Calling a fictional book non-fiction. Does it matter?

Great Debates
21

You mean like the Weekly World News?

Seriously, though, newspapers have had instances of people making things up – Jayson Blair, at the NYTimes – and there were ethical consequences to those circumstances. They’re practicing journalism, which is a particular kind of non-fiction with its own rules. Other kinds of non-fiction – like memoirs, or New Journalism – have different sets of rules.

I wouldn’t say I’m blase – I just think this is the kind of thing that’s best responded to on a case-by-case basis, rather than a binary it’s good/it’s bad system. What’s the lie? What are the stakes? What was the motive? Fudging around in a memoir is, to me, probably going to be a minor offense. Writing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to encourage people to exterminate Jews is a major, major, major offense.

Note that I have no opinion about the seriousness of Frey’s case, as I haven’t read the book. He may very well have crossed an ethical line, and would therefore piss me off. But I’d have to judge that based on his own case.

22

It depends on where the lines are drawn. I wouldn’t expect evry detail to be 100% correct but if there is too much that is completely false and made up I’d feel like the guy was lying to promote his book and I don’t much care for that sort of thing.

I tend to feel that way about Michael Moore and his “documentaries”

23

An appropriate example might be Edmund Morris’ Dutch : A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, which contained a number of scenes where Morris positions himself as an eyewitness when he was not, and inventing other characters. Some reviewers say Morris admitted it was a “historical novel”, even though Reagan had commissioned it as an authorized biography.

So should *any * of it be believed, or even read? I don’t see why. It’s fiction. No doubt there are Reagan idolators who will claim that it captured the essence of the man, and is therefore truer in a meta sense than mere facts could show. The pity is that they might be right.

24

That’s called lying, and “lie” is not simply a synonym for “fiction.” (He wasn’t trying to create a fictional account; he was simply covering for himself.) Even completely fantastic fiction has plausibility to it. Saying that an event could have happened, or may happened, is not the same as saying that it did. Especially if the latter is said outside of the context of the story itself.

You raise an interesting point here. But some authors, and Frey has now been outed as one of them, create credibility for themselves and their work by saying “it’s non-fiction!” With research, you can probably write about being an Alcoholic and an Addict and a Criminal without Actually Being One. But rather than go through all that, Frey said he’d been one to establish greater credibility (and reduce audience credulity).

It’s sometimes safe to assume that conversations in a memoir or non-fiction are paraphrased, even if there are quotes - little bits of dishonesty are apparently tolerated, and the author almost always tries to show himself in the best or most interesting light.

But if “the line” exists at all, and I think it definitely does, A Million Little Pieces seems to have stomped all over it. Come on: he made the whole thing up, and it apparently has zero resemblance to reality aside from the name “James Frey” and a few locations Frey was really in.

Frey had a lot to gain from people believing that his story was actually true. He has, or had, a permanent gig as an inspirational celebrity story and motivational speaker by virtue of what he’d been through. He doesn’t get that with a fiction book. His book is simply more interesting if it’s real, and so is he, so he pretended it was all true.

25

Good point. I’m reminded of the debunking of Go Ask Alice. A lot of people, it seems, are outraged by the idea that this clearly fictional “diary” is presented as having been written by a real teenager. I never thought it was real, and in fact, it was a while before I realized that there were people who did. So I can understand people feeling burned because they bought the whole bag when they were a kid, then looked at it from an adult perspective and had to say “Oh, come on…”

But there are two points of contention with that book that I think does not hurt its credibility, such as it is: the claim that “no one can go from living on the streets to having her own business”. Well, no, they can’t, but it wasn’t presented that way. Living on the streets and having her own business were two separate instances. And the boutique was plausible, in the context of Haight-Ashbury circa 1969-70. Pay first and last month’s rent on a storefront, stock it with some cheap junk (not painstakingly worked original jewelry, as some people also claim!), collect a few bucks, then skip out one step ahead of the landlord. Happened a lot in those days. The loopholes have since been closed, of course, but it was possible then.

Sorry for the hijack. Just always wanted to post that, but could never find the right thread.

26

I have not read this book myself, but I think I may just read it to see how true it rings because for a time being I lived in a world riddled with drugs and crime, and I know that world intimately. I have heard from other people who have pasts as drug users and have read the book, that even his drug use in the book did not ring true at all for them.

