01/09/2006: "A Million Little Pieces Debacle"

Hi All,

Those of you who check this blog from time to time will know I’ve mentioned this book before. Once in regards to the Oprah book club—it’s the current title—and once in my BEST/WORST of 2005 list, where I had it under worst; not because I think it a poorly written book, but because—awful cynic that I am—I thought much of it was lies.

Well, according to The Smoking Gun’s website, much of it IS a lie.

www.thesmokinggun.com/jamesfrey

I didn’t want to talk too openly about it on the blog, for the simple reason that James Frey and I share a film agent (she is also, I believe, his literary agent; his uber-agent, if you will). James Frey is James Frey, and Craig Davidson is Craig Davidson: I thought if she found out I’d been bad-mouthing the Golden Boy, I might be in trouble. Bye-bye any possibility of film rights for Rust and Bone, or anything else I ever write. But I pretty much stated my suspicion that the book was a big hoax a few entries ago, and it interests me as a topic, and James Frey is a multi-millionaire with a Manhattan abode and a summer house in Amagansett so he can take the hit from little ol’ me, plus he broke the rules in a pretty brazen way—so fuck him running.

About the book: for those of you who haven’t read or heard about it, it’s an addiction memoir wherein James recovers from his various addictions in an unconventional manner. This involves shunning the 12 Steps of AA, getting radical dental surgery without anaesthetic—a great scene, by the way—mingling with gangsters and district court judges at the rehab clinic, romancing a crack-addicted former prostitute, and other shenanigans. The book is written in a stream-of-consciousness style that I personally found really engaging. I read the book before any of the hype: I was working at a library in Calgary and it came across the return counter; I loved the cover, read the blurbs—a great one from Bret Easton Ellis—and checked it out. I read it on a camping trip in Bobcaygeon (where all the constellations revealed themselves one star at a time), and, while I enjoyed it sylistically, something dawned upon me halfway through:

This was supposed to be nonfiction—and I was having a tough time believing a lot of it.

Once I got in that mindframe, each ensuing event seemed more and more ridiculous. It started with the dental scene (SPOILER.........) where James receives four root canals—WITHOUT ANY ANAESTHESIA. That’s right: the dentist gives him a few tennis balls to squeeze if he felt any pain. The scene tested the limits of belief in a huge way. There is no evidence to substantiate this happening—that said, there is no evidence saying it did not. Readers are left to take Frey at his word on it—a word that, in light of the Smoking Gun article, must now be taken with a shaker full of salt.

I mean, there’s something insensibly ballsy about a lie like that: one root canal would be amazing—but FOUR? I don’t think of myself as displaying too many wuss-like symptoms, but let’s face it: I would’ve shit my pants, pissed myself, and fled screaming out of the dentist’s chair at the SOUND OF THE DENTIST’S DRILL if I wasn’t doped up to the gills!

It goes on. I won’t go into the evidence of Frey’s overt fabrications; you can read the article for that, if you’d like. I reacted to the story as a writer less than as a reader.

I had a tough time with the book from several angles. First, with the writer himself, his history. Frey is a silver-spoon trust fund kid. I’m not saying he wasn’t an addict—he clearly wasn’t as badly addicted as his book details, but yes, an addict, fine. I have a tough time eliciting sympathy for a guy like that: he’s rich, bored, his parents are away, so he gets fucked up. It’s like he stepped out of an Ellis novel. If he’d been poor, if he survived some awful home life or suffered some sort of terrible misfortune and turned to drugs—well, maybe then I could have a bit more sympathy. If you take away all the window dressing, the tough guy posturing, the (faked?) dental visits, what you have is: angry young rich kid gets messed up, hates life, his parents send him away to a super-exclusive clinic to dry out. Not terribly dramatic, pretty silly, zero sympathy. And while it’s admirable he dragged himself out of addiction the way he (claims he) did, you can’t help but think if he’d exercised one milligram of that same strength in restraint, he’d not have been in the situation in the first place.

