I Want the Truth!
As readers we all want to be entertained. Some of us want to engage ourselves in the work; others want to take a spectators view. Yet as readers, we want have certain truths.
For example, if I pick up a biography of Richard Nixon, I want to know that he resigned as President before being impeached. I don't want to read that he resigned because of personal issues.
Writers have an obligation to truth. But where does that obligation start and end? Fiction writers have a much easier time with this, as they only need to concern themselves with universal truths. Non-fiction writers have a strict obligation to truth or rather an obligation to present what they believe the truth to be.
When considering a memoir, one must remember that memory is closely tied to it. So where does truth fit in? If we write from memory, wouldn't that be blurring truth. Yes. But, if the intention is that of truth, that is that the writer writes what he believes happened, then truth is present. Even if someone recalls the incident a different way, the fact remains that the incident happened - the perspective distorts interpretation.
Frey blatantly disregarded truth and fabricated episodes. Lying does not involve memory. Lying is a conscious effort to distort or disregard the truth. Taking liberty is one thing, completely ignoring fact is irrevocable.
So what obligations does a non-fiction writer have...to be forthcoming with the reader, recall your story the way you remember not how you wished it happened. Memoirs and personal essays are fuzzy, but the writer must not mislead the reader. If composite characters are used, designate them as placeholders rather than integral components.
Rounding corners may be dangerous in some cases but in others could be perfectly acceptable.
At this point, I could take to paths: one where we just skated away (which never happened) that showed our blatant disregard of authority. Or, the path where we listened and were respectful to a certain extent (we skated when the shop was closed).
As a writer, I feel obligated to tell the truth or rather what I believe was the truth. While I may have been thinking about skating away from the cop, that never happened. I would be lying and would not be considerate to my reader.
For example, if I pick up a biography of Richard Nixon, I want to know that he resigned as President before being impeached. I don't want to read that he resigned because of personal issues.
Writers have an obligation to truth. But where does that obligation start and end? Fiction writers have a much easier time with this, as they only need to concern themselves with universal truths. Non-fiction writers have a strict obligation to truth or rather an obligation to present what they believe the truth to be.
When considering a memoir, one must remember that memory is closely tied to it. So where does truth fit in? If we write from memory, wouldn't that be blurring truth. Yes. But, if the intention is that of truth, that is that the writer writes what he believes happened, then truth is present. Even if someone recalls the incident a different way, the fact remains that the incident happened - the perspective distorts interpretation.
Frey blatantly disregarded truth and fabricated episodes. Lying does not involve memory. Lying is a conscious effort to distort or disregard the truth. Taking liberty is one thing, completely ignoring fact is irrevocable.
So what obligations does a non-fiction writer have...to be forthcoming with the reader, recall your story the way you remember not how you wished it happened. Memoirs and personal essays are fuzzy, but the writer must not mislead the reader. If composite characters are used, designate them as placeholders rather than integral components.
Rounding corners may be dangerous in some cases but in others could be perfectly acceptable.
I remember a time I was skating down on Main St. in my town. We grinded a rail outside a store, the owner called the cops. The cop came and...
At this point, I could take to paths: one where we just skated away (which never happened) that showed our blatant disregard of authority. Or, the path where we listened and were respectful to a certain extent (we skated when the shop was closed).
As a writer, I feel obligated to tell the truth or rather what I believe was the truth. While I may have been thinking about skating away from the cop, that never happened. I would be lying and would not be considerate to my reader.
posted by Red Head Matt at 8:54 AM
2 Comments:
I always find the line between truthiness (ty Stephen Colbert!) and non-truthiness to be very, very thin. Almost blurry.
If you write about an event in which only you have witness too and no one else to back it up, what's stopping the author to embellish a bit, or maybe lying to boost up a point for entertainment?
You know what it is? The author's conscience. If you don't feel bad about lying a bit here and there (aka James Frey) then you will have no problems publishing those non-truths. Or maybe you will, but if those non-truths make your book the #1 book on the New York Times Bestsellers Booklist and that equates money, maybe those bad feelings will melt away.
You raise a lot of good points - especially the point of if the author remembers it as it happens, then it's still remaining along the lines of the truth. James Frey not only embellished, he straight out made things up. The Smoking Gun reported that he tried to ship his manuscript as fiction first and as it all boils down, it turns out half of his words were lies. The funny thing is, if he didn't go on Oprah, this probably would have never went down.
But still, it seems like the reader doesn't want the truth after all. Even after the blow up with Frey, A Million Little Pieces still remainded in the top 10 (even #1) on the New York Times Best Selling List for the Nonfiction Paperback editions. Heck, right at this moment, it's #25. I won't lie, I even bought the book when this was going down to see what the whole brouhaha was all about. Frey is a good writer - very good writer and even though I read his work as fiction, I still enjoyed it. Sometimes, bad press = MONEY and FAME. Hell, Hugo Chavez could even sell books for Noam Chomsky (as witnessed by the Amazon.com and Chomsky's #1 position on it at the time). This society almost thirsts for controversy and having Ms. Queen Bee Oprah use Frey as a whipping post made more money in his pockets.
The truth? The truth? We can probably handle the truth, but sometimes, the reader doesn't want it.
Yeah. I agree with you. Writers have obligations. And I think you do a good job of reflecting on and articulating your personal perspective - something that will be there for you to draw on as you write.
But I guess what I am left with as I read about Frey - is a realization that individual writers' personal values are not what drive the market place - that cultural valuing of "truth" is somewhat different from what some of us value as writers. That in fact - we might value truth differently as readers than we do as writers - if you know what I am getting at. Eg I might never write a nonfiction book with lies in it, at least not intentionally, but I might buy one, or refer to it as a "good" book, and even kind of admire the author and the work in a twisted kind of way. I am not referring to Frey's book, which feels to me like exploitation in a strange way which might take a little long to explain here - but some of the writing by Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman - which I am sure wandered into theatrics and away from the truth it was claimed to be -- I took great pleasure in. It felt good to have certain lies told as truth, and I was just fine with it at the time.
So this issue leaves me nice and confused -- all ready for a good class discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home