There are drug users, and drug addicts. I was a drug user. I did drugs, lots of drugs, many different kinds of drugs. I snorted, shot up, smoked, and swallowed them. I had fun doing drugs, and the next day, I never had more than a hangover, and I never had more than a passing desire to do them again. Most of the time I did drugs because they were free, and I was bored. Drugs were just another way of killing the boredom. Because I was not addicted, I was able to quit drugs with no more will power than deciding that I did not want to do them again, and avoiding the social circumstances that lead me to use drugs until I knew that those social situations would not tempt me to do the drugs. It has been about 8 years since I last did drugs. I will not do them again, I have no desire to do them again, and to be honest I rarely even think about them. Cigarettes though - damn I am hooked!

A drug addict requires more than that to recover. There is physical addiction, and a deeper psychological addiction, then there is learning to live your life with out drugs, and every day from the moment you quit, that there will be wanting and temptation, and knowing that if you as so much snort one line, have one drink, or whatever - that you are back on the drug train.

It is known that he spent time in rehab, but I suspect that James was a user, not an addict. And I have heard others say this as well.

As The Smoking Gun website says - Many of those who could address the veracity of his tale have “committed suicide, been murdered, died of AIDS, been sentenced to life in prison, gone missing, landed in an institution for the criminally insane, or fell off a fishing boat never to be seen again.”

In my world, I have lost a lot of people too, but although some major characters of his tale are gone, in any group, especially the underground of addiction, there are many people in your circle. Among people I have known, many are gone, but just as many remain - he should still have acquaintances that can verify his information, even if many friends are gone.

He claims he doesn’t want to be a poster boy, but he spoke at clinics to inspire people, and has said “If I can do it, you can do it,” but he has rejected 12 step programs and even said that addiction is a weakness not a disease. He cites the unorthodox treatment he received, and his own will power, no support, no program, nothing, and he is relapse free. This to me does not sound like an addict.

It doesn’t bug me that he conned Oprah and a bunch of her suburban house wife book of the month club members, after all to those who have never been addicts or even used drugs, this was akin to a novel, there is no risk in their lives for taking the story on face value.

It scares me deeply that even one addict may have eschewed AA or NA because of James Frey and his book. How many people have been harmed by this man’s lies?

And by the way, if you have a son or daughter or friend who is hooked (especially if they are counter culture and mistrustful of authority), get them a copy of Chris Walter’s biographical books. I know him, and I can verify the veracity of his biographies.

Go to http://www.punkbooks.com and pick up, “Mosquitoes and Whiskey”, “I was a punk, before you were a punk”, and “I’m on the Guest List”.

The truth of these tales and Chris’s road in excess, and his road back out will be more helpful to an addict than James Frey’s myths.

27

As long as we’re digressing into favorite addict books, A Fan’s Notes by Frederick Exley is pretty amazing. And Recovery, but John Berryman. Both are fictionalized autobiographies, like Frey’s, but they were upfront about it.

28

I just read A Million Little Pieces last night. I had heard about the controversy surrounding James Frey, but figured it would be a good read anyway. It was, and I think any discerning reader would realize that certain elements of the book were exaggerated for dramatic effect. He probably didn’t have oral surgery completely without anesthetic, but he sure wrote about it in a way that makes you think he did.

I think all of his feelings on addiction probably are true for him. It’s not always apparent to outsiders what someone is feeling when they are in withdrawal or in the process of getting clean. It’s different for everyone. I think his tales of being a badass were definitely exaggeration, as well as some of the personal relationships. However, the story would have been boring if he hadn’t added these dramatic elements.

Overall, I thought it was a good book, but I would absolutely not recommend it as the ultimate recovery tool. It’s one man’s story, and should be treated as such. If it inspires people, great, otherwise it’s just a story. Oprah’s followers look for deep meaning in everything, and most of them probably don’t know jack about addiction. This lets them believe they are getting an insider’s view, and I guess they are to some extent, but they need to tone down their adoration of James Frey and just appreciate him as a writer, not as a superhuman addiction guru. (Although I think he’s infinitely more helpful than “Dr.” Phil. :smiley: )

29

Addicts eschew AA and NA every day. Plenty of people can’t get on board with 12-step programs. I don’t see how anyone can point a finger at Frey. If someone is *that * suggestible, they are going to get screwed by any program they go into.

30

Biographies and autobiographies should be classified as other than fiction or non-fiction.

