Obviously there are more important things, you are right. However, think of all the things about which we could say that. If someone punches you in the face for no reason should you not get mad because the state of the government is more important than your broken nose?

Second, maybe you don't care. Maybe half the reader of the book don't care. However, it is undeniable that a number of people bought the book while under the impression that it was true. If you call something a memoire, the idea is that it is your best recollection of events. People dont mess up days versus years in prison, and if it was an honest mistake I don't think you would see them going back and putting something in the forward of the book.

If someone is complaining about the book because they are mad about buying under false pretenses, do you really think they are doing so at the expense of some protest they would have been doing otherwise?

Truth is important to me, and maybe that is where our disagreement is. Truth is important when I speak to my wife, when I speak to my friends, when I read a text book, when I read a memoire, or when a listen to the leaders of the world.

It doesn't hurt me, but people feel betrayed and betrayal is what will get the public up in arms faster than anything. You can lie, cheat, and steal, but when you betray they will come after you. There is a reason Dante put the betrayers in the mouth of Satan.

Later

In response to the comment of "if someone punches you in the face should you not get mad because the state of the government is more important to your broken nose." This is a completely unassociated comparison. Your rights as an American, and more simply as a human being, will bring legal consequence to anyone who physically strikes you. There is no law that says memoirs have to be 100% true, and if there is I would love to see it. Theoretically, James Frey did nothing wrong. You might be mad because you don't like being lied to (see George W. Bush), but once again, embellishing in a memoir is not against the law. Your opinion on the matter has no legal binding. Basically nobody has a right to invade your personal freedom by punching you, but reading an embellished book (like the bible) does not invade your personal freedom, and is therefore completely non-invasive

Also, you say "truth is important when I read a textbook, when I read a memoire, or when I listen to leaders of the world" (see George W. Bush again). Well, then you better just give up reading history books and abandon all history you have learned up to this point. History is not fact. History is unavoidably interpretive. There is a huge gap between objective facts and subjective narratives. Judging by your "mouth of Satan" comment, you are probably a religious right-wing fanatic, so it may pain you to realize that the Bible itself is a grosely embellished piece of subjective writings. So are you going to disavow that too? Probably not, because you have the "faith".

I'll cut you a deal. You stop complaining about the embellished history in James Frey's novel and I'll stop complaining about the embellished history in the bible.

Deal?

Anyone who knows anything about Biblical History knows the Bible was selectively written by the Catholic Church as a teaching tool (basically a "Teacher's Edition").

But, more to the point, I'm calling you out. PROVE that the Bible is TRUE.

The archaeological record is proof that the Bible was embellished. We can determine that Man -and indeed- all organisms changed from earlier forms into the forms we see now, as opposed to the Bible which says God snapped his fingers -or whatever he did- and Man was made in his image. That's your proof. It's in the ground.

-SenseChange

I used to be a tour guide for a while at this mansion on land where the Delaware Indian Tribe hung out. I watched an archaeological dig once, and then, I went on the island, was sitting under a tree waiting for my group of senior citizen Irish drinkers to get done doing their shopping, and dug up a teeny tiny blue bottle.

Oh, my mom and dad's 300 acre farm was full of great things. Every spring when my dad would dig up the 2 acre garden, we'd find buttloads of arrowheads and material scraps. Top that, Ready Whip.

Now isn't that just the coolest little story that has absolutely nothing to do with this entry?

hahahahaha christ~ but then if I do, you'll try to push me back in the ocean!

Are you a fan of The Little Mermaid? lol

Most guys liked Daryl Hannah.

I don't have scales either.

...of WHY AMLP honks people off. Yes, he's a good writer--one of my first ever forays into the craft of writing was his book titled "How to Write A Damn Good Novel." Like it or not, however, publishing is a business--and books are a product. Readers are *consumers* of that product. As such, they have every right to expect that the product's "label" defines, with reasonable accuracy, what can be found inside. Would you be whining about this consumer outrage if folks were buying bags labeled "dog food" and finding Twinkies inside? Hardly (not that the dogs would likely complain). In fact, such willful advertising fraud is illegal. A "memoir" is a label defining a very specific type of writing, one well outside the bounds of what Frey drafted up in AMLP.

In short, should people be surprised that an addict lied? Hardly, as lying is one of the fundamental skills of the trade. Should people grant Frey immunity because they like his writing? HARDLY, as he is as accountable for consumer integrity as the next guy. Of course, IMHO the whole thing was nothing more than deliberate manipulation to explode the market. Doesn't mean I want to read this tripe. If I want fiction about drug use, I'll go grab a copy of Blow from Blockbuster. Johnny Depp's easier on the eyes.

Janell
Drive Traffic to your Blog FREE with Traffic Swarm and Blog Explosion!

I totally agree, and moreso on the Johnny Depp part~