Then the story itself. I suppose in admitting this, I am admitting something bad about myself, but—I got to thinking that if I set out to write a fake addiction memoir, I’d write it just like this. I’d have the voluntary subjection to pain (dental scene); I’d have myself fraternizing with gangsters and judges and washed-up boxers; I’d write several “cred” scenes, where I beat up or intimidated people, or otherwise bucked authority; I’d have a beautiful, frail, crack-addicted ex-prostitute girlfriend, and I’d write a scene where I flaunted the rules, left the clinic, and rescued her from a crack den. I’d do all that because I’d be afraid that the real truth—the truth of my life—wasn’t enough. And I know I’d do this because, as a writer and (sometimes, but less often now) as a person I am a liar; I mean, you sit in front of a computer making up shit for six hours a day, that shit sometimes follows you out the door. I can be a liar, James Frey can be a liar—I knew this almost from the start, because liars can smell their own.

Apparently there aren’t enough natural born liars out there, or else we live in a society who is comforted by tales like this—A MILLION LITTLE PIECES has been out for a few years now, and this is the first time anyone has challenged the validity of it. Certainly nobody at Oprah did: but then again, it’s perfect Oprah fodder, in its way—an inspiring memoir about a life rescued from the gutter. Not true, maybe, but still emblematic. The midwestern housewives—or whoever the heck makes up her core audience—would gobble it up.

In a way, I feel sort of sorry for Frey. Think about it: you write a book based on lies, verifiable lies—for anyone who wants to check—and you (or your publisher coerces you to) put it out as truth. How many nights did he stay awake, hoping nobody smelled those lies? When the book got popular, when Oprah christened it, when the money was (and is) rolling in, when he bought the 2 million dollar Manhattan apartment—how many sleepless nights, up worrying? Were there any? Or had he managed to convince himself that it was true—or had it at least managed to convince himself that, even if it weren’t true, people believed in him, and were inspired by his story? I don’t know; I’m curious. It’s the conundrum any liar faces: at some point the lie gets too big, takes on unseen dimensions, billows, expands, and cynical people start to wonder.

I’m not sure the choice was even his: when he first approached his publisher with the book, it was a work of fiction. They wouldn’t publish it as fiction, so he apparently re-tooled it, cut out all the fake shit, and whittled it down so just the truth was left. But if that’s the case was he really, totally to blame? I’m a writer—there’s not much I wouldn’t do to get a book into print. Someone tells me to put my book out as non-fiction and play the part, I just might do it. A bit of a Faustian pact—if it indeed played out that way—but if I knew it would play out how it did for Frey, it would be a tough offer to resist.

I guess I’m a little pissed because of its runaway success. If he hadn’t been so damn successful, I might not have minded. If he pulled the wool over a few thousand people’s eyes instead of a few million. My umbrage is a numerical thing, primarily. Oprah’s book club makes your career—more so than a hit movie based on your book, more than a string of great reviews, more than anything. It’s the ultimate word of mouth—the writer’s equivalent of winning the lottery. Oprah could stamp her seal of approval on UNCLE CRAPPER’S BATHROOM READER and it would sit at the top of the charts for months. However this all shakes out, Frey will never have to worry about paying his mortgage. And that pisses me off, and I imagine pisses a lot of other writers off, because he got it unfairly. He cheated. He conned. He’s a big fat fake.

Anyway, I guess that’s all for now. If anyone has any opinions, or disagrees with me, I’d love to hear about it. Maybe I’m just jealous—well, I know for a fact I am, a bit. I’m generally happy for the success of any writer, because I realize just how hard it is to be successful. But play it fair, win fair—and if you’re caught out, own up.

It’ll be interesting to see how Frey handles this, too.

All best, Craig.

Replies: 20 Comments

on Friday, January 27th, Craig said

Hey Mandy,

Well, it seems as though you're right on that. It was two, not four, and yes I imagine it was Hank---that guy who drive the van?---who gave him the tennis balls. But of course, now that it's pretty much certain it's all lies, your grievance is much like us debating what's truthful or not---accurate or not---about two old codgers telling great whopping lies about the one that got away. I mean, wether 2 or 4, who gave the tennis balls or not---it's all moot. There may not have been any root canals, or tennis balls, or Hanks. But yes, in the book it's 2 root canals, and Hank gave him the balls. Good to somone's still defending James---however misguided I feel that particular defence is.