31

I read about that the other week. It caught my attention because here was someone pretending to be transsexual, but wasn’t. Great. Now I have someone giving the public a fictional version of what my reality supposedly is… meanwhile the true reality is ignored because it’s less sensational. If getting help for my GID depended on the public understanding my situation accurately, and if the published misconceptions screwed that up for me, then I would have a practical problem with it, but I don’t believe “Leroy” has any significance in the scheme of things. So it probably doesn’t matter.

What interested me was how someone thought transgender was attractive to the public and faked it to stimulate interest. Someone actually thought TG would sell? To me it’s mostly a cosmic screwup that makes my life immeasurably more difficult, why anyone would find that attractive is beyond me. I just thought it was curious if my problem had developed some cachet with the public. If awareness is ultimately being raised so that it becomes easier for me to get a little help and understanding, or at least get people to cut me a little slack, it might be for the better.

Remember one year ago, how Number Six faked transsexuality and was banned? I have never understood exactly what happened, but again someone thought TG would play in Peoria. Strange days have found us…

32

Regarding reclassifying memoirs and autobiographies, which are classified as non-fiction and James Frey’s book, Frey could have published the book as fiction and memoir’s are non-fiction books.

A little embellishment of the narrative in order to spice up the story is not an issue. Most writers of a memoir will embellish dialogue as part of the writing process. Memory can be slippery and perhaps taking an event or two slightly out of context, perhaps placing it before another event when it happened after is also within the standards of veracity expected within a memoir. Another author (and instructor of creative non-fiction), Mary Karr put it best:

A memoir, Karr said, is exceedingly difficult to write, even when you think you have all your facts straight. “You’re a solitary voice, telling a life story as truthfully as you can,” she said. “Even when you think (your memories) are true, you have to peck and push and nudge yourself,” she said. “Is that right? Could it have really happened that way?”

Where I see a difference between James Frey’s book, and the standards of non-fiction is that Frey created events, and in other words wrote fiction. I keep hearing that there is a room within the genre of memoir because the genre is new, but memoirs have been around for a very long time, and although there is leeway within the genre of memoir and non-fiction, the leeway extends to interpretation, retrospective reflection and dialog, not to wholly fabricating or wildly embellishing details and events.

“Manufacturing events wholesale is just morally wrong,” says Mary Karr, author of her own memoir, “The Liar’s Club,”

Frey originally wanted to publish the book as fiction, but his agent wanted to publish it as non-fiction. Frey made a choice to pass the book off as non-fiction although from his original intention to publish it as fiction, it can be surmised that he knew it did not qualify as such.

Because he published the book as non-fiction and now it is known that parts are fiction, it brings the whole book into question, including his addictions and no matter what he says because he fictionalized part and claimed by publishing it as non-fiction that it was true.

I am sure if he had published it as fiction which had been inspired by his actual experiences, many people who are now angry would not be, and the smoking gun and readers would have never cared which parts of the book were true or not and many would have thought some events were true, but by choosing to publish as non-fiction, all events in his book he claimed are true are suspect.

As for Oprah, and her pushing of the book as a self help book, Oprah’s site was asking “How has AMLP helped you?”. If Frey had published it as fiction, it is doubtful that Oprah would have hailed it as a self help book. I do not blame Frey from the lauding of this book as a manual for recovery, but I think Oprah is to blame on this front. As for suggestibility, many people, not just addicts are suggestible. Just take the amount of glurge we all get in our email as proof. Many people are willing to believe just about anything they read.

There are a few dangers I see in a book such as this being used as a manual for recovery.

James Frey’s book almost stereotyped the junkie, the hyperbole of a junkie he presented may prevent people from noticing that a co-worker who comes in late every monday morning is an alcoholic, or that their kid who has sliding grades and sleeps till 2pm on weekends is not just partying hard, but a drug addict.

Because of the dramatization of events in the book, some addicts and their families may think that rock bottom is a far deeper place and may not see the dangers of a lifestyle and less extreme drug use.

James book also presents a view that people can just walk away from addiction. Because the american ideal, is independence and self-reliance (like a cowboy), this is very appealing for people to believe that an addict can just walk away.

Some people can, some people have that will power and will be able to quit. Some people can’t. AA/NA and other alternative programs work for some people, although I know many people who don’t love the program, but still take what they like and leave out the rest.

When someone is quitting drugs or alcohol, support from friends, a family or a program is very important, I can see some people deciding to try to “Hold On”, instead of entering a program because of the belief that James could do it and family and friends sharing that belief, and when they fail at holding on, a greater feeling of failure than otherwise. Family and friends may also see the addict as weak, as James put it (he stated addiction was not an illness but a weakness).

