Read this. And then wonder no more why newspapers are folding left and right.
Some editor at the LA Times read this, thought it was great. Believed it.
Read this. And then wonder no more why newspapers are folding left and right.
Some editor at the LA Times read this, thought it was great. Believed it.
Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=14222
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:32AM
Could it be that this guy is for real? http://thephoenix.com/Providence/Arts/84609-Hard-times/
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:40AM
I’d say that, as with all of these cases, the guy is partly real. All of the memoir writers who exaggerate — sometimes to the point of lying — are telling some truths. And it’s very difficult to determine, sometimes, whether they’re exaggerating. And whether they’re lying.
Barring clear evidence from witnesses that writers have lied — or barring documentation of various forms contradicting some of their assertions — we have to rely on our sense of plausibility in reading these people. We know that there’s now a long list of memoir hoaxes; we know that all the rewards in terms of publishing, money, and attention lie in creating the most harrowing and horrific story. So it’s our responsibility to be very wary. This guy’s memoir, after all, looks strikingly similar to James Frey’s.
What I’m suggesting is that – in a preliminary way – as their work comes out, we read it very carefully. We get a sense of its style. We pay attention to the writer’s self-presentation. We note how many descriptions of way off the charts traumas we get per chapter. How likely is it that one life will contain this much lurid stuff?
We note too how many of the people with whom the writer interacts are dead. If everyone who could actually confirm or deny a claim of the writer’s has fled the scene, that should make us suspicious.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:46AM
Another factor: Why is this in a newspaper?
It’s essentially an advertisement for the book and documentary.
Aren’t newspapers supposed to be (primarily) for, you know, the news?
It’s on the page labeled "Opinion"…but is this an opinion?
It’s just a lurid story promoting more Horatio Algier nonsense.
I was sick, Dad made me better, I watched Dad die, I got hooked on heroin, now I’m successful!
As UD says, the story pattern is pretty much hack at this point.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:07PM
Ya know what’s weird? How so many people wanna be victims. It wasn’t long ago when people lied about being the missing Prince of Assholeistan. Now everyone wants to look like a reformed junkie or play at being an artist.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:55PM
The debate over the reality of his story detracts from the issue a bit. True it holds some credit, as his exaggerations warrant some speculation, but reading this piece, it belongs in the "bad writing" category. The object of a memoir is to describe yourself to the world– which is, surprisingly, very difficult to do WELL. It is even more difficult to convey one’s self, and more importantly one’s significance, in a condensed amount of words (such as the 750-word average of a common application college essay). GOOD memoir writing requires not a blow-by-blow, over-exaggerated account of one’s extraordinary life, but some sort of thoughtful reflection of one’s identity and how their life fits into the greater universe. Memoir writers must ask themselves: "what gives me universal significance?" Even if the answer is that they have none.
This writer pompously flaunts his "significance." He claims that his struggles with disability and the tauntings of his peers, the fact that he’s rich and successful now gives him universal significance. It doesn’t. It IS extraordinarily hard to battle with disability, especially when one is mocked by their peers for it. But this writer is using what SHOULD be an institution for serious writings (reporting news and commenting on the world of arts) to exert his own angry vendetta against the world. He’s self-centered– blaming his addiction to heroin on seeing his father die and have an affair, when in reality he did choose to shoot up. His first line:"Ikilled my dad. I didn’t blow him away with a gun. Instead, I let him die" basically sums up the way this man thinks. He thinks of himself. While the piece is SUPPOSED to be about his father, he makes it about himself with this sort of voice.
This article is all that is required to understand him. Buying the book isn’t necessary. It’s clear that he is swept up in his own life and is too blind to see that his "generous" story about how his father cared for him isn’t generous at all but a reflection of his own self-indulgence.
What’s perhaps more frustrating than his apparent ego is that he writes badly. So even if everything he was accounting WAS 100% true, his writing is still fraught with cliche, after cliche, after cliche…. Then the occasional, typo, too, which is really just annoying. It is his bad writing that betrays the arrogance of his personality.
If I were a college admissions dean and THIS was his essay to me, I’d kick it back to him so hard he would be spinning for weeks.
Professor Soltan is right in saying that memoirