andigger Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 As some of you may know there is turmoil in Hollywood that one the authors whom Oprah selected for her book club has come out saying that his auto-biography wasn't 100% factual. Of course Oprah is devistated and embarassed, apparently so is the author and his publisher. I could not care less really, however since all things Oprah tend to make national news I at least watched the segment last night - and this is the part that got me thinking. The announcer said in the long run its not the publisher, the author, and certianly not Oprah who will suffer, its the reader who can no longer pick up a non-fiction book and assume that what they are reading is accurate. My question, who ever did that in the first place? Isn't it through questioning the 'facts' and assertions and author makes that we learn and develop our own ideas and opinions? There are many historical figures who autobiographies we should not and cannot take at face value - from Churchill to Mark Twain, the list could be endless. I dare say that if there are those who now, because of this Oprah incident, question what they read perhaps they are better off for watching her show - this once. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Sunray Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 On the subject of Oprah, why can't we now see her show in the UK. All we seem to have is the endless moronic dross from 'dumbing down' social commentaries such as the Rikki Lake Show!! Bring back Oprah! Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 ................ Isn't it through questioning the 'facts' and assertions and author makes that we learn and develop our own ideas and opinions? There are many historical figures who autobiographies we should not and cannot take at face value - from Churchill to Mark Twain, the list could be endless. I dare say that if there are those who now, because of this Oprah incident, question what they read perhaps they are better off for watching her show - this once. Andy Here in Scotland we have just celebrated Robert Burns' birthday and Rabbie said " facts are chiels that winna ding". Loosely translated as ' there is no gainsaying facts'. A fact is a true statement, a correct description of a situation. Where we have to be careful is in the interpretation of facts. What do these facts imply? Certainly, a circumspect approach is to be recommended when reading any biography. A writer is free to assert the truth of an idea but if he knowingly states something to be a fact when it is not, he lies. The modern phenomenon of ' spin ' as practised by politicians is usually marked by quoting as few facts as possible while creating the best possible interpretation of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 I had rather have sex with a male grizzly bear than watch Oprah! If we have grizzlies as well as squirrels I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 I had rather have sex with a male grizzly bear than watch Oprah! If we have grizzlies as well as squirrels I apologize. I take due notice of the fact that you have a gender preference when you are eying up the bears. What's wrong with the momma bears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 I agree 100% with Paul. Oprah has reached almost godlike status in the US, and her demeanor on her shows certainly illustrates that she thinks she deserves such adulation. She has gone from fairly entertaining to truly obnoxious by taking herself so seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zooloo Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 I take due notice of the fact that you have a gender preference when you are eying up the bears. What's wrong with the momma bears? And what about that bear on coronation street... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mythago Posted 27 January , 2006 Share Posted 27 January , 2006 I don't know that I've ever watched Oprah, but I've been following this story since it broke a few weeks back. It's interesting for a number of reasons; Frey (the author concerned) originally submitted his manuscript as fiction, but the publisher wanted to re-categorise it as memoir because they felt it would be a better seller. This seems to be related to a trend to devalue fiction because it 'isn't real' and to give greater value to things which are, or which purport to be 'real'. There was an example of this in, I think, the Ben Elton thread recently when someone commented that it didn't matter if there were errors in the book because it was only fiction. This has consequences though if we, as readers, are placing greater value and reliance on non fiction, without also gaining a greater ability to judge its reliablity. But this is actually nothing new, I would suspect, for example, that the fictional content of Goodbye to All That and Memoirs of an Infantry Officer are in fact similar, but one was published as memoir and the other as fiction. Interestingly, another publisher is hastily relabeling one of its memoirs Scrivener's Error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 28 January , 2006 Author Share Posted 28 January , 2006 Mythago - Actually Goodbye to All That is a great example and I'm glad you reminded me of it. Does anyone know how that book was first presented? Today we know there are some tall tales mixed in with fact, but was the book first published as 100% accurate? