[LMo]

I'm currently reading it (not finished yet). I just found an update that he might have fabricated parts or all of it, but even if he did, it's still an eye-opening account of addiction.

Have any of you read it and if so, what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey

[Raynaadi]

Haven't read it yet, want to. Keep in mind that it's not all true, but it sounds like a great read!

~Rayna

[secretsoufflee]

Hello LMo - Yes I read it last year. Absolutely rivetting. Whether he used his imagination or not, the essence of the thing seems genuine to me.
I don't like the dentist much anyway; I think I like it a bit less now!
I don't have my own copy of the book to check this, but I seem to remember a pretty short and sudden leap to sobriety/flight to sanity at the end, as with celebs who give interviews immediately after treatment...not sure.
And that's just the way the media likes it I suppose.
My enduring memory is the sense of the (in his case) very rapidly tightening grip of the addictions. I mean, nobody STARTS OFF like that - it aint exactly a career plan - I think the book has made me more alert to the promptings of certain kinds of desire.....Thanks for opportunity to say a coupla things about it. ss

[JustBen]

I never read the book, but I wasn't at all surprised to learn that he made a lot of the more dramatic stuff up. I've known quite a few people in recovery who fabricated their story like that--they talk about doing more drugs and booze than they actually did, talk about law enforcement troubles they never had, etc. It's all delivered with this "Wasn't I just terrible!" attitude and then a twinkle in the eye that suggests that deep down they're glorifying themselves, too.

I read some by him but this comment is about authors in general not specifically him -

sometimes authors change what actually happened by adding details that didn't happen and or changing names and places and or leaving things out so that those - family friends acquaintences that may recognize them and the situations they write about don't recognize them and the situation.

[LMo]

Yeah - that's my point - why is he being persecuted for doing that? Isn't that NORMAL? I mean, it's HIS book - why can't he do that without Oprah raking him over the coals?

Yes it is normal. I am the type of person that writes to authors that really make me think and challenge myself by what they write, and also those that I really can't put away after turning the last page. Not all but quite a few wrote under pseudonames (whatever that word is that is eluding my train of thought at the mement) and have changed some of their life events around by reverising the order or mish mashing lots of situations into one and so on. I myself have chosen a pen name to write under because it would not be good if certain people recognized certain things my poems talk about. In My autobiograpy I am in the process of doing name, place and date changes, and I have been told by published authors my doing this is perfectly normal and alot of authors do it. The problem with doing this is there is a fine line that distinguishes books that are non fiction (real, based on truth) and fiction ( made up novels). If the person is marketing the book as non fiction there are certain changes that can be made (names places and date and mish mashing more than one situation into one) without the book falling into the fiction catagory. But adding TOO much made up situations pulls the book and author into controversy of is it really a work of nonfiction or is it really fiction.

The book Sybil is a great example. Both the doctor Wilbur and Shirley Mason (sybil) are dead. diaries and files and paintings were found in "Dr Wilburs" basement points to some if not all of those situations in the book were added for dramatic purposes of the movie. Basically the orginal manuscript is different from the book that is now being sold on the market. Its still being sold because people are still buying it. But there is a new movie being talked about or being made (I can't remember which it is) that will depict the true version based on those newly located files, painting and diaries. Depending on how different the original manuscript ,files, and paintings are will depend on if the version on the market now continues to be labeled as non fiction.

This was probaby the point Oprah was trying to make - how much chage can a person make to their books and still call it a true story. Maybe Oprah or whoever wrote wrote in asking about him or her shows writers feels he crossed that fine line from nonfiction into fiction.

Only Oprah knows why she was as you say "raking him over the coals". But also Oprah got to the top by looking at all the angles not just the good side of things. So I just chalk Oprah doing this with this book and author as she's just being Oprah that everyone who watches her loves.

[JustBen]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
LMo said:
Yeah - that's my point - why is he being persecuted for doing that? Isn't that NORMAL? I mean, it's HIS book - why can't he do that without Oprah raking him over the coals?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree that he can write whatever he wants, but if he's going to promote it as non-fiction then he can only go so far without losing credibility. Changing dates, names, locations, etc. seems like a good idea, but if you're flat-out fabricating things (like the infamous dental scence) or exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness (saying that you spent 17 months in jail when you actually spent less than a day) then you have to expect some backlash.

As for Oprah, from what I've heard she promoted that book like crazy on the strength of the "testimonial" Frey gave on her television show. When it comes out that most of his "true life" story was a pack of lies and distortions, I can't blame her for raking him over the coals. After all, it's her name on the book club and her reputation she puts on the line to promote the book.

Here's another thought...Frey had to know that Oprah was going to tear him a new one when he agreed to come back to the show, but no one forced him to do it. He decided to do it. Why would someone do that? The only explanation I can think of is that he knew it would result in more book sales. I don't think too highly of him, and not because he was an addict or a criminal, but because he's a shill.

My two cents, for what their worth. (Probably about 1.5 cents.)

[Raynaadi]

[drunksunflower]

Yup, as a work of fiction (many authors use their own backgrounds and friends' backgrounds as fodder for the writing journey) it is awesome. Very beautiful and disturbing piece of work.

Passing it off as an autobiography is simply weak.

My Friend Leonard (the sequel) is also brilliantly written. As a fictional story.

I admire his writing talent, but my cynical side says that he promoted his books as autobiographical to make sure of sales.

[Raynaadi]

I still haven't read it....not sure I'm going to. So much controversy, and I'm not sure I want to be "falsely moved". Then again, knowing it's not exactly accurate before I read it gives me the advantage. Maybe some day, when I'm feeling the need to keep it green, and experience the gratitude of my own honesty.