A Million Little Pieces - or is it Lies?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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.

Originally Posted by SusieP

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!

Originally Posted by NA

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.

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

Originally Posted by €

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:

Originally Posted by GC

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?

Originally Posted by €

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.

Originally Posted by NA

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.

Originally Posted by GD

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.

Originally Posted by MousePod

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".

[QUOTE+€]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.
[/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. 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?".

Originally Posted by Sac

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

Originally Posted by GD

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


Or is it half?

Originally Posted by €

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.

Originally Posted by GD

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.

Originally Posted by €

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

Originally Posted by GD

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:

Originally Posted by €

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).

Originally Posted by NA

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.