Board of Aldermen

I'll get to Darek's proposed topics soon, but I wanted to briefly put out my thoughts on this James Frey subject. I find it rather problematic that on shows like Oprah the experts we speak with are publishers and journalists--even a professor of journalism--but no one in academic literary studies. I'm not sure, but I don't believe another writer even weighed on. The publisher at least spoke about the believability of Frey's book as the primary criterion for publishing, and "rebuked" Oprah when she suggested that Frey's book could've been released as a novel--the difference between memoir and novel are not so simple as the Book Club would have you believe. In any case, it depresses me that Oprah can't identify relevant expertise in this situation, but even worse is how quickly we turn to journalists, people much maligned as of late for their inability to say much that is either true or relevant. O's professor proposed some ridiculous rating system--why not have a rating system for journalism? Does this piece tell the truth? Is it relevant? Does it help anyone, or does it push Americans ever further into the culture of fear that nowadays generates 'news' ratings? Clearly this would be fascist, but why assail some silly (and probably skeezy, and almost certainly bad) writer when journalists make their bread on a daily basis using much the same methods? And besides all this, authors have been lying in supposed memoirs for hundreds of years! This is not news! I could say a lot about forced contemporary classifications having ridiculous effects on the way we perceive long existing cultural objects and practices, but instead I'll say this: on the whole, journalists at this point seem to create many more problems than they help solve. I don't care about James Frey. Get your "truth" out of my face.

Don't forget about the Darek's post!

I like what you had to say. I think the reason it made so much news is the fact that Oprah getting sucked in on national tv - twice - is interesting to the majority of the public.

Meade it's nice to see ya around again. Feel free to write on topic below.

What is the purpose of "A Million Little Pieces"? Like anything one reads recreationally, it serves to inform and/or delight the reader, bring about some insight, and the like. Doesn't Frey's book achieve this regardless of the degree of fiction involved? Journalistic integrity isn't the issue because Frey's book, memoir or not, isn't presenting the sort of truth that makes a difference; "real life" validity is moot in this case. Journalism experts have about as much business commenting on this scandal as Lil Jon does if Gatorade falsifies nutritional information on Propel.

I'd like to excerpt from an article on thesmokinggun.com: In emotional filmed testimonials, employees of Winfrey's Harpo Productions lauded the book as revelatory, with some choking back tears. When the camera then returned to a damp-eyed Winfrey, she said, "I'm crying 'cause these are all my Harpo family so, and we all loved the book so much."

This impact bears witness to the power, the emotional truth of the work. Are these revelatory experiences now meaningless because maybe the guy didn't go on a cracked-out rampage? Can't fiction move the reader as much as, if not moreso than, memoir? Is the "truth" somehow more valid as art? (I daresay not, shameless plug to my old Oscar Wilde post for more on that ...) I'm not alone in this opinion, apparently. From the same article, he embellished the degree to which he was involved in a train wreck: "As far as I know, he had nothing to do with the accident," said the mother of one of the dead girls. "I figured he was taking license...he's a writer, you know, they don't tell everything that's factual and true." (...because that's not what's important to the story [this is me talkin', not her])

At any rate, I heartily second Mr. Meade on this one. Once you drag Oprah into things, media attention has to follow.

full article: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html