...deception, or just tweaking the truth? I recently read James Frey's A Million Little Pieces (AMLP), essentially a novel heavily based on former drug-addict Frey's six week stint in rehab. The problem was, the book was initially sold as an 'autobiography'- a term that promises the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As soon as Oprah recommended it on her show, it became a huge sensation worldwide. Frey was labelled the 'voice of a generation' (Chicago Sun Times) and the 'final word on the [drug abuse] topic' (San Francisco Chronicle). And then- shock horror- it came out that parts of the book were fiction. Of course, there was an massive backlash against the book, and I can understand why.
Why did readers feel so strongly against a book they previously enjoyed, whether it was true or not? Surely a simple discovery of mistruth could not take away what they personally got from the book? As with most emotional connections, the main issue is the breach of trust. Readers got to know Frey, laughed and cried with him, were appalled that one person actually withstood so much horror in the real world, the world that the readers live in- only to find out that they didn't truly know him at all. Those characters that the readers fell in love with- maybe even researched further to discover their true life stories- some probably never existed. That exclusive, 'truthful' insight into rehab was inaccurate all along. Frey's fans had felt that this book was special, but anybody could accentuate part of their life, claim it's a 'revolutionary' autobiography, and sell millions. They felt dumbfounded, deceived, and most of all, disappointed.
My friend recently told me that one of the recommended books in my blog post Top Ten Books From Our Travels, Three Cups of Tea, is shrouded in doubt over its authenticity (see this article for more: NY Times 'Three Cups of Tea' Article). Does this change the way I feel about the book? If I'm honest, yes, a little bit. One of the book's doubted truths is the exact moment that Mortenson discovered Korphe, the village that helped him and inspired the building of many Pakistani/Afghanistani schools: a fundamental turning point in Mortenson's story. Little embellishments to enhance the story are allowed; lies about the schools the Central Asia Institute (Mortenson's charity) have built, and being captured by the Taliban, are not. David Oliver Relin, the biographer, had a duty to portray Mortenson's experiences as interestingly- but as truthfully- as possible. Many readers not only invested time in the biography, but also money into the charity; if the book is therefore partially untrue, this is an even deeper kind of deception.
After Gregory David Roberts' Shantaram, which honestly declares itself as based heavily on fact but also fictional, it is difficult to sympathise with deliberate embellishments in order to sell a book. I really don't think Roberts suffered for not calling his book an 'autobiography'; in fact, it made me curious to discover more about the author himself. I do not doubt the factual element of the novel; his initial honesty makes me more willing to believe him, and he makes observations about Mumbai that only a local would know. Shantaram stood out from the crowd through its uniqueness, not its total authenticity; Roberts himself recognises the distinct appeal of combining the genres of fact and fiction in this shantaram.com interview (extract below):
Q. 6) When did the idea of an autobiography, with the city both as a character and as a backdrop, first strike you?
A. 6). With respect, Shantaram is not an autobiography, it’s a novel. If the book reads like an autobiography, I take that as a very high compliment, because I structured the created narrative to read like fiction but feel like fact. I wanted the novel to have the page-turning drive of a work of fiction but to be informed by such a powerful stream of real experience that it had the authentic feel of fact.
Would James Frey and Greg Mortenson (if the latter did indeed lie; I don't want to get sued by his publishers!) have been as popular if they had also presented their work as 'faction'- part fact, part fiction? We'll never know. How much damage did such accusations make to their books in the long term? All publicity is good publicity; admittedly, I might not have heard of A Million Little Pieces were it not for the controversy surrounding it. Knowing the original fuss did not put me off reading it in the slightest. Just because elements of the narrated rehab experience may not have been true, does this stop the book being an inspiration to drug users trapped by their habit? After all, Frey really was a drug user, and did actually go to rehab- even if he exaggerated his experience a tad. As a lover of language, I may be biased, but for me the highlight of AMLP was Frey's powerful, shocking first-person narrative, the immediacy of which sent shivers down my spine. After reading his website (which, obviously, is also biased), many of his readers feel the same way. Granted, he should not have lied, and for that reason he cannot completely be forgiven, but I would still read another of his books to experience his linguistic brilliance. I'll say it loud and proud: I loved AMLP, and would recommend it to anybody.
Does such an admission make me a hypocrit? I read AMLP knowing that it was partially untrue, whereas I read Three Cups Of Tea as an biography. In this sense, my opinion regarding the two books is skewed; I already knew AMLP was partially fictionalised, whereas I was one of the 'mugs' who believed- and still wants to believe- that Three Cups of Tea was all truth. As great as the writing is in its own right, I still desperately want it to be true. Are these alleged doubts borne from people wanting to make a quick buck- or is there truly no smoke without fire? I sincerely hope the former; this article, released a few hours ago, gives me hope: Daily Mail article: Mortenson denies claims. I'll certainly be following this story closely.
Either way, I think that all writers everywhere- myself included- should learn something from the three books mentioned here. Let your stories carry their own distinctive merit; don't try to claim that they're something else. The truth will out. It is so important to always be HONEST in your writing, both in genre and content; you owe it to your loyal readers, and to yourself.
