Let me ask…if you read a newspaper article, do you expect it to be made up out of thin air? I’m guessing not. That’s because newspapers are non-fiction, like this book was apparently marketed as. If an article in the newspaper turns out to be fiction, there’s hell to pay for the reporter, editors and the newspaper as an institution. Trust me, I’ve been there (not as the reporter or editor involved, thank goodness).
If it’s true that he submitted it as fiction to some and non fiction to others, that’s dumb enough on its face.
phungi, is it okay with you that Frey misrepresented a reputable rehab center as a snake pit? That he claims a person can overcome addiction with nothing more than sheer willpower? That he insults the memory of two of his high school classmates by claiming that one of them died under circumstances other than she really did, and the other wasn’t in the accident at all? I think that does change the focus and impact of the book.
Hold on! For starters, the “you didn’t even read it” argument isn’t going to work here. The Smoking Gun article, as well as the other reviews both positive and negative linked in this thread and on Frey’s own site, give more than enough excerpts to assess the quality and the tone of the book. I’ve yet to see anything that validates it as anything other than worthless trash. The only thing interesting about it is that the quality of the writing and the tone of the book are fighting out to see which is more offensive.
That said, I have to ask if you read the whole TSG article. They made it clear that this is more than a case of just a few exaggerated conversations and an overstated criminal record. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but it’s enough to cast the entire book into question. Even back when it was being pushed as an actual memoir, the book got criticised for its writing and its shallow characters – but that was supposedly outweighed by the underlying message and the fact that it really happened. Something that is told poorly but is inherently true is okay. Something that is offensive and fictional is not.
People aren’t upset just because of some harmless exaggerations. People are upset because it’s a blatant manipulation of the facts and the audience for this guy to paint himself as a Flawed But Strong Tough But Sensitive Anti-Hero and peddle a shallow self-help message that is dangerous to anyone who’s not a white frat boy with rich parents.
FWIW, I am not a recovering addict, have no particular fondness for rehabilitation facilities, and do not consider myself a fan of Frey. I thought his book was compelling and I enjoyed the writing style. I understand the “draw” of the book, why Oprah chose it for her silly book club, and why so many have read it and kept it on the NYT list. In this context, I don’t get the sense of personal hurt or betrayal, or moral or professional turpitude displayed by Frey that people appear to be feeling in response to TSG’s article.
No, but this was not a newspaper article, it was a book on a guy overcoming addiction in a rehabilitation facility, and his memories appeared, to me, to be subjective and clouded by drug and alcohol intoxication, even before any of this controversy came out.
I did not see how the rehab center was slandered and I believe that the statistics for recidivism following inpatient treatment are correct (I do not have a cite handy). The fact that he is still sober and most of his peers are dead is testament enough to this guy’s will-power.
I don’t understand why he altered the story about the classmate, but he appears to have some important connection to one who died, and I am not in a position to question this… for me, it did not have any effect on the message or impact of the book.
That is a silly subjective comment that merely discredits the style of the book but does not validate your argument.
Yes, I read the entire article, and I feel they have some vendetta or agenda, just the same as Frey. This is hardly cutting edge objective journalistic reporting. I do not see how you can say that this book is universally offensive and expect to have others justify their view. It appears that you do not like this book, but you have to realize that other people disagree, and also may not find it the slightest bit offensive.
Who is perpetuating the stereotypes? If I recall the entire support team in the facility argued against his chosen method of rehabilitation. However, there is a very low success rate in this type of treatment, and to suggest that addicts will hold this up as gospel seems baseless and hardly the justification and motivation for TSG’s investigation.
It is a book… it is not 100% based on fact… it has had a lot of success and tells a non-traditional story in a non-traditional manner… none of this is shocking to me, and does not detract from the story… obviously others feel differently.
None of that bothers me either. The part you left out, though, that it was marketed as non-fiction (i.e. NOT not 100% based on fact) and turns out to be untrue does.
If the guy wanted to write a book about an addict (or an Addict :rolleyes: ) going through all that and coming out on the other end, that’s fine and dandy. Chuck Pahlaniuk tellls nontraditional stories in nontraditional ways in several of his books. The guy couldn’t get it to sell as fiction? Then write better. Don’t lie. The end (his getting his book published and getting paid) does not justify the lying to get there.
He claimed that the staff overlooked him and left him lying unconscious on the floor for hours, that they admitted him when he was gravely injured and didn’t give him any medical treatment at all, and that they sent him to a dentist who performed gross malpractice. That’s just for starters.
Important connection?! He claimed that the girl was his best and only friend in the world, when in fact they barely knew each other. He claimed that she died when they were both twelve, when in fact she was 18 and he was 17. He claimed that he was blamed for her death and scorned by the community, when in fact he had nothing to do with the incident, and no one thought otherwise. He claimed that this ostracism, and the overwhelming sense of loss he endured, warped his personality. In short, he attached himself to a tragedy that didn’t affect him, in order to create an excuse for his dysfunction, and tug at readers’ heartstrings. If you can’t see how offensive that is, then you just can’t, but I think it’s disgusting.
Speaking as one who’d never heard of the book before the expose (I don’t watch Oprah, obviously), I’m just enjoying the little incongruities:
–That the Smoking Gun’s first (to my knowledge) serious piece of investigative journalism started with them wanting one of Frey’s mug shots to add to their extensive collection of celebrity mug shots.
–The spectacle of a nice middle-class person (to all appearances) going on Larry King to insist he did TOO smoke crack.
–That no one noticed the slight discrepancy between Frey’s physical appearance and the appearance of the average poly-substance abuser and jailbird who lives well into his 30s. Or is there so much plastic surgery out there that no one knows any more what normal wear and tear does to a face, much less years of hard living?
