In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A Million Little Mistakes

Liza commented on the not-James-Frey-again-for-the-love-of-Jesus post:

as to the Frey thing … I’m fascinated by this whole “betrayal” drama. Why don’t people feel betrayed by the falseness of reality TV but with a book like this is different? It’s because people who think of themselves as smart and cool are outraged not by the lie but by the fact they got snookered? I think Frey is not the issue. Snobbery is.

Perhaps because the scare-quotes around “reality” TV are understood by this point? Teevee has been fake fake fake since “The $64,000 Question” scandal. While people might be happy to ignore many of the levels on which they’re being manipulated–and, okay, maybe that’s where the anger comes from–the idea that this stuff is choreographed is an open secret. Plus, reality teevee itself has become more and more literally choreographed–a “reality” obstacle course, or a “reality” game show–as the audience has become less inclined to award it the veneer of legitimacy it may once have had. The real people are thrown into increasingly contrived situations.

I think that “reality” in the sense it’s being used in “reality television” is better understood as a fictional genre attempt to evoke reality than an attempt to be real. I think that part of the lure of “reality” is not the idea that these people will react naturally, but merely that they will react unprofessionally. They’re not actors, just people living anxiety dreams.

James Frey, on the other hand, was not attempting reality literature by telling stories his audience knew had to be embroideries. (Smackdown: My Life and Times as a Pro-Wrestler.) We’re got stories that evoke reality already, including stories that evoke reality by openly mimicking journalistic or autobiographical accounts; they’re called fiction and they call themselves fiction.

James Frey lied knowing that most people would probably not know that he was telling lies. His protagonist was not a clown walking onto a deadfall or even a gladiator in the ring; his protagonist was a real live human being living a real life. Him. Us. We were supposed to empathize, not applaud, when something awful happened.

His subject matter also touched on an actual life, not an experimental hiatus from real life. The scenarios generally presented on reality teevee shows are presented as, well, scenes. They’re controlled environments, and when the show is over everyone gets to go home. You don’t actually get hurt, injured or killed. You don’t actually lose all your money. You don’t actually have to start again from zero. The level of reality that James Frey falsely claimed was more documentary than “reality.” Imagine getting all the way to the end of Thin Blue Line and then finding out that Errol Morris just rounded up a couple of drinking buddies and had them read from a script. Imagine seeing a “reality” teevee show about putting various temptations in the way of an addict so that the audience can see his or her fuckups in all their horrifying glory. (I’m not saying people wouldn’t watch. I’m saying it’s in a different class from The Apprentice.)

If there is a certain amount of chagrin amidst all the rage–and I agree that there is–I think it might have to do with how very easy people were to fool, and how very eagerly they assumed the role of fact-checkers. It got reviews like this:

Anger, hurt, love, and pain are all laid bare; his writing style is as naked and forthright as the raw emotions that life in the rehab center brings to the surface. Starkly honest and mincing no words, Frey bravely faces his struggles head on, and readers will be mesmerized by his account of his ceaseless battle against addiction.

(The reviews also tended to call him a crappy writer.)

People who probably had never struggled with addiction were calling this an authentic account of addiction. A tissue of lies cannot be authentic, but this book apparently cannot claim verisimillitude, either. To hear Heather King tell it, most people with actual experience with alcoholism and drug addiction would immediately twig to its inauthenticity:

I’m not sure where his Hazelden was, for example, but it couldn’t have been more different than mine. When I washed up on its shores, nobody told me I had to believe in God and join a “Program” and that I’d drink again if I didn’t. Nobody gave me a coloring book. Nobody made me do a moral inventory with a priest. Nobody said I had to be on “constant alert,” for the rest of my life, against cross-addictions.I wasn’t thrilled to be there either, but the place where I spent 30 days was acountry club-like facility, manned by an expert staff, and peopled not with Hollywood caricatures, butstruggling, flesh-and-blood human beings like me. The place Frey describes is a combination federal prison, inner city detox and B-movie stage set. Who were these vicious thugs (though never as vicious as the macho James, who, in spite of his supposedly severe physical, mental and emotional degeneration, never once in the course of the entire book comes out on the losing end of a showdown) who have the thousands of dollars and/or health insurance to pay for a state-of-the-art rehab? Who are the gatekeepers who let him leave the premises, rendezvous with his tormented rehab girlfriend at a crack house, and breeze back in? Who are these shadowy Dr. Mengele types provoking screams from the medical unit? The only screams I heard during my stay were of laughter—at people who made lame-ass statements like “I have lived alone, I have fought alone, I have dealt with pain alone.” With two rich parents, a decent education and an array of loyal friends? Please!

