to making an error in judgement, she rather dramatically poitned the finger back saying, "He made me do it, this evil, evil man!" Just appologize for your error and move on.


Well, that's not the way I read the article you linked. I believe the quotes I read were along the lines of "I felt betrayed by you." And she gave him an opportunity to answer to that. Perhaps this added to the all around drama - but as a public person the drama seems inevitable (i.e. Larry King would have called him back and asked him what he though of Oprah's latest statements).

So your characterization might have some truth in it, but I think you may be embellishing a bit http://www.xenarchy.com/LoT/images/smilies/wink2.gif


Actually, she said, "It is difficult for me to talk to you because I really feel duped ... but more importantly I feel that you betrayed millions of readers."

I honestly don't understand the need to have the conversation at all. All I see is an exchange that gave her a way to dump as much blame as she could on him for her part of the mistake (interesting side note, though. I've seen serveral articles describe the hour long follow up as "punishing" or a "raking over the coals" of Frey or some such variation, but I can't find much more than the single quote from above. I guess she spent a lot of time grilling him to admit to many of the fabrications) and gave him some more publicity.

I guess I would have found her apology a bit less pathetic had she not had the author and publisher there to point at at the same time.

[mousepod]

Here's my .02 on the subject.

Frey is a greedy bastard, but he's a flash in the pan. He wrote a decent novel, but when he couldn't sell it as such, he agreed to call it a memoir. Realistically, every writing class I ever took, they tell us to write what you know. I have many half-started novels and screenplays sitting around that are about the drug culture, the recovery culture, the music business, and even the penal system. All of them are fiction, all have a shred of truth. It's what I know. If some publisher promised me millions to take a finished work and mischaracterize it, I would probably decline, but I understand the mindset. Do you actually think that any of the crap that actors or directors spew out in press junkets for movies is true? It's show biz, folks.

Now as far as Oprah is concerned, I'm convinced that the phone call to Larry King was the "real" Oprah. She never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. This is fact, not opinion. I laughed when she brought Frey back on the show to reprimand him.

I was going to post this last week on the anarchy board, but I was tired and cranky and it would have been vitriolic. Thanks for reviving the thread.

[Not Afraid]

And more:


heh - well I honestly see the whole controversy as unescessary. As I said above, the end result is another batch of disclaimer statements and increased sales of the book (oh and ratings for Oprah and hits for Smoking Gun).



I wish I had seen the show since it is difficult to discuss the contents armed with only subjective accounts of what actually happened.

Personally, I'm glad there was a confrontation, I'm glad more information about Frey's inconsistencies came to light. Oprah had serious questions as did those who had read Frey's book. I don't have the opportunity to ask Frey but Oprah did. Good for her.

Frey burned himself here by being dishonest in the first place. He did it to sell books, but I think it may have just ruined his career. Maybe not. There are lots of successful snake oil salesmen out there who mislable products. Frey's just one of them who happened to get the backing of someone really powerful.

I got the robe for Christmas - you know, Oprah's favorite? Well, I had no idea it was Oprah's favorite but apparently Oprah and I think alike. It's a great robe and, if it falls apart in 6 months, I'm not going to blams Oprah for promoting it. Maybe it's not the same thing as the Frey situation, but I certainly want to be able to post how great something is then find out later that it isn't as great as I thought. She just reaches more people than I do. http://www.xenarchy.com/LoT/images/smilies/wink2.gif




So that's where we left off in Anarchy land.

[Not Afraid]

This should really be at the bottom of the page, but since I can't reorder posts, I'm just quoting it to put it in it's place.

Here's my .02 on the subject.

Frey is a greedy bastard, but he's a flash in the pan. He wrote a decent novel, but when he couldn't sell it as such, he agreed to call it a memoir. Realistically, every writing class I ever took, they tell us to write what you know. I have many half-started novels and screenplays sitting around that are about the drug culture, the recovery culture, the music business, and even the penal system. All of them are fiction, all have a shred of truth. It's what I know. If some publisher promised me millions to take a finished work and mischaracterize it, I would probably decline, but I understand the mindset. Do you actually think that any of the crap that actors or directors spew out in press junkets for movies is true? It's show biz, folks.

Now as far as Oprah is concerned, I'm convinced that the phone call to Larry King was the "real" Oprah. She never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. This is fact, not opinion. I laughed when she brought Frey back on the show to reprimand him.

I was going to post this last week on the anarchy board, but I was tired and cranky and it would have been vitriolic. Thanks for reviving the thread.