I've been tracking this story for weeks, thinking about the same sorts of questions you've eloquently noted in your blog entry.
Here are my relevant del.icio.us links, for those who are interested:
http://del.icio.us/ghwlinks/jamesfrey
You raise some great points. I plan on using the Frey incident as part of a lecture in my Critical Thinking class. I require my students in my Law classes and my Critical Thinking class to provide me with an explanation as to why they choose sources for their papers. I believe that students often choose a source just for the sake of choose a source without any real thought into whether it is appropriate or not.
I just wrote in my blog about a conference paper I've had accepted on Frey.
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/highb...a-
turnpike.html
Good points!
I actually like Oprah's suggesting books. A lot of people are reading books they otherwise wouldn't because of her, and many of those books are pretty darned good.
I think we need to think more critically all around about the "belief" that the narrative voice really is the author's voice, even if s/he insists it is. I just imagine Chaucer standing up after reading a bit of the Canterbury Tales to wide laughter and insisting, "No, really, that's exactly what happened!"
thanks for the links, zombie!
I agree, Bardiac -- as someone who teaches literature, cares about literature - I'm just happy that people are reading books. And I have no problem with Oprah being a source for recommendations (though apparently judging from some conversations I've heard lately, many older colleagues are made quite anxious by this)
Rather than critical thinking it sounds like mystical thinking to view Frey's fraud as pregnant with literary implications. It should not be so hard to distinguish between telling a fictional story and lying. This about the book jacket, not about the book.
Commenting by HaloScan