Picture Sources:
Daily Mail
Google.co.uk
NY Times
 |
| Oprah confronts James Frey |
 |
| James Frey |
Why did readers feel so strongly against a book they previously enjoyed, whether it was true or not? Surely a simple discovery of mistruth could not take away what they personally got from the book? As with most emotional connections, the main issue is the breach of trust. Readers got to know Frey, laughed and cried with him, were appalled that one person actually withstood so much horror in the real world, the world that the readers live in- only to find out that they didn't truly know him at all. Those characters that the readers fell in love with- maybe even researched further to discover their true life stories- some probably never existed. That exclusive, 'truthful' insight into rehab was inaccurate all along. Frey's fans had felt that this book was special, but anybody could accentuate part of their life, claim it's a 'revolutionary' autobiography, and sell millions. They felt dumbfounded, deceived, and most of all, disappointed.
My friend recently told me that one of the recommended books in my blog post Top Ten Books From Our Travels, Three Cups of Tea, is shrouded in doubt over its authenticity (see this article for more: NY Times 'Three Cups of Tea' Article). Does this change the way I feel about the book? If I'm honest, yes, a little bit. One of the book's doubted truths is the exact moment that Mortenson discovered Korphe, the village that helped him and inspired the building of many Pakistani/Afghanistani schools: a fundamental turning point in Mortenson's story. Little embellishments to enhance the story are allowed; lies about the schools the Central Asia Institute (Mortenson's charity) have built, and being captured by the Taliban, are not. David Oliver Relin, the biographer, had a duty to portray Mortenson's experiences as interestingly- but as truthfully- as possible. Many readers not only invested time in the biography, but also money into the charity; if the book is therefore partially untrue, this is an even deeper kind of deception.
 |
| Greg Mortenson: the founder of the Central Asia Institute. |
After Gregory David Roberts' Shantaram, which honestly declares itself as based heavily on fact but also fictional, it is difficult to sympathise with deliberate embellishments in order to sell a book. I really don't think Roberts suffered for not calling his book an 'autobiography'; in fact, it made me curious to discover more about the author himself. I do not doubt the factual element of the novel; his initial honesty makes me more willing to believe him, and he makes observations about Mumbai that only a local would know. Shantaram stood out from the crowd through its uniqueness, not its total authenticity; Roberts himself recognises the distinct appeal of combining the genres of fact and fiction in this shantaram.com interview (extract below):
 |
| Gregory David Roberts |
Q. 6) When did the idea of an autobiography, with the city both as a character and as a backdrop, first strike you?
A. 6). With respect, Shantaram is not an autobiography, it’s a novel. If the book reads like an autobiography, I take that as a very high compliment, because I structured the created narrative to read like fiction but feel like fact. I wanted the novel to have the page-turning drive of a work of fiction but to be informed by such a powerful stream of real experience that it had the authentic feel of fact.
Would James Frey and Greg Mortenson (if the latter did indeed lie; I don't want to get sued by his publishers!) have been as popular if they had also presented their work as 'faction'- part fact, part fiction? We'll never know. How much damage did such accusations make to their books in the long term? All publicity is good publicity; admittedly, I might not have heard of A Million Little Pieces were it not for the controversy surrounding it. Knowing the original fuss did not put me off reading it in the slightest. Just because elements of the narrated rehab experience may not have been true, does this stop the book being an inspiration to drug users trapped by their habit? After all, Frey really was a drug user, and did actually go to rehab- even if he exaggerated his experience a tad. As a lover of language, I may be biased, but for me the highlight of AMLP was Frey's powerful, shocking first-person narrative, the immediacy of which sent shivers down my spine. After reading his website (which, obviously, is also biased), many of his readers feel the same way. Granted, he should not have lied, and for that reason he cannot completely be forgiven, but I would still read another of his books to experience his linguistic brilliance. I'll say it loud and proud: I loved AMLP, and would recommend it to anybody.
Does such an admission make me a hypocrit? I read AMLP knowing that it was partially untrue, whereas I read Three Cups Of Tea as an biography. In this sense, my opinion regarding the two books is skewed; I already knew AMLP was partially fictionalised, whereas I was one of the 'mugs' who believed- and still wants to believe- that Three Cups of Tea was all truth. As great as the writing is in its own right, I still desperately want it to be true. Are these alleged doubts borne from people wanting to make a quick buck- or is there truly no smoke without fire? I sincerely hope the former; this article, released a few hours ago, gives me hope: Daily Mail article: Mortenson denies claims. I'll certainly be following this story closely.
Either way, I think that all writers everywhere- myself included- should learn something from the three books mentioned here. Let your stories carry their own distinctive merit; don't try to claim that they're something else. The truth will out. It is so important to always be HONEST in your writing, both in genre and content; you owe it to your loyal readers, and to yourself.
Picture Sources:
Daily Mail
Google.co.uk
NY Times
No comments:
Post a Comment