Best, Craig.

on Friday, January 27th, Mandy said

I was reading Craig's entry, until the part where he talks about JF having four root canals and the dentist giving him tennis balls to squeeze. Then I stopped reading it because I wondered where he read that. The copy I read said he had two root canals and I'm pretty sure Hank gave him the tennis balls!?

on Friday, January 13th, Craig said

Yeah, I would hope I'm not hating---although, perhaps subconsciously I am (damn you, Frey!) Or maybe I'm "playa hatin'," although, to be honest, I'm not really even sure what that entails, exactly: a sort of jealousy, from what I can tell, unsually towards wicked good "mackers" and "Daddy Macs" (not to mention "Mac Daddies" wink who get all the ladies. So, a form of jealousy. In which case, maybe I am a bit of a playa hater, when it comes to Frey. I'm sure he'd tell me, "Hey, don't hate the player---hate the GAME." In which case I would say, "Shut up, Frey."

All best, Craig.

on Friday, January 13th, Brett said

Yup, dude is certainly crying all the way to the bank this week. Who knows? Maybe the whole thing was orchestrated from the start. Publish it as non-fiction, then have someone "expose" him to stir up controversy, thus selling stacks more copies. Unlikely, but possible, I guess.

Anyway, I don't hate the guy--I don't even know him. I just can't stand liars of any stripe. If he embellished his life story to the extent The Smoking Gun is claiming, and didn't dispute Random House labelling it non-fiction, then I have no time for the guy. Not that he minds, I know, since, as we all agree--he's weeping into handfuls of greenbacks.

on Thursday, January 12th, jlo said

A few things after all this:

1. There are no cynics at Harpo. It's not allowed. You can get fired for it. Craig, if you ever get an Oprah book, I am convinced it will be because you filled it with a pack of lies. A challenge? Write an Oprah book.

2. I agree that there is a big danger in pulling the rug out from under addicts who might be using this to help themselves. But...

3. Essentially he is right: the only way to kick an addiction is to decide that you are going to stop. Recovery programs exist to help you get to that point. One might argue that if you are so easily able to just turn it off, you're not really addicted, still, in the end, it does come down to making the decision. It is perhaps an illusion to suggest that you only have to make that decision once. An addict makes it every time he or she gets asked that question in their head, or whatever it is for them.

4. Or maybe it is different for everybody and even if what he wrote were true, it wouldn't be good for other addicts because it might not necessarily work for them.

5. In the end, Craig's got it: falling softly into a stack of money. No sympathy from me for his "trying" week, but no hatred either.

6. Don't hate.

on Thursday, January 12th, Craig said

Hey Brett,

Well, Oprah's stance certainly could be that. And I'm surprised there wasn't at least ONE cynical bastard at Harpo who read the book and said to themselves, "Y'know, this seems a little Hollywood to have happened." She could have hired me or you: we'd work cheap.

It's an awkward situation for her to be in. And yes, she and her show might not be in it if they'd fact-checked a little, instead of relying on the publishers to be completely forthright. When it comes right down to it, I think publishers live and die by a few books like AMLP each year; the bulk don't do that well, so every house needs at least one like that to cover all the ones that don't fulfill expectations. I'm sure Random House was in no rush to disabuse Oprah and the gang re: the factual inaccuracies of the book (supposing they knew).

Anyway, a truly weird situation. And of all the things Frey said on King, one thing's for sure, and you can count on it as a stone-cold fact: this has been a very trying week for him. And yeah, it's mostly his fault, this ball he set rolling years ago when he looked at the facts of his own life, found them a tad uninspiring, and started to embellish them. The crows have most certainly come home to roost. But he's a millionaire, his book will still sell just as well (I'm guessing), and he says he's never writing non-fiction again ---so it's a case of falling softly on your face, into a stack of money. A bit of ill-fame, maybe, but in today's society notoriety is just another form of fame (please excuse the grandstanding, but I just saw a picture of Paris Hilton and it put me in a mood). Anyway, not that bad, all things considered.