I fail to see the issue. The author told the truth; he just embellished the facts. So? His message remains the same.
Remember, “nonfiction,” is a publishing category. It says nothing about the veracity of a book.
Frankly, this is a ridiculous issue – the point of the book (like any good book) was to create an emotional reaction, and it appears the author did that.
What does it matter that he told a few tall tales in order to make his points? The issue is not with the author, but with readers who insist that labelling something a true story somehow makes it more valid.
CNN is doing full coverage on the Anderson Cooper 360 show, and it just really highlights what a great big travesty the whole thing is. Of course, Frey’s still simultaneously making himself out to be the victim, claiming it’s not a big deal, and working on his screenplay.
What? It’s silly to point out that commentary on the literary merit of a work of fiction is “subjective”. Of course it is. I’m not sure what “argument” I’m supposedly trying to validate that demands objectivity; in the part you quoted, I was saying that judging whether or not a work of fiction is worth reading is totally possible from reading excerpts. Nobody’s opinions are invalidated by not having read the whole book, as you implied. I don’t have to eat the whole box of rat poison before I can assume that it’s poisonous.
Again… what? Point out where I said it was universally offensive. I do happen to think that the writing in the excerpts that I’ve read are so poorly written that they transcend subjective badness and should be acknowledged as universally bad, but I didn’t say that. Since when does the fact that other people disagree with my opinion invalidate my opinion?
And calling something “subjective” is only an instant counter-argument if you’re on Wikipedia. On the SDMB, you have to talk about “fighting ignorance.” In Cafe Society, “you just didn’t get it” is also acceptable.
The Smoking Gun most definitely has an agenda; they make no bones about it. They are also perfectly clear and straightforward (unlike Frey) about that. Their facts are documented and verified; that is journalism. Their conclusions are most definitely opinionated, and they make no claims otherwise, and they’re perfectly entitled to that. Dismissing TSG as invalid because they’re not “objective,” but giving Frey a pass and saying it’s no big deal when he just plain makes shit up and reuses cliches and passes them off as fact – that strikes me as more than a little “silly.”
So not only is it useless as a non-fictional memoir because it’s not factual, and not only is it useless as a work of fiction because it’s so poorly written, but it’s also useless as a motivational take-away message because it describes an unreliable and unrecommended method of rehabilitation. So we have a useless book that is topping best-seller lists and has dozens of reviewers and hundreds if not thousands of readers calling “inspirational.”
Can I recommend, if you are a member of a college fraternity, that you become familiar with the term “frat boy” as shorthand for jockish guys with a sense of entitlement, from affluent backgrounds, self-absorbed, chauvinistic and womanizing, more preoccupied with hedonism than academics? Because regardless of whether any of that stereotype applies to you at all, or even to enough frat boys to warrant being a stereotype, the shorthand is in such common use that you’re going to hear it a lot in your lifetime. And if you take offense at every use of it, you’re not going to have any time left over for anything else. (Like keg parties.)
Chuck, you were pretty offended when someone you knew in your early twenties wrote a book that embellished facts about you and your friends, while still leaving enough verifiable info that you could be identified. Your objection was that this presented you and your friends in a poor light; that it made you look intolerant when you were not. So how is this case different?
You said "…give more than enough excerpts to assess the quality and the tone of the book. I’ve yet to see anything that validates it as anything other than worthless trash. The only thing interesting about it is that the quality of the writing and the tone of the book are fighting out to see which is more offensive."
I interpreted “worthless trash” and “to see which is more offensive” as you finding thebook offensive"
I guess we both feel the other “just does not get it”
I don’t recall giving anyone a “pass.” Rather, I said that I don’t particularly like Frey, that I did not get the whole controversy, and felt that the message of the book remains, regardless of the altered “facts.” Did you embellish my point of view? My opinion is in my posts as a matter of record. Does this interpretation of my words and attributing the term “giving Frey a pass” to me now invalidate your posts and make your opinion fiction?
I don’t know anything about the book other than what has come up around the controversy. However, I find it amusing that people would continue to defend the book as having a good message.
I’m assuming that the message is about recovery and redemption, doesn’t it say something about redemption if you are lying about it? I mean, lying to manipulate others is an antisocial act. How much can you acheive redemption if you are committing antisocial acts for fame and fortune?
I’m going to jump in with opinions & a question even tho I haven’t gotten through the entire thread - My feeling is that memoirs/autobiographies are non-fiction. That’s what I’ve always assumed when I’ve picked one up and read one. If the author deliberately stretched the truth within the book, I expect a note or preface explaining that. Anything less is dishonest.
And I’d feel the same way if I liked Frey’s writing style, which I don’t. I didn’t like it when Anais Nin was dishonest in her diaries, either.
Question: Oprah’s next book club pick is the great Holocaust memoir NIght by Elie Wiesel. Will the new argument that “memoirs don’t have to be true” spill over? There were some faked Holocaust memoirs actually. I think it’s important to know which stuff is factual (like Wiesel’s) and what isn’t.
The most amusing aspect of this whole thing is the irony deficiency of the book’s defenders. It is meant to be inspirational because of Frey’s unrelenting commitment to the truth, his acceptance of his own fault in his addiction. There is even an incident in the book where Frey imagines beating up some “Rock Star” who he thinks is embellishing his addictive actions to look good. Now who does that remind me of?
This story is so delicious it HAS to be fattening!
…
What gets me is that I probably end up in a bookstore once or twice per week during downtime at work, and it seems pretty impossible to ignore The Oprah’s book choices, yet I’ve never once heard of this book until I read the Smoking Gun article tonight.
My prediction: this guy’s gonna be open for all sorts of lawsuits from aggrieved family members of people who die failing to beat addiction based on the book’s gung-ho “just say no” method.