Thoughts on James Frey and his "million little lies"
My mom is a fairly practical person and only really enjoys
reading things that “really happened.”
She would be a prime target for authors like James Frey. And here’s the thing, if all of the things
that he says happened to him “really happened” to him it would be a story worth
hearing … on its own … no literary embellishment. But for things that are made up, well authors
seem to have to give them some added value, some literary manipulation of
literary devices like foreshadowing, metaphor, etc. Sort of like they’re making
a puzzle that is challenging, surprising, yet completely comprehensible that
brings us satisfaction through our experience of it. Stories of events that “really happened” don’t
have to incorporate literary devices to be satisfying. The simple act of survival is “puzzle” enough
for readers to feel satisfied with their experience. As Winfrey herself said, "I know that, like many of us who have read
this book, I kept turning to the back of the book to remind myself, 'He's
alive. He's okay” (as cited by The Smoking Gun, 2006). Talk about a page turner, a compelling read,
and all because Frey simply said it “really happened,” not through any literary
appeal factors like “Likeable,” “Intricately-Plotted,” or even “Fast-Paced.” This isn’t necessarily a problem (just like
it’s not necessarily a problem that James Patterson runs a literature factory,
even if it’s slightly distasteful to some of us). The author of a story that “really happened” did
invest the time to live the story, they don’t have to necessarily invest time
to now “craft” the story for readers to engage with it. The “investment” is there. The genuineness is there. But that’s why James Frey’s lies about the
origins of his book are kind of repugnant.
Frey basically tricked readers into not holding his work up to any real
standard of authorial craft. He, at
least allegedly, is lazy, cowardly, and incompetent as a writer and so insisted
that his book “really happened” so he could bank on readers engaging with it,
because, well, it really happened! With that magical phrase Frey doesn’t have to
carefully balance a plot and character development so that readers stay engaged
intellectually and emotionally. Frey
doesn’t have to craft a plot that stands up to readers’ critical thinking
skills. Anytime readers grow uncertain
of their engagement with his story they just assure themselves, “Well, it did
really happen,” and push their doubts aside and marvel, not at the craft but at
the survival. And that’s fine. That’s what readers were paying to read. The survival.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be what they were getting and that doesn't seem fair to me.
Work Cited:
A Million Little
Lies. (2006). Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/million-little-lies
I agree that it's not fair of Frey to, more or less, lie about the events in his book. I can understand embellishing a true story to make it more interesting; they do that in a lot of movies that are based off of real events. But they're always advertised as such. "Based on" is the key phrase. The reader/watcher understands that the plot for the story is true, but that events may not have happened word-for-word. To sell something as a 100% true story when it's not is just wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your theory that Frey is less of a craftsman because of his lies. You call him incompetent and lazy, but his written word was still able to bring multiple people to tears (if Oprah is correct). It seems that though Frey's decision to lie is morally bankrupt by my standards, he still can write well. Oprah's tears were probably not just a response to the story but also the way it was told which I think does show craft.
ReplyDeleteWell, certainly there is some craft in his writing. There was a tell-tale clue in the Smoking Gun article about the "centrality" of the event in Ohio or something which indicated to me that he had "crafted" some rising action, a climax, etc. And I did go ahead and include the term "allegedly" in my vitriolic declaration of his qualities =) because I haven't read the book. How do I know really? And certainly moving Oprah to tears probably shows a certain writing ability, but actual tragedy and suffering should move us to tears without any literary trappings. Maybe I took too hard of a bent on Frey, but really I don't know if he can write. Maybe he can. But when your audience is flipping to the end to make sure you're still alive at the end that speaks more to spectacle than writing ability for me.
DeleteI think that his lack of craftsmanship was more evident due to the manuscript's rejections when marketed initially as fiction. There are also numerous reviews out there from before the book was revealed as not-so-nonfiction that view it as decidedly "meh." Here's a Publisher's Weekly review: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-385-50775-2 and here's another write-up from Creative Nonfiction (the preeminent narrative nonfiction magazine): https://www.creativenonfiction.org/online-reading/whats-story-29 and another from the New York Times regarding the formulaic rehab-story quality of the book: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/books/books-of-the-times-cry-and-you-cry-alone-not-if-you-write-about-it.html
DeleteSo I'm not as certain that Oprah's tears were a response to the craft of the book. I think it was more along the lines of being concerned for a human life--and that she had just finished up the Summer of Faulkner in her book club and was looking to connect with anything contemporary at all.
I love your response! I think you're spot on! Full points!
ReplyDelete