(Incidentally, a bunch of transpeople were saying similar things about JT Leroy’s stories and public persona. That and that if JT Leroy were real, she’d probably have exes, housemates, best friends, and nemeses all over the place.)

Way back, before I found out they were making the movie anyway and decided never to mention JT Leroy’s name again, Pam Noles wrote in her blog about this story (follow-up here), which is also discussed here.

And the same dynamic emerges: people who are not only not-Navajo but who clearly don’t know anything about them are calling an account authentic:

The Boy and the Dog Are Sleeping was published to more glowing reviews — “vivid and immediate, crackling with anger, humor, and love” (The Washington Post) and “riveting… lyrical… a ragged wail of a song, an ancient song, where we learn what it is to truly be a parent and love a child” (USA Today).

Predictably enough, the people who would actually know are not fooled for a moment:

Morris has suspected for years that Nasdijj is not who he says he is. A full-blooded Navajo and a professor of literature and Navajo studies at Dine College in Tsaile, Arizona, on the Navajo reservation, Morris is among the world’s foremost authorities on Navajo culture. Shortly after The Blood was published, he saw Nasdijj’s name listed on the national index of Native writers. Under the author’s bio, it said Nasdijj claimed his name meant “to become again” in Navajo Athabaskan. This came as news to Morris, who is fluent in Athabaskan. “There is no word ‘Nasdijj’ in the Navajo language,” he explains. “It’s gibberish.”

(snip)

While a non-Navajo may see these gaffes as minor, Morris asserts they add up to a character that doesn’t exist. Like a rabbi eating pork or a Hindu beating his cow, they are culturally incriminating; and the book is littered with them, he says. Nasdijj writes that as a boy his mother used to have sings (a religious ceremony) for him to familiarize him with his culture. “That’s a communal activity,” Morris says. “To have a sing by yourself is highly aberrant behavior. Like holding a church service for yourself.”


22 thoughts on A Million Little Mistakes

  1. Yes yes yes, very well said.. I’ve been surprised by how many people are inclined to dismiss Frey’s deceit as a tempest in a teapot, and attribute his audience’s sense of betrayal to the increasing weirdness of our relationship with “reality” in media (reality tv, hip-hop’s obsession with “realness”), instead of taking it as the natural response to, well, getting betrayed.

    You are indeed entering a totally different relationship with your audience when you put out a non-fiction book, than when you offer up a “reality tv” show.. I don’t think many people turn on Flavor of Love expecting a Frederick Wiseman-style documentary 🙂

  2. Hestia, your post is perfect. I have now bookmarked your blog. =)

    I have to preface this by saying I have not read the book yet. My desire to support a writer who seems to me to have been a basically normal guy swept up in a tornado of corporate interests and control makes me want to go buy it now, and I probably will, but I am speaking now simply from what I’ve read online and the sound bytes and clips I’ve seen on TV.

    I don’t get the obsession with this “scandal” either. The genre of memoir has always meant to me “based on a true story” or “inspired by actual events,” or “the truth as I experienced it.” Did James Frey struggle with addiction? Did he go through rehab? Yes? Then, there’s a skeleton of truth there, I’m happy to take the rest with a grain of salt.

    Reviewers sometimes describe recognized fiction as true and authentic. Wally Lamb has never been a 13-year-old fat girl, but it is still common to hear people say “wow, he nailed it. that’s exactly right.” All writing is based on the author’s experience, making it true through their eyes. All of us strive to write something that rings true for the reader. If something you read touches you, as James Frey’s account of overcoming addiction did for many, then it was worth reading. Who cares if it’s true? (I know, if you say it is, it should be. I refer back to my understood definition of memoir and Hestia’s excellent description of it.)

