James Frey Controversy

[JamesSavik]

Oprah turned on one of her favorite authors Thursday, attacking James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces for taking liberties with the truth in a book billed as a "non-fiction memoir".

 

In the book, Frey claimed that he had spent 3 months in jail when in fact, he never spent more than a few hours. He also claimed to have had root canals administered with no Novocaine.

 

Apparently Frey's "true" story of drug addiction and recovery has been substantially embellished and exaggerated.

 

In his defense, he did say that names, places and events had been changed to to protect the privacy of 3rd parties but the story is essentially TRUE.

 

 

This controversy begs a few Questions of our authors:

 

When does fictionalizing a story cross the line?

 

Is James Frey covered by dramatic license or is he a liar, liar pants on fire?

 

As a reader, would you feel ripped off or betrayed if you discovered that a book or story that you had read that was billed as true was significantly changed?

[AFriendlyFace]

If I read something billed as a "non-fiction Memoir" and found out that it was embellished in the ways described, Yes I would feel, lied too, cheated whatever. But if it simply said "based on a true story" I wouldn't.

 

It also depends on the subject matter and the target audience. I don't think it's right to write a book about your struggles with drug addiction, and then fabricate/amplify the problems. I mean that makes people think that "if he can overcome it, so can I!". Which MIGHT be a good thing, OR it might not. It may be that they lose the will to try at all when they find out it wasn't true. Or they may go on believing it, and hate themselves for not being able to beat something without going into rehab, or without seeking counseling or something when "the author could do it". The basic problem, IMO, is that when writing that type of book you're either giving people "false hope" or encouraging them to hold themselves to "phony standards". There's just too much potential for harm.

 

Now if he billed it as a "non-fiction memoir", and then wrote about his life in general and added a few details. Making up meeting famous people he never met, or doing exciting things that never happened. Well I wouldn't like that if I found out, but I wouldn't really care. He was just making the story more interesting, and reading about how someone else "found an Ancient Egyptian ring at the bottom of one of those fun-ball things at Chucky Cheese" isn't going to make me go look for one.

 

So in summation I'd say it depends on how the author classifies his work (non-fiction, based on a true story, etc.), and of equal importance the subject matter, and the target audience. Having read your description of what happened, I'd say the guy was out of line. Since he didn't seem to allow for the possibility that his work was "embellished" when he relesed it, since he delt with a potentially vulnerable targe audience (people who might desperately be looking for hope), and since he wrote about serious matters (drug addiction). Anyway all just my opinion.

 

Have an awesome day everyone and take care,

Kevin

Edited January 29, 2006 by AFriendlyFace

[Gregoire]

He lied. He didn't think anyone would find out, so he lied. Then he got caught. She defended him, confronted him, and repremanded him. The story is that simple. It wasn't fictionalizing reality, it was a lie. He'll have to deal with that.

 

I haven't actually read the book yet, but I planned to...maybe I still will. It just makes you question a lot of things we accept as fact.

 

Well I have work tomorrow so...

--Greg.

[glomph]

It also depends on the subject matter and the target audience. I don't think it's right to write a book about your struggles with drug addiction, and then fabricate/amplify the problems. I mean that makes people think that "if he can overcome it, so can I!". Which MIGHT be a good thing, OR it might not. It may be that they lose the will to try at all when they find out it wasn't true. Or they may go on believing it, and hate themselves for not being able to beat something without going into rehab, or without seeking counseling or something when "the author could do it". The basic problem, IMO, is that when writing that type of book you're either giving people "false hope" or encouraging them to hold themselves to "phony standards". There's just too much potential for harm.

 

They used to try having famous people who had had success in dealing with their drug addictions give talks to kids to discourage them from trying drugs.

 

Rather than taking them as cautionary tales, the kids often would conclude "That person did drugs and is doing OK, so I can, too."

[Iuvart]

What I don't get about this story is why a pretty unknown author is ripped to shreds over a few little lies while George Bush is still not facing impeachment.

Although... if it weren't for this thread here and The Daily Show ( ) I would have never even heard about James Frey. His actions might be wrong (at least I think so) but it also shows how easy it is to distract from more serious and important matters with the speed every story is rushed through the media and subsequentially forgotten.

 

 

Mh... might have gotten a tad off topic there... please don't hurt me.