After days of reading the James Frey controversey - which just will not die - I decided that I should add my own proverbial log to the fire.
To me, the whole debate is moot. I firmly believe that all nonfiction can't help but supply an element of fiction. People are upset that Frey embellished his true life experiences by dressing them up a little. But that's nothing new. Just think of Capote's In Cold Blood. Or David Sedaris' Elf Diaries. Do we really believe that Capote's visits to the prison went exactly as he said they did? Or that Sedaris thinks such witty thoughts instantaneously? Even when we're telling stories that happened to us at Trader Joes or at work, they take on an aspect of fiction. If we all reported events exactly as they happened, we might never laugh -- or cry.
So what I'm saying is that I don't think experience can ever, truly be told without a little fiction. And I think that's a good thing. That's where this sort of nonfiction becomes interesting, takes on a life and a voice. That's what makes its potential impact so great. If people are looking for writing without any embellishment, they should invest in technical manuals. Or US Weekly in a pinch.
Now if I'd read Frey's book, I hope I'd be able to come up with "embellishments" as funny as these: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44479
No comments:
Post a Comment