“Hold On” is not a method that works for very many people because many addicts have a plethora of emotional and psychological issues to overcome along with addiction, and quite a few need to relearn how to cope with life, and themselves without substances, and as I said before James’ rejection of the 12 step model may have turned people away from a 12 Step who would have been better suited for it simply because they wanted to be like him, tough, brave, and independent.

James also classified addiction as a weakness not an illness. Addiction itself is not the illness, the obsession and the emotional and psychological issues that lead to and arise out of addiction are the illness. People can be addicted to food or gambling, and although neither cause a physical addiction, there is a cycle of pleasure/pain/reward that leads to the behavior which is the physical manifestation of the addiction. Addiction is an illness, and by calling it a weakness, and Oprah’s support of this, along with her readers support of this belief is something I see a risk in. Treatment for addiction and counseling for addiction is about treating the illness, and through support for the belief that addiction is not an illness but a weakness, it could have hampered a person’s recovery either in that they didn’t consider that they needed to be in group or counseling for the psychological aspects of addiction and be what AA members call a “Dry Drunk”, and at risk of slipping back into addiction, or indirectly because family or friends did not support the addict in a time they needed support because they saw the addict as weak, not ill.

33

Junkie. William Burroughs.

And May This House Be Safe From Tigers by Alexander King. Some of his stuff, while quite entertaining, had the ring of fiction (for instance, I recall reading an account of his taking a dead housecat onto the Staten Island Ferry in a paper bag, but had it stolen before he could dispose of it - a version of a classic urban legend).

King had this to say about why he stopped raising tropical fish:

*"You must understand that it’s not that I’m afraid of being tempted back into my costly hobby again. No, no! Not a bit of it. Quite the contrary. It’s only that I can no longer bear to look at all those dopey fish opening and closing their goddamned mouths a million times a day. It just gets me down. It gets me down because I know that those poor bastards aren’t simply breathing or gasping for air. I know for a fact that they’re all really screaming - screaming - like crazy. Yes, screaming and giving off heartbreaking, soul-shattering submarine howls. And, do you know what it is that they’re all shouting?

They’re shouting, “Look at Me! Please Look at Me! I’m so Original! I’m so Darling! I’m so Cute! Just Look at Me! and see how Unique I am! Look at me and Love me! Love me! Love me! Why don’t you Love me? Please! Please! Love me! Love me! Love me!”

That’s what these poor suckers are all saying. It’s awful!

And what makes it so terrible for me is that I know only too goddamned well that that’s exactly what everybody else is constantly saying too. I just don’t care to have a swampful of pop-eyed, screaming fish go on reminding me of it all the time."*
As to why it matters whether people like James Frey lie in their memoirs - note that Frey currently has two books on the N.Y. Times bestsellers list. It apparently matters a lot. :dubious:

34

I think something that should be considered in this case specifically is the credibility of an ex-drug addict.

How credible are the things most drug addicts say to begin with? Addicts are generally notorious liars. They lie about their addictions. They lie to family, friends, employers, and so on, in order to try and maintain their lives and manage their addictions.

So when an ex-addict writes a book about his life, a life which was already consumed with lying, there are already credibility issues. We have to ask, critically, what does this ex-addict want from us? What is he trying to say in order to distract us from his behaviors and his illness? What is he hiding? What is his real motivation behind the things he is saying?

Then, when we discover he’s made up all of these things in the book (from what I’ve read and I haven’t read the book), which don’t really add to the point of his story but instead just make him seem more anti-heroic (for lack of a better term), we then have to question if even the unexciting, bland parts are fiction too.

Essentially, he’s an ex-addict, who wasn’t scoring high on the truth meter to begin with. We want to give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing we may eventually be conned by him regardless. Then, surprise, we discover we were conned by him. And if we were conned by him to various degrees here and there, how can we trust that we aren’t being conned by him throughout the entirety of the book?

I acknowledge the truthiness aspect of memoirs since at least the 1990s. I realize it was trendy for people to write memoirs and essays that had fictional elements in order to drive the romanticism of an ordinary life. But we’re on rocky ground when it comes to an ex-addict. And he’s obviously betrayed reader trust, which is supposed to be considered implicit, when someone writes something they say is non-fiction.

35

The lies that addicts tell is one of the reasons recovery programs emphasize truthfulness in your life without drugs.

Because James has not embraced truthfulness as part of his recovery, there are people I know who either think of him as AA’s classic “Dry Drunk”, or consider him never to have been an addict.