    I must also say that I suspect the publishing company of being the driving force behind the way the book was marketed. He looked like a deer in headlights when Oprah had him on so she could protect her image by destroying him on national television. Did he make some poor decisions? yeah. He needs to take some responsibility, but I can easily imagine Random House executives telling him “don’t worry, it’s fine, this is how it’s done. everyone knows memoir is somewhat fictionalized. you’re not lying.” He doesn’t deserve to be reviled in the literary world forever more and lose his book deals.

  3. I don’t get the impression that most people perceive the boundaries of memoir so widely drawn? Especially when the author is promoting it as the “raw, unvarnished truth” and so on.. Surely most readers know that a certain amount of artifice comes with any good storytelling.. but Frey took things much farther than they could consider reasonable for that purpose..

    JesC, I think the approach you describe to these books is right on, readers are willing to presume a certain amount of embellishment as long they can trust there is a skeleton of truth.. the question becomes where do people draw that line, how much and which elements of a story are expected to constitute that skeleton.. I think that line has to be drawn differently in different genres and different media, and depending on how a particular offering is hyped and promoted.. clearly this time there was a major disconnect between the author/publisher and the public’s sense of where the line is..

  4. Frey has admitted to shopping the book around as fiction. When nobody bought it, he made it a “memoir” and didn’t bother changing much of anything, least of all making it factual. Further, he admits that he didn’t worry about that because he thought nobody would read it. Whoops.

  5. Frey has admitted to shopping the book around as fiction. When nobody bought it, he made it a “memoir” and didn’t bother changing much of anything, least of all making it factual. Further, he admits that he didn’t worry about that because he thought nobody would read it. Whoops.

    *Snort*

    And while this version (“I took all the fake stuff out, honest”) doesn’t exactly absolve the publishers of blame, it’s a pretty dishonest course of action.

  6. I guess I still don’t see why we need to “blame” anybody or call it “dishonest.” I tend to believe that authors can write whatever they want and call it whatever they want, and it’s up to the reader to decide whether or not to care about truth. Placing one’s faith in a book, any book, is to run the risk of disappointment.

    I understand people are upset, even if I’m not completely sure why. But I don’t know what we can do about it, except to remind readers that the burden of interpretation is on them, not authors. We can’t stick labels on books like we do on meat: “93% truthful!” We can’t require publishers to print only memoirs that meet a certain story-to-reality similarity standard. And we certainly can’t demand that authors refrain from hyperbole or metaphor or any literary technique.

    I suppose we could mess around with nomenclature, but that’s extremely tricky. Nonfiction. Creative nonfiction. Autobiography. Memoir. Audre Lorde’s concept of “biomythography.” Based on real events. Fictionalized account. Where are the boundaries?

    If I were king of the world, I’d use this as an opportunity to promote awareness–of one’s self and the world. I’m worried that too many people are dismissing Frey as a liar without considering their role as a reader.

    PS. Interestingly, readers don’t get upset when they learn that the events in a novel are heavily based on its author’s experiences. Isn’t that the same kind of betrayal–a reader’s trust in a certain degree of truth being broken?

  7. Hestia, would you feel the same if the false memoir were by a person known for their involvement in public affairs? Say, if Mark Felt’s memoir falsified elements of his involvement in Watergate? Or does you analysis turn on an assertion that the value of this memoir to the reader is as literature and not for the truth of the matter asserted?

  8. I understand people are upset, even if I’m not completely sure why. But I don’t know what we can do about it, except to remind readers that the burden of interpretation is on them, not authors. We can’t stick labels on books like we do on meat: “93% truthful!” We can’t require publishers to print only memoirs that meet a certain story-to-reality similarity standard. And we certainly can’t demand that authors refrain from hyperbole or metaphor or any literary technique.

    It’s not that you can’t tell fictional stories or create fictional/real hybrids. The problem is when you the writer refuse to admit to doing either one. James Frey attempted to do that. It’d be one thing if he hadn’t insisted that it was as truthful as Ivory soap is pure. Even if readers have an irrational tendency to care about “truth,” he exploited it–because, as at least one publisher had apparently told him, his product just wouldn’t sell as a narrative. Just as Barrus exploited self-congratulatory ignorance on the part of his readers.

    I suppose we could mess around with nomenclature, but that’s extremely tricky. Nonfiction. Creative nonfiction. Autobiography. Memoir. Audre Lorde’s concept of “biomythography.” Based on real events. Fictionalized account. Where are the boundaries?

