one last thing. as a writer, i’ve got to say after the hundreds of rejections i’ve gotten, i’d sell my work as a memoir, a novel, an autobiography, a book of poetry, short stories, or a text book. i’d take it any way i could get it. you don’t pick a book up because it’s placed on the shelf that most properly and convienently catagorizes your interests as a reader. most people i know read books because their friends, their teachers, their kids….people they fucking respect hand it to them and say, you should read this. it doesn’t suck.

AMLP didn’t suck. that’s why people bought it, liked it, passed it on to their friends. maybe people who are dissecting it for literal truth are just a little bit scared they do suck. as for the rest of us who have spent a lifetime snorting glue, smoking crack, and shooting dope in hopes of finding a true feeling, AMLP casts a glimmer of hope that truth can be found in other places….like your heart.

With great respect for EVERYONE who jumped into this thread, I’m officially exhausted and I’ll be turning my attention to the question of the week and a great musical guest who will be here tomorrow.

If you want to continue the discussion on your own blogs, you can do a Trackback/Pingback so folks here can follow you there. Sound good? Excellent.

Frank: I stand corrected on the book v. brick issue.

I stand really, really bored on the who’s-really-the-counter-intuitive-here issue.

I wasn’t scorning Frey for, or harping on the fact that, he was on a talk show. My points:

a. He was on the talk show to push a book that he claimed, in dozens of interviews before and after, was “all true,” and in which (speaking of the first Oprah interview) he said, “I think I wrote about the events in the book truly and honestly and accurately.”

b. He was on the talk show in the interest of constructing (in conjunction with all the other interviews he gave) a public persona around his alleged dedication to said truth, honesty, and accuracy.

c. He was on the talk show doing (a.) and (b.) in relation to a book that is built on lies. Three months in jail for “Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Assaulting an Officer of the Law, Felony DUI, Disturbing the Peace, Resisting Arrest, Driving Without a License, Driving Without Insurance, Attempted Incitement of a Riot, Possession of a Narcotic with Intent to Distribute, and Felony Mayhem” is what the book says. Five hours at police headquarters for driving under the influence is what happened. This, to you, is truth? I’m not arguing for or against an 85% standard of anything. But this (and all of the dozens if not hundreds of documented others, some of them–like his appropriation of that train wreck he had no part in–far creepier) is laughable.

You say that the entire point of your original post here is that he shouldn’t have had to “box his book in one way or another, memoir or fiction”. You know what? He didn’t have to. From the flyleaf of W.G. Sebald’s The Emigrants: “Sebald weaves together variant forms (travelogue, biography, autobiography, and historical monograph), combining precise documentary with fictional motifs.” That, Frank, is breaking down boxes in a meaningful way. But Frey chose not to, chose instead to go with “Memoir,” and without even the caveats that usually come when certain details–not to mention whole central scenes and characters–are invented or exaggerated beyond recognition.

And why did he do that? Maybe he didn’t want to give up the sales (and adulation) that go with a story like his being fully true. Maybe he’d already started to believe what he’d written. I don’t know. And it doesn’t really matter.

Your self-righteous shit comments are yours to keep. And I’m done here. The last word’s all yours, if you want it. And in all seriousness, I wish you the best.

(wow, now I’m all curious to see if the thread can hit 100.)

And truth, especially in writing memoir, is always based on the author’s recollection of fact.
And emotion.

Seven deadly sins of memory always include not only misattribution, but also the “sin” of bias. We remember events based on their outcome, who we are now, and evidence of hindsight.

It is all quite psychologically proven.

Brings to mind the musical, Gigi and the song I remember it well

He: I can remember everything as if it were yesterday.
We met at nine.
She: We met at eight.

He: I was on time.
She: No, you were late.
He: Ah, yes, I remember it well. We dined with friends.
She: We dined alone.

He: A tenor sang.
She: A Baritone.

He: Ah, yes, I remember it well. That dazzling April Moon.
She: There was none that night. And the month was June.

