And now, a million little lawsuits
Perhaps you’ve heard that James Frey‘s bestselling Oprah-approved memior, A Million Little Pieces, is more fiction than non-. Some readers have responded to the scandal by becoming bogged down in philosophical debates about the nature of truth, the meaning of fiction, and the relationship between author and reader.
Two Seattleites, not content with all this talk, have filed suit against Frey and Random House seeking compensation for the time they spent reading the book.
In lieu of a more in-depth analysis of this state of affairs, I’ll just say: Sheesh.
Wow, does anyone else think that this is completely ridiculous? I mean, sure it was falsified, but filing suit because not all the details in a memoir were true; and suing for “lost time” no less? What’s next, suing ABC cause you wasted an hour watching a show you didnt end up liking? I havent read the book, but as far as I’m concerned all thats occured here is a move from non-fiction to fiction.
It’s not only ridiculous, but frivolous. It’s silly enough that Random House felt compelled to offer refunds for the thing.
But I think you’re on to something. Who else should we sue for wasting our time? I vote for Ebert and Roeper, who keep telling me that such-and-such a movie is not to be missed. You’ve let me down, fellas, and I want recourse!
Why is everyone picking on James Frey? I can think of hundreds of memoirs by famous people with far more distortions. And what about the Da Vinci code, a fictional book set in the factual world, and all the historical distortions in that?
Distorting history is far more offensive than distorting ones personal life.
Ink: “And what about the Da Vinci code, a fictional book set in the factual world, and all the historical distortions in that? Distorting history is far more offensive than distorting ones personal life.”
Ok, the whole junk about Frey I could care less about. And, frankly, I could care less about Da Vinci Code too. But what you suggest here is… well… I’ll be rude and say utterly and totally insane.
It is a fictional work.
It is marketed as a fictional work.
It isn’t distorting history.
Distorting history would be if I wrote a book that I swore was non-fiction that said the holocaust never happened.[1]
If I wrote an alternate history novel where it never happened, that is not distorting history.
Ok, maybe it *is* distorting history. But it isn’t distorting history for the purposes of commiting a ruse, it is distorting history for the purposes of entertainment.
Are you going to tell me that the musical 1776 is offensive?
[1] Does that meet Godwin’s Law?
Ok, I normally dont comment on stuff like this but I have to disagree with the assertion made here that The Di Vincci Code does not distort history for the “purpose of commiting a ruse.”
Why then does the beginning of the book open with a “fact sheet” which contains many factual errors?
Just a thought.