All best, Craig.

on Thursday, January 12th, Brett said

For those interested, check out the list of literary hoaxes in this CBC article. Judging by this list, it's far from unheard of for someone to dupe a major publishing house into publishing a pack of lies disguised as the truth:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/hoaxes.html

on Thursday, January 12th, Brett said

"OPrah did call and endorse Frey on CNN...so that counts for something, certainly."

Oprah's endorsement amounts to ass-covering, you ask me. Her reasons for continuing to stand behind it are last-ditch ones. She doesn't want to be seen to've been duped like everyone else, so she's falling back on the precarious stance that it's the WRITING that matters, not whether every little detail is true.

Well, sorry to be a cynic, Oprah, but if I find out that a buddy has lied to me about one or two things that are important to me, I start wondering whether I can trust ANYthing out of the guy's mouth, you know?

It's like you said, Craig: tip of the iceberg.

on Thursday, January 12th, Craig said

Hi KB,

Yes, I forgot about that portion of the book, with the ER-type show, the addict and Frey's sense of how hypocritical that is.

I've been fortuntate to avoid any addictions in my life, and so I don't know how hard it is to kick one; very hard, is all I can imagine. And I know that was the one "rebel pose" Frey struck most consistently: his adamancy to not recover by any of the traditional methods...then that scene at the end, where he walks into a bar, asks the 'tender to pour a glass of whiskey or whatever, stares at it, and walks away. Very Hollywood. I was a bit angry with the book at that point, so I just took it as a matter of course---and, as I said, I'm totally unfamiliar with the recovery process, so I didn't, and don't, feel it's my right to comment.

And I would agree with you that my problem, now that I've thought about it, is related to those who might have used Frey's book as a guide to their own recovery---he did it, and unconventionally, so I can, too. But now those people might be wondering about the veracity of the book, and it might be like a trapdoor opening under them---these things they believed as truth are not. I don't know how it might effect them. It's great that the book helped so many people, and it's my sincere hope that it will continue to (because, let's face it, it's a rare thing when a book can do that), but I do think a lot of that hope and help was based on the veracity of events.

And Frey said on CNN that, of a 420 page book, only 18 pages were disputed. My concern is that 18 of 420 are ABLE to be disputed. So many of the other events are unsubstantiated and impossible to substantiate---so might this be the tip of the iceburg? All the characters, events, and so on that HAVE no record? I guess it's like an old building: once the structure is rendered unstable, and you've no idea how much of the underlying fabric is also unstable, it basically becomes unsafe, insecure, untrustworthy, unliveable.

That said, I really and truly hope that those who believed in Frey from the outset, those whose lives the book has helped, continue to believe and be helped. The book held less personal value for me, and so I can be a little more (perhaps far too) coldhearted.

OPrah did call and endorse Frey on CNN...so that counts for something, certainly.

Thanks for stopping by, KB.

All best, Craig.

on Thursday, January 12th, Craig said

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/11/lkl.01.html

A link to the transcript of the Larry King show last night. If it doesn't work, and you're interested, it's on CNN.com, under the TRANSCRIPTS header. A call from Oprah!

Best, Craig.

on Thursday, January 12th, KB said

I don't think you are overreacting, Mr. Davidson. I am a stay at home mom who picked up AMLP because of Oprah. Caring for two young kids doesn't give me a lot of time to myself. I don't like wasting it reading something peddled as truth if it is fiction.

The bible is wonderful literature. But it means very different things to different people. Some people read it for the beautiful language. Some read it because they quite literally believe their souls depend on it. Truth verses fiction does matter to many people.

I had been taught that fiction writing is the art of writing lies to tell the truth. The question then becomes, is Mr. Frey presenting the truth of drug addiction with his lies and/or memories?

Or has he become the type of writer he himself pokes fun at in his own book. At one point, he is watching an episode of an "ER" type show, where an addict gets cleaned up and falls in love with a doctor in the space of a week. He writes how unbelievable that sort of b.s. show is and how misleading it is to present drug addiction in such a way. Yet, he then asks the reader to believe that he just "decides" to kick the habit by himself, on his own terms. One then wonders why he allowed his parents to spend so much $$ on his recovery if all he needed was a copy of Tao Te Ching and plenty of cigarrettes?