    The fact that the boundaries complex–just like a lot of creative-proprietary concepts–doesn’t mean that all misunderstandings are the result of overdetermined standards. James Frey knew the difference between what he was writing and the fidelity to fact that would have made this more than a skeleton of truth fleshed out with fiction. That was why he was dishonest about the genesis of his story until people started digging up points of comparison to his life.

    PS. Interestingly, readers don’t get upset when they learn that the events in a novel are heavily based on its author’s experiences. Isn’t that the same kind of betrayal–a reader’s trust in a certain degree of truth being broken?

    When you read a novel like To Kill a Mockingbird, or Answered Prayers, or The Secret History, or Bastard out of Carolina, or Call it Sleep, the autobiographical source material is not difficult to glean from a quick glance at the biography below the author photo. I can’t think of too many cases in which an author has lied to downplay fidelity to or affinity with their real life, precisely because the value-scale operates in the other direction. If an author were to hide that similarity, I think that it would cause people to invest in the story merely as a narrative rather than as a “real” event: so, if they found out differently, they wouldn’t feel as though they’d been manipulated into caring more than they should.

  9. I write a weekly Internet advice column for writers. The public’s confusion about the blurred boundaries between fiction that may contain autiobiographical elements and memoir is painful to many serious writers. For a discussion of just one aspect, see my 3/24 column (linked to my name).

  10. People are upset because they got taken. They feel like fools. Frey’s story presented a perfect Behind The Music arc of rise, fall, and redemption, all packaged with a nice neat slogan. It was swallowed hook, line and sinker by people who have never dealt with addiction, and gave them the false idea that it was easy to clean yourself up if James Frey went through all that bad stuff and turned out fine. Consequently, it made it easier to judge those who are still addicts as weak.

    What I don’t understand is the people who get upset when they find out baseball players who are built like Seabiscuit take steroids. Duh.

  11. Since I write on reality tee-vee, I gotta jump in. Your description of the genre is dead-on – we watch precisely because people will act “unprofessionally.” People get to act like jerks with no real consequences and they might even get paid for it. Who hasn’t dreamt of being rewarded for letting your trashy id run wild?

    Reality television emphasizes its contrived nature with bizarre challenges, inapproprite voice-overs, and bad acting. Another thrill of reality TV is seeing how willing people are to make fools of themselves. Watching B-, C-, and D-list celebrities compete for prizes pushes the genre even more because you don’t know if you’re watching the person or the persona. It’s similar to the kick people get when the boom mike falls into the frame of the movie – the exposed convention is fun!

    Frey stinks, in my opinion, because he exuded authenticity. Reality TV people rarely go strutting around talking about how “real” they are, unless it is yet another part of an obvious routine. He was the best actor in the world. You couldn’t put quotation marks around his “reality” like you could on “reality” television. He’s so notorious now that not even the Surreal Life would take him.

  12. If the problem with Frey isn’t really what he wrote, but how he defended it and “strutted around,” then the book itself has nothing to do with it. But then people should be upset with the book’s marketing, not the fact that Frey wrote A Million Little Pieces in the first place. Is that really what’s going on? Are people feeling betrayed by the book, or by the way reviewers, critics, the publisher, Oprah, and Frey himself has portrayed it?

    If it’s the latter, then this is a conversation about the media, not literature. There’s a huge difference. It means that pure reading experiences are rare, that we read books only after we’ve learned a certain amount of information about it and the author. It also means that my argument is meaningless. If we require other people to tell us how to approach a book before we can get anything out of it, then we begin reading with certain expectations, and when they’re thwarted, we’re outraged in proportion to how strong those expectations are.

    That makes sense. I don’t like it, but it makes sense. If I were king of the world, people would come to art with no expectations at all, and they’d learn something of value with every interaction and reaction, even when it’s disgust or fury.

    Thomas, I think libel is wrong, so in that respect a falsification of facts would be unacceptable. But exaggerating or even inventing the details of an event, even one as imprinted on the public’s conscious as Watergate, is a perfectly acceptable literary device in a memoir. As with Frey, readers would probably notice pretty quickly where the story doesn’t match up with other accounts. So then they have to choose who and what to believe, and why. That kind of analysis is essential in a society.

    If you want the facts about something, read a newspaper, not a memoir.

