Week Seven Prompt: Controversies
Pardon my language here, but James Frey is the biggest bullshit artist.
My undergraduate degree was in English with a focus on creative writing. My previous graduate degree is a Masters of Fine Arts in Nonfiction Writing.
James Frey sullied nonfiction writing and memoirs.
There are elements of fiction enlisted when writing literary or creative nonfiction, essays, and memoirs. These elements are supposed to be what is used to tell the story, what is used to build the narrative.
At its very core, however, it is still supposed to be true. Frey's idea of embellishment for the sake of the narrative (The Smoking Gun, 2006) is an idea that is rooted in the "creative" of creative nonfiction, but the truth is still supposed to be there. In my MFA classes, we had to discuss Frey and the biggest scam of nonfiction. Frey shopped his story around to different publishers under the idea that it was fiction, but it was rejected (debated on the premise that it was, simply put, just not good). So, to take out "the fake stuff" and shop it as nonfiction, then to be picked up? Where does this put the bar for legitimate nonfiction writers? Are we lesser writers because Frey can be picked up when he isn't good enough for the fiction publishers?
That's one problem. Another is the question of the fact-checker. The fact-checker has become a necessity due to Frey and, for more recent revelations, John D'Agata of the University of Iowa's internationally-acclaimed Nonfiction Writing Program. His book, The Lifespan of a Fact, discusses this idea of needing a fact-checker, and when is it okay to embellish. D'Agata is an embellisher. He is one that changes ideas so frequently, his fact-checkers have simply thrown their hands in the air, thanks to his disagreements with their judgments. The Lifespan of a Fact was co-written with D'Agata's one-time fact checker, Jim Fingal, about their seven-year disagreement over the facts of one of D'Agata's essays. The argumentative book discusses where facts fall in the discussion of the truth of nonfiction versus the art of creative nonfiction.
The ripples of these works and the disregard for facts are felt all over the literary and creative nonfiction world. Do we call ourselves creative nonfiction writers because of these "artists"? It was a major sticking point in my MFA to include or not include the "creative" in our titles. Do we lend ourselves more credibility if we eliminate the C from CNF? Where do we draw the line? Does literary nonfiction sound better? It certainly sounds more "literary."
Frey's reveal as a bullshit artist shocked Oprah. It shocked her book clubbers. It shocked everyone but Frey, really. People wanted to believe his overcoming-the-odds.
All they got was the reveal that this larger-than-life story was just that--larger-than-real-actual-life. So large, in fact, that it made liars of us all.
At the very least, Frey's book gave us this: fact-checkers are steadily employed, and we can continue to argue about the validity of the "creative" nonfiction writer.
My undergraduate degree was in English with a focus on creative writing. My previous graduate degree is a Masters of Fine Arts in Nonfiction Writing.
James Frey sullied nonfiction writing and memoirs.
There are elements of fiction enlisted when writing literary or creative nonfiction, essays, and memoirs. These elements are supposed to be what is used to tell the story, what is used to build the narrative.
At its very core, however, it is still supposed to be true. Frey's idea of embellishment for the sake of the narrative (The Smoking Gun, 2006) is an idea that is rooted in the "creative" of creative nonfiction, but the truth is still supposed to be there. In my MFA classes, we had to discuss Frey and the biggest scam of nonfiction. Frey shopped his story around to different publishers under the idea that it was fiction, but it was rejected (debated on the premise that it was, simply put, just not good). So, to take out "the fake stuff" and shop it as nonfiction, then to be picked up? Where does this put the bar for legitimate nonfiction writers? Are we lesser writers because Frey can be picked up when he isn't good enough for the fiction publishers?
That's one problem. Another is the question of the fact-checker. The fact-checker has become a necessity due to Frey and, for more recent revelations, John D'Agata of the University of Iowa's internationally-acclaimed Nonfiction Writing Program. His book, The Lifespan of a Fact, discusses this idea of needing a fact-checker, and when is it okay to embellish. D'Agata is an embellisher. He is one that changes ideas so frequently, his fact-checkers have simply thrown their hands in the air, thanks to his disagreements with their judgments. The Lifespan of a Fact was co-written with D'Agata's one-time fact checker, Jim Fingal, about their seven-year disagreement over the facts of one of D'Agata's essays. The argumentative book discusses where facts fall in the discussion of the truth of nonfiction versus the art of creative nonfiction.
The ripples of these works and the disregard for facts are felt all over the literary and creative nonfiction world. Do we call ourselves creative nonfiction writers because of these "artists"? It was a major sticking point in my MFA to include or not include the "creative" in our titles. Do we lend ourselves more credibility if we eliminate the C from CNF? Where do we draw the line? Does literary nonfiction sound better? It certainly sounds more "literary."
Frey's reveal as a bullshit artist shocked Oprah. It shocked her book clubbers. It shocked everyone but Frey, really. People wanted to believe his overcoming-the-odds.
All they got was the reveal that this larger-than-life story was just that--larger-than-real-actual-life. So large, in fact, that it made liars of us all.
At the very least, Frey's book gave us this: fact-checkers are steadily employed, and we can continue to argue about the validity of the "creative" nonfiction writer.
Wonderful take on a maddening topic! You make a good point about fact checkers always having steady employment, it's sad but true. I love that you also discussed The Lifespan of Fact, what a great tie in! Full points!
ReplyDelete