I would say, for people reading the book for hope, ideas, something to hold onto, the truth in writing matters very much.

on Wednesday, January 11th, Craig said

Hi guys,

Clearly, I fall more on the side of Brett than John---although I see what John's saying, and I've got a few emails this morning from people who read the blog but, for their own reasons, don't post; in them I've been urged to either "chill" or "mellow" out, and not take things so seriosuly.

Hopefully people understand that I'm not disillusioned by this, or particularly angry; it certainly interests me, but I've got nothing really against Frey. In fact, as I tried to say in my entry, I may have done the same thing, had the opportunity been tendered. Now it's left to be seen how Frey deals with it---unfortunately, I've seen him, heard interviews, and he has set up this very "tough guy/this all happened/I've been through a war the rest of you wouldn't comprehend" persona, so now he's got to cop to the fact that the persona wasn't entirely genuine...or it was thrust upon him by his publishers, etc.

I did read today that Random House, in an unprecedented move, is offering full refunds on the book if you bought it through Random House. So clearly they might be reading the tea leaves. I hope they stick by Frey, and don't throw him to the wolves; there must have been suspicions at RH that some of the book was falsified, but they either allowed Frey---or in fact encouraged him---to act as though it was all truth. It's turning into an ugly situation; now everyone's wondering what Oprah's going to do to address the issue, or if she'll address it at all.

Frey's on Larry King Live tonight. I wish I had the better cable package; as it is, no CNN.

All best, Craig.

on Wednesday, January 11th, Brett said

"He's a writer, though. His job is to make up."

Yes, if he claims it to be fiction, he's entitled to lie himself blue in the face. However, if you claim your book to be non-fiction, then one assumes it's the truth, not a pack of lies. If anyone could just get away with calling lie the truth, then we'd have a pretty sorry state of non-fiction on the bookshelves, and readers wouldn't be able to tell truth from fiction. More importantly, it's a betrayal of his readers' trust on a serious level because there are alcoholics getting his slogans tattooed onto their skin, and quitting their 12-step programs, based on the supposed "truths" of his experiences. There's creative license, then there's being a **** and simply capitalizing on people's trust in your word.

Far as I'm concerned, this guy's a phony of the highest order.

on Wednesday, January 11th, jlo said

I still think fiction writing can be called "lying one's face off" because when you read it, you believe (if it is any good) that it is real. I suppose the problem with this book is that he said it was real, which then made people think, hey, this is too crazy to be real. He's a writer, though. His job is to make **** up.

on Wednesday, January 11th, Brett said

I agree that if it's fiction, it should be labelled as such, not touted as non-fiction, then filled with several assloads of bullshit. **** that--that's called "lying one's face off" and it deserves to be called out as such.

on Tuesday, January 10th, Craig said

Oh, and John: thanks for providing a proper link.

Anyone who follows this blog has realized by now that I don't really know how to "link" to anything very well. I figure I give people a rough map, and they can find their way to the site if they hunt a bit. I'm sort of like that old small town codger who tourists should never ask for directions: "You want to go to the Old Mill, do you? Apple picking season, you say? Well, as I recall..." (here I'd suck on my dentures for 30 seconds) "...apples are sweetest in the Fall. It is the Fall, you say? Well, I'll be dadgummed---it IS the Fall! Now, as I was saying..." (Here I'd scratch the ass of my overalls and examine the residue, if any) "...apples are sweetest in the Fall..."

All this is to say, my links may not work very often. But I hope they're enough of a signpost to get you where you need to go, if you're interested.

Apples!? Oh merciful Betsy, apples in the Fall---I've never tasted anything quite so sweet...except when my uncle and me used to ride logs downriver past the ole Sugar Factory; the air itself was SWEET, by gar, full of that wonderful milled sugar smell...nothing like good milled factory sugar, I tells ya...snuffle...snort...

