I gave up at the end of page 2 on The Smoking Gun.
The length of the article itself, not exactly established with the reader in mind, suggests that they went to great effort to establish their information and to publish it with no room for misunderstanding.
I hadn't heard of this guy they are on about, but they seem very believable.
If you want real US prison stories, check out Jons Jail Journal, a brilliant read (but I won't insult you by linking it here)
It seems to me that if you're relating history ...
... okay. If I wanted to tell a story about a childhood, that's one thing. But if I'm going to state it's about my childhood ... I shouldn't suppose it'd be too wise to make things up. Especially if they involve other, and real, people.
He couldn't get it accepted as fiction -- maybe it became a sexier story once people thought it was real... 
At first I thought maybe it was a "perception of reality" argument... but the more I read about the subject it seems like the guy at the very least made up his prison record.
Odd stuff.
I read too that it was rejected 17 times as a fiction novel... then finally picked up. The publisher decided to take the memoir route... and Frey didn't object- nor, acording to him- did he need to change a single word.
*scratches head*
... I'll check out that book Cheryl. Thanks.
I tried to read the book. I was about a third of the way into it when it became a little too "real" for me and I had the sneaky suspicion that something was amiss. I never finished it and wasn't surprised to find out there were questions about its "authenticity."
I hear Random House is offering a refund if you bought the book directly from them. Interesting development! What I find even more interesting/weird... is that this is some Reporter's story. Not that it shouldn't be... but can literature really withstand journalistic scrutiny?
People misunderstand metaphores all the time. Especially me. 
Anyway- he's on "Larry King" tonight. I think I might watch!
Here's an interesting something from the Baltimore Sun...
Memoir-writing: Stick to the truth or take liberties?
Sometimes a persons life story seems quite untrue. Although I don't lie about anyone, I never thought about someone going around asking if the things I write about are true. Because of the abuse, and the nature of the abuse, I don't think many people would own up to what I write about.
I've never considered a book. I've always wrote to get my past out side of me. Writing has helped me.
I don't think I've pushed the limits on any truths as I remember them, but I'm not perfect and memories can be different from actual events.
However, I think I would know the difference from a few hours in jail from a few months.
Yep.
It's such a tough one. I think it's a given that most memoirs play with time and sequence of events. I also think that they are much more interesting when the writer uses literary devices to help them get at the bigger meaning of their life and story. But quoting you, "I think I would know the difference from a few hours in jail from a few months." That's a hard fact to get over.
In the end I think all of it makes for a great discussion about how culture changes literature and what is truth and what's a lie... Wild wacky stuff!
I'll still buy the book.... and I'll still listen to Johnny Cash.
It's hard for an outsider to see through what really happened. I'd probably feel patronized if I read something supposedly real and then found out it wasn't. It would destroy the author's credibility.
But this reminds me of a few other similar variations:
1) Jerzy Kosinski (probably best known as the author of the book "Being There" which was later filmed)
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/...9610/
myers.html
He wrote some autobiographical or semi-autobiographical works which were later questioned. It was also speculated that he didn't even write all of his works.
2) "The Papalagi" a book written in the 1920's purported to be a collection of talks by a South Sea chief to his people about European civilization. Of course he saw through all the bullshit and saw how civilized Europe really was. Later it was found out that the author was a European journalist. Still the book stands as a great satire/social criticism.
I think truth is more flexible in a memoir than in an autobiography. A scholarly work has to adhere to the facts more than a work of literature. Hell, Ben Franklin spiced things up.
The fact that he shopped it around as a work of fiction first, and then as a memoir, plus all the media coverage, makes it seem like there's more than a little "any publicity is good publicity" going on. The whole hullaballoo seems a bit manufactured to me.
Addicts, alcoholics and criminals lie? Oh my freakin’ god - tell me its not so!!!! Ever since that dweeb at the New York Times made up all that shite as the real deal and it got published everyone’s lookin’ for the truth and accuracy in even the most minute of details and for what? So that it can be accurate to the very last quote? Hell, most of the time reality is a wee bit of a bore – that’s why we all go to the movies, its called fantasy! And if ya don’t nudge the tale an inch here and a smudge there well – who the hells gonna read the damn thing? Believe me embellishments are nine tenths of the truth in nine tenths of the memoirs that we’ve all read! And if they weren’t there we’d be bored and the friggin’ book’d be out with the trash, like gonesville baby!
I just think James Frey sucks because he wrote the book before I did! THAT LIAR!!!!!
The way that I look at it, it's his memoir. If he chooses to embelish, that's his choice. If the story is a good story, that's all that really matters. It is not as if he is selling a newspaper.
I came to tell you that this week in LIP (www.livinginpoetry.blogspot.com) is having a tribute to .:A:. who had touched us with his poetry and writings.
Hope you can take time to read it
CONTEST OVER AT MY PLACE.
Commenting by HaloScan
