I was going to post this as a comment but thought I might have more to say than would be good for a comment form.
I think it is interesting that this has been brought up, because it seems like an inevitable part of reading memoir these days. I have some questions to ask the group...
Here is a quote from an interview on the book with Vanity Fair:
"During an interview with Vanity Fair last March, Burroughs stood by the veracity of the book, just as he stood by the right of every individual in a free society to tell his story. "This is my story," he said. "It's not my mother's story and it's not the family's story, and they may remember things differently and they may choose to not remember certain things, but I will never forget what happened to me, ever, and I have the scars from it and I wanted to rip those scars off of me."
He claims that this story is his. Is there an ownership that comes from memories? If so, doesn't that ownership give way to a writer to tweak the memories? Or must it be 100% as it was?
How much weight rests upon how factually true a memoir is or is not?
Why is it okay for a fiction writer to have true events in something that is titled fiction?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
7 comments:
I personally believe a good writer stretches the truth. I think if it is the authors story of his life - even if the truth is stretched who are we to call it fiction?
Only the author would know for sure. And thats the beauty of memoirs
It's a very interesting question and I thought about this a lot over the last couple of days.
When I talk to my mom about things that happened when I was a kid, there are a lot of things she remembers differently than I do. Without video or photographic evidence, how do I really know which way it happened? Obviously, I'm convinced that my memories are accurate but does that always mean that they are?
I think Augusten Burroughs' work is FAR different from what James Frey did in A Million Little Pieces. Frey completely made up people, conversations and experiences out of thin air. He originally sought publication in the category of fiction until a misunderstanding had him pretending the entire book was true.
While not every detail of Running With Scissors might have happened exactly as Burroughs claimed doesn't mean it's not true. He says these events are accurate as far as he remembers them. I was so burned by Frey that I don't want to believe Burroughs. But yet, I do.
When I read The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, he mentioned that it was up to us to decide whether or not the stories he was telling were true. He said that in the middle of the freaking book, so I was blown away. I enjoyed the book that much more because I was wondering, is that true? Did that really happen? That's what's great about writers, they're crazy!
Obviously all writers have the right to tell their story how they want to tell it. One of my favorites, Hunter S. Thomson, believed that fiction and journalism were simply two ways of trying to do the same thing. The factual truth of his books has been endlessly debated ever since he wrote them. But to me it doesn't even matter whether it actually happened, or if he simply just made it all up. The fact is that his writing resonates with me and what I know to be true.
All stories are true on some level. But with that said, I think that when a writer puts forth a memoir in which he places other people's lives beyond his/her own under the microscope, there is certainly a responsibility to be honest in matters of fact. That still allows for the writer to present their own opinions and interpretation of things.
In the case of Running With Scissors, I take it as it is. I don't doubt that the events he describes actually happened to him. But I think there is a lot of leeway in there to doubt his objective judgement on a lot of things, and I understand why certain members of the family in the book would be upset about his interpretation.
This is all how I feel about it. i think there are a few different ways we can interpret the word truth. The word takes on connotations such as honesty, facts, evidence. But there is this whole other side that evokes feelings like principle, significance, reality. I use the word reality to mean more of things that resonate with us, things that stir something within us.
The thing that bothers me most about this Fact vs. Fiction debate in the area of the memoir is that the definition of truth seems to be change. In fiction facts don't matter, that is thrown out the window. Of course there is the this needs to be true as far as the realities are set up, but sometimes in fiction people are born with the tails of pigs. Yet, there are these feelings and ideas that make something inside you stand up and say, yes! That is exactly it.
Why can't the same rules apply for the other genre? Why aren't writers of fiction who write factual truth held to the same accountability? I have yet to see a lawsuit for a book where someone says this is claimed to be fiction but this is my entire life, I want it back or fixed in some way. Why don't those readers feel betrayed?
I guess I am not really coming to any conclusions here. In the case of this particular book, I think of course these individuals are going to deny and be sick and hate what was written in that book. Those are horrible horrible things. I would want to deny it with everything I had too. I read an article on it from vanity fair. The article said that the mother was never interviewed because her Alzheimer's is too bad. Is this because she is going to spill secrets? I mean all my great grandmother who had the same issues when she was alive did was talk about things that happened so long ago, clearly and vividly... I cannot help but think that maybe what they meant was she was not sound in mind enough to keep all things quiet.
I just wanted to say that I don't know what Mrs. Turcotte's Alzheimer's condition actually was/is, but my grandmother has been in a very advanced state of Alzheimer's for two years. She's at the point where she can't put together a single coherent sentence and any communication with her is limited to only a few words at a time. The idea that Mrs. Turcotte's Alzheimer's was too severe sounds perfectly truthful to me. I don't think it was out of fear that she would reveal too much.
I don't particularly believe in objective truth anyway. There is always some level of interpretation even in the most straight-forward presentation of fact.
On a related tangent:
This debate actually comes up a lot in photography about whether photography has an obligation to show the truth. But anyone who really understands art knows that you can never discount the perspective of the photographer even in the most straight-forward snapshot. Richard Avedon said it best when he said, "All photographs are accurate, but none of them is the truth." Or something like that. I think the same idea applies in books too.
Post a Comment