All best, Craig.

on Tuesday, January 10th, Craig said

Hey John,

I may indeed be overreacting. But I think people, basically, don't like to be mislead. A book's a book, but fiction is fiction and non-fiction is non-fiction. Pick any inspiring story you know of; a real-life story...now imagine hearing that much of that story is a lie. Imagine finding out that Ghandi, instead os starving himself during his peaceful protests, was secretly gorging on struedel. Well, maybe that's not the best example...but my point is, this book's success is based in large part on the life that the writer has assumedly lived; a life he rescued from the brink by sheer force of will. Certainly he wouldn't be on Oprah were it any different. And the guy postures as if it's all true...and who knows? Maybe a lot of it is. But probably not. Much of it is fake.

Another interesting story, happening at the same time, is the saga of JT Leroy. I won't go into it---you can google the name and it will lead you all sorts of places---but again, it brings up the idea: how important is a writer's past and history in regards to their books? Do we like the books because of the writing, or because we empathize or sympathize with the writer him- or herself? It's an interesting question.

But, as much as I'd like to think it's all about the writing, the sheer truth of the matter is, it's not. The writer---his or her history, the tragic or uplifting or odd circumstances of their lives---this all comes into play in the ultimate success or failure of a lot of books.

UPDATE: JAMES FREY WILL BE ON LARRY KING LIVE WEDNESDAY, JAN. 11 TO DISCUSS THE ALLEGATIONS.

Howard,

Nice to see you here again.

I think Frey's style was something that can either repulse or attract a reader. For me, a style like that is like some very sweet dessert: I can take a few bites, but that's it. Thankfully, I could take it for the duration of AMLP. But I was given a copy of his followup, MY FRIEND LEONARD, this summer, and I put it down after a few pages...partly because it starts with another improbable, potentially false encounter...and partly because the style, while inventive and frequently engaging, is also exhausting.

As for Oprah: I spoke a little about it before. I'm conflicted, as I suppose many are: on one hand, she gets people reading. On the other hand, I'm sure a lot of people only read Oprah books; the only time they set foot in a bookstore is when Oprah announces her latest title. The best case scenario is that those people take up reading more as a result of Oprah; I'm sure, in the end, that is probably her aim. I think Oprah is a decent, goodhearted person---and I think she does a lot of good (unlike Dr. Phil, who I think is a skunk). But her book club, and her choices, will always be disputed---especially by the 99.999999% of writers whose book she didn't choose.

She didn't choose RUST AND BONE? What is she, an idiot? That's good family reading, I tell you!

All best, Craig.

on Tuesday, January 10th, Howard Goldowsky said

Perhaps it is a good story, but then it should be labeled as fiction. I first picked up AMLP a few years ago, read a few pages, and put it down. I have no sympathy for a writer who espouses bad punctuation and poor grammar, no matter how engaging the story.

Using incorrect punctuation is a sign of poor character, of cutting corners because you're not prepared to put in the effort to transport emotion to the reader using the proper roads. Poor punctation is like taking a short-cut, like illegally driving off-road to get to your destination quicker. It is not right.

What's worse, however, is that there are hundreds of more deserving writers out there who deserve the best-seller list, who deserve Oprah's stamp of approval.

It saddens me that Oprah's lemmings read Frey's crap and didn't get the chance to read a better writer. By the look of the best-seller lists, Oprah's lemmings don't think much for themselves.

on Tuesday, January 10th, jlo said

Craig, your link didn't work. Here is a better one:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html

on Tuesday, January 10th, jlo said

"If you take away all the window dressing, the tough guy posturing, the (faked?) dental visits, what you have is: angry young rich kid gets messed up, hates life, his parents send him away to a super-exclusive clinic to dry out."

I've read that before, it's called The Catcher in the Rye.

Craig, I think you are overreacting. Who cares? A book is a book? Do people want to read it because it is true or because it is a good story? Yes, saying it is true adds a layer of intrigue, but even when we read fiction, we want to believe it is real; that is the pact we set up--suspension of disbelief. So I don't see how any of this is different. It doesn't change the writing.