And so it goes…

(How did I get back to this)

Secondly, I have no “default” position when someone disagrees with me. I take each disagreement and argue it for its merits or lack thereof. That’s forensics 101. Going back to your original 11-item comment, you spend no less than four of those eleven items insulting Frey (”He’s Deepak Chopra with tatoos”), making false depictions of him by saying he “built an entire public persona–one that made him very rich very quickly–by going on talk shows and harping on the importance of literal truth” (he never once–to my recollection–placed emphasis on the importance of literal truth. His books and he as a person have always claimed that essential truths were what is important…BIG difference.), and harping again and again on the fact that he appeared on talk-shows, even cutely coming up with a new “box” that he’d invented, as you called it, “Talk-show empowered frauds (TEF)”. You say that you find it nicely symmetrical that both his rise and fall occurred on talk-shows. And then you try to tell us that you never said anything about what your personal response to an Oprah blessing would be. And this is where I say YOU PLAYED YOURSELF. Your first comments wreak of jealousy. You spend all kinds of time harping on the fact that Frey was on a talk show, and then try to play it off that you aren’t jealous of him, saying that you’d be baffled but thrilled to be on the very same show you just leveled Frey with scorn for appearing on, as if being on the show alone calls any writer’s credability into question. Well if that’s the case (baffled but thrilled!), Mr. Kesey, then why the invective about Frey being on there? Because he “had to lie” to get there, right? That’s the entire point of my original post here. He shouldn’t have had to box his book in one way or another, memoir or fiction. His books are based IN LARGE PART on his life. At the time they were published, they met the acceptable industry-standard criteria for memoir, as far the percentage of “truth” in the books. And any self-righteous writer trying to tell me they wouldn’t have done the same thing, given the opportunity and assured by his publishers that the books only have to be 85% true is FULL OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS SHIT. Get over yourself.

And I don’t mind being in the minority, here or elsewhere–there’s a difference between that and grasping at straws, as you know perfectly well. And you don’t mind being in the minority either, judging again from that opening sentence and that icon. As it happens, you found an audience here that agrees with you and not me. Again: no harm done.

And I repeat: if it is the case that Frey brought new readers to the table (and/or to your work), then that’s great!

And I’m not sure what part of my post you’re referring to when you accuse me of being jealous of Frey, or if that’s just your default position whenever someone disagrees with you. Am I jealous of his bank account? Sure! Of the rest of the package? Not so much.

I never said anything about my personal response to an Oprah blessing. The answer: baffled, but thrilled. Baffled because the odds are worse than lightning and from what I can tell my stuff isn’t quite her thing. Thrilled because, hey, monster reading base! Monster sales! My mom gets to see me on the TV!

And because I wouldn’t have had to lie to anyone about my life or the nature of my work to get there.

Roy:
I know nothing of you or your work, other than the fact that Susan and many oters tout it at every opportunity. Good for you. But despite your obvious skill, you play yourself here with you 10 (11) points.
1. Nothing I said is counter-intuitive about my argument. If anything it appears that you, sir, are in the minority with your own opinions–which doesn’t take away from them, but calling me or all of us out as being counterintuitive doesn’t hold water when you are the one grasping at straws.
3. While I can’t provide you with empirical evidence that Frey brought many readers back to the table, I can say from personal experience that many many readers have come to me telling this as the case. And in further support of my original argument, many have told me that they read Frey’s book and then came to mine and kept reading. He has helped readwers to read again, regardless of whether or not you appreciate his “clunky” style.
4-10. The rest of what you write here is telling and gives you away. YOU are the very jealous writer I was addressing at the beginning of this post. Are you trying to tell me that if Oprah wanted to pick your book you’d decline? My ass. Save it for the masses, but that shit doesn’t play here.

girlgrey: huzzah for the discount tables!

n.l.: great point about what the people want to read.

BrookeND: Thanks for nicely illustrating my point to Mr. Kesey.

Kasper: You’re my hero. Please contact me: nfrankdaniels@gmail.com

Carolyn: Glad you’re seeing beyond the initial emotions/feelings when all of this went down. In the end, the book has to stand on its own, as any book does. My only argument with you would be that NO fiction is ever PURE fiction. Anything that reonates with people has to have certain universal truths to it, and I obviously believe this to be the case with Frey’s books.

Melissa: “it spoke a TRUTH I had not heard before. “They” cannot take that away from AMLP.” EXACTLY. Good to see you here.

Kristopher: You’re exactly right. This is, in essence, a condemnation of the system that boxes writers in. No more, no less. Thanks for joining the conversation.