  13. “If you want the facts about something, read a newspaper, not a memoir.”

    Agreed, but doesn’t that, in itself, entail reading a work only after we’ve learned a certain amount of information about it and the author? ..to some extent, requiring other people to tell us how to approach it before we can get anything out of it?

  14. Hestia, I expect you were not being entirely literal, but it bears saying that newspapers are not the only works of journalism. Journalists also write books that purport to be accounts of the facts. And people whose training is neither literature nor journalism write memoirs. I do agree with you that whether the account is 100% accurate is a question of what the text is presented as, and not a question about what’s in the four corners of the text. But to the extent that the author is the one doing the purporting (outside of the text), then I hold the author responsible. That is to say, if an author presents a memoir without comment, then if I buy it and read it I will do so as literature. (Which is to say that I will probably not buy it — I’ve read exclusively non-fiction for years now.) If he presents it and says that it is an accurate account of the events described therein, I expect it to be the truth, and if it the author has written something that he knows to be false, I believe I’ve been defrauded.

    I think our relationships with text drive our views. I’m a litigator. I mostly interact with text as a series of assertions of fact and arguments therefrom, or in the form of rules. I have almost no concept of a literary reading experience. Rather, I interrogate text for what it says and what it omits; the reading it will bear and the reading it will not.

  15. I’m a recovering alcoholic and cocaine addict, currently in AA. I’m also a feminist PhD scholar. (As such I’m posting anonymously).

    What really frustrated me about Frey’s book (which I read pre-scandal) was that it demonizes AA, and it makes people feel guilty or weak if they can’t just “fix” their addictions on their own. I don’t think AA is for everyone, and I definitely believe there are multiple ways to tackle addictions. BUT Frey’s conception of fixing “addiction” is fucking ridiculous. You’re supposed to put yourself in really risky situations and be super mega STRONG to beat your addictions. Yeah right! Any recovering addict is told to stay out of bars, parties, etc. Going and sitting and staring at a glass of whisky is a one-way ticket to relapse for plenty of people.

    Frey has never been in AA. Frey does not know jack about the recovery community. I am in AA and I do know, and I’ll say that there are plenty of cool, smart, interesting, intelligent, critical people in recovery who are struggling with addictions and need validation and help from others. What they DON’T need is a spoiled ex-frat boy on a macho penis kick telling them how they should manage their addictions.

  16. There is a distinct reason, last I knew, why libraries and booksellers and publishers make the distinction, “fiction” or “non-fiction”. This leads those who peruse such areas to believe that a fiction is a story not based in real experience, whether gleaned from real experience or not. “Non-fiction” which I believe the memoir genre falls into enjoys the advantage of obtaining the readers’ trust that most if not all of the work describes real past events or experiences.

    In a ‘memoir’ or for that matter, an autobiography, most readers understand that the experience of the author is dominant to the theme and that some others who participated in the same events may interpret described events differently.

    That is markedly different than an individual concocting a peice of complete fiction and then enjoying the comfort of trust the public places in the description, ‘memoir’.

    Authors have a responsibility as story tellers, or truth tellers to honor the trust of the audience which pays their way and buys their books and possibly even acts on their greater message, if there is one.

    To betray this trust is indeed grevious and when dealt with cavalierly, will indeed erode the trust the audience has for the writer. The written word is still the most powerful medium there is to get a message across and the bruh-hah-hah about frey also illustrates the important trust an author has with their audience. When this breaks down, then how will the voice of any author be valued or trusted?

  17. “It means that pure reading experiences are rare, that we read books only after we’ve learned a certain amount of information about it and the author.”

    But we all do that for some books, right? I mean, I wouldn’t bother with, say, a medical reference book without getting some information about it and the author first. For fiction, I wouldn’t care. Memoirs are sort of in a space where some people may read them like fiction and not care so much, but others will care.

    If I read a memoir and later heard that there had been minor adjustments to the timeline and that a couple of characters were composites, it wouldn’t phase me. But if I read a memoir of something I actually knew something about (say, a memoir about growing up in Greece during World War II and the civil war which followed – which is just where and when my father grew up), saw lots of stuff in it that just seemed wrong, and then found out it was because the author had actually made the story up, I’d be annoyed.

Comments are currently closed.