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 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 to back articles that rake Frey over the coals and many, many more.)

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).

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]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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

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."