|
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.
|