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 28 January , 2006 Share Posted 28 January , 2006 I don't know that I've ever watched Oprah, but I've been following this story since it broke a few weeks back. It's interesting for a number of reasons; Frey (the author concerned) originally submitted his manuscript as fiction, but the publisher wanted to re-categorise it as memoir because they felt it would be a better seller. This seems to be related to a trend to devalue fiction because it 'isn't real' and to give greater value to things which are, or which purport to be 'real'. Another example of this could be Steven Spielberg's latest film. According to a review broadcast on tv last night "Munich" is a work of fiction. It is true that Israeli athletes were taken hostage and killed at the Munich Olympics, but a lot more of the original book that the film was based on is fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mythago Posted 28 January , 2006 Share Posted 28 January , 2006 Does anyone know how that book was first presented? Today we know there are some tall tales mixed in with fact, but was the book first published as 100% accurate? Andy, IIRC, it was first published as an apparently accurate autobiography with no caveats, but when it was re-issued in the late fifties, Graves admitted that some incidents had been 'conflated' and some characters merged. In it's original format in the twenties it was responsible for the break between Graves and Sassoon. Cas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PilgrimDuke Posted 28 January , 2006 Share Posted 28 January , 2006 In a memoir, I expect the person to be telling the truth as far as it is remembered, while realizing that it may not be what actually happened, but it is sincerely believed that is the case. In the case of the Oprah fiasco, the guy knew from the beginning that much was untrue. I once had a discussion with my grandmother about when she was a young adult in the early 1900s and she described the end results of a lynching. The women and children weren't allowed to watch the actual act, but they did see the results the next day, which she reported as two guys bodies still being strung up. I'm sure she was telling the truth as she remembered it, but I've been doing some research on the incident and I can only find one person being hung. Of course, that's horrible enough, the "essential truth" of the entire incident is still there, and I'm sure that she was not intentionally being misleading, but it was factually incorrect, which will always be a problem with memoirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Dennis Posted 31 January , 2006 Share Posted 31 January , 2006 In a memoir, I expect the person to be telling the truth as far as it is remembered, while realizing that it may not be what actually happened, but it is sincerely believed that is the case. In the case of the Oprah fiasco, the guy knew from the beginning that much was untrue. I have strong feelings on this issue. I agree with the sentiment you expressed, and approach each personal memoir in the hope that it is accurate, but several years ago I realised that few people wrote about their wartime experiences solely to record history: often there was a personal need to tell their side of the story. Looking at the horrors of the Great War, I would expect to find guilt, grief, pride and anger in any veteran. If the writer was in a position to have made a contribution to the events, then inevitably there will be lives affected by that persons decisions. These are the people whose memories we as a group love to harvest, and therein lies the trap: we must pick our way through the story with a wary eye for the emotional wounds of the storyteller. I have spent a large amount of my life with my nose in a book, and like most people on this forum, I have read of heartbreaking tragedies, joyous deliverances, and complete fabrications. The trick is to learn which is which so we won’t be fooled. If someone on Oprah’s list embarrassed her by admitting that monetary considerations made him embellish a yarn, GOOD. I would like to think there was some constraint on publishers selling as fiction labelled as fact. But of course that is just my opinion. Regards to all, Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardmcilwaine Posted 5 February , 2006 Share Posted 5 February , 2006 i would rather have my piles tattooed than watch that woman and if rikki lake came on,i would go back and have em coloured in,bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 6 February , 2006 Share Posted 6 February , 2006 1 - Oprah is the anti-christ as exemplified by her evil spawn Dr Phil from Witchita Falls, ... 2 - Facts ... people get all their underwear in a wad ... c'mon, who checked Ceaser's facts about Gaul ... was Homer fact or fiction ... our division of the world into the perfect dicodomy Fact or Fiction is a device we've used to help simplify our world ... it doesn't reflect the reality of "ITS ALL PERCEPTION" ... I mean where would all that nonsens about head bumps go in the 19th Century or the Racial things the Nazis used ... We've simply got to go with what sounds reasonable ... Oprah is the fiction ... (But a TRUE BLUE AMERICAN success! That's for sure ... if she aint America, aint nobody America) 90% of both my novels are true ... they're novels so as not to get my ass in jail or lose my house to an angry lawyer .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 6 February , 2006 Share Posted 6 February , 2006 i would rather have my piles tattooed than watch that woman and if rikki lake came on,i would go back and have em coloured in,bernard You forgot to say, " with a dirty needle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now