Delusions of Grandeur?

So you may have read or heard about the controversy regarding James Frey's book, A Million Little Pieces. Apparently, Oprah is very upset about the situation, since she included Frey's book as one of her "Oprah's Book Club" selections, and many of the book's key events turned out to be exaggerated or completely falsified, as revelaled by The Smoking Gun.

I happened to catch the recent show with Frey, where Oprah questioned not only Frey's integrity, but that of the publisher. Oprah repeatedly talked about valuing THE TRUTH. The crux of Oprah's argument is that the book is marketed as a memoir. Oprah stated the denotation of memoir implies that the book is indeed non-fiction. Labeled as such, the reader is trusting that the events therein are although subjective, still representative of the author's truth. The funny thing is that Oprah had a few journalists as guests, because don't we all know that journalists are the beacons of truth. Smirk.

I find it all very interesting--obviously since I'm writing about it, right? The discussion brought up more questions than answers for me, and not just because Frey never answered a question directly. Did the publisher "encourage" Frey to embellish certain aspects of his story to make for a better read, and thus have better financial gain? Is there a spectrum of truth versus lie that is allowed for a memoir or autobiography, given the subjectivity of experience?

Frey wrote in his book that he spent about 3 months in jail, at which point a friend of his committed suicide by hanging herself. In truth, he was in jail for less than 6 hours and was in another state"sorting out his life" when his friend overdosed. Gross exaggeration for climactic effect or selective memory? Another example: Frey wrote that he underwent 2 root canals without any pain relief (as a recovering drug addict he chose to not have any drugs in his system), but in actuality had novocaine. Again, gross exaggeration for climactic effect or selective memory?

I grant that there should be some leeway in memoirs, simply because of the nature of human memory itself. Two people can witness the exact same event at the same time and come away with two completely different reports of said event due to perspective and memory. Salient aspects of a single event will be different for each viewer and thus recalled differently. Furthermore, unless one kept a vigilant diary of his/her life, you're dealing with the effect of time on one's memory--the greater the length of time between the event and its recording will = less accuracy. However, it appears in Frey's case that he was blatantly lying in some cases, for so far unknown, but well speculated, reasons. Some elements are difficult to dispute as there would be some documentation (i.e. medical records, cause of death, length of imprisonment) that one could verify. How many less tangible aspects of Frey's book are in fact a lie?

The interesting thing is that Frey kept referring to people in his book as "characters" which implies that they were not actual people, although when questioned about this Frey said they were all real people, with their original names. Did Frey write a book loosely based on his life and initally intend it as a work of fiction, and then have the publisher market it as a memoir to sell more copies?

The question of honesty and integrity begs the question of the onus of responsibility. Was Frey coerced or did he willfully and knowlingly lie? Did the publisher take the book at face value or promote some creativity on Frey's part? Should there have been fact-checkers at the publishing house or at Oprah's studio? A bigger question is how many other works of non-fiction are in fact pretty much bullshit?

Considering the fact that we live in a society that trades in lies, I'm willing to bet that non-fiction is a deceptive label. Plastic surgery, cosmetics, photo editing--ring any bells? The ubiquity of reality tv, misnomer that that is, is one of the most popular means of entertainment. Despite editing, handlers who encourage drinking and certain behavior, and of course demand characteristics inherent in the subject's awareness of the recording of his/her behavior (whch alters the behavior in the first place), many people consider it to be "true". Are we really to buy the naivete of Oprah, a woman who came from nothing (in her own words) and is now one of the most powerful Americans given the nature of North American culture?

As a consumer, I think the onus of responsibility lies with you. Don't buy a book because Oprah says so. Don't blindly read a piece of writing and assume, regardless of the labelling, that it is in fact 100% true (ever read the tabloids, or even a mainstream newspaper Oprah?). Writing should not, as mentioned on Oprah's show, have a disclaimer stating that some details were altered in the writing of a book. The onus is on YOU as a reader to filter the information and decide for yourself what you are willing to accept or reject as truth. I could get into a whole philosophical debate about the nature of truth itself, but come on, be conscientious.


Just as an afterthought--did the fact that the author was a drug addict and criminal not give anyone pause regarding the validity of his claims? Is Oprah mad because the guy she publicly endorsed was caught lying and it embarrassed her or is she trying to represent angry consumers who were taken in by Frey's writing? I'm sure she wasn't trying to capitalize on the controversy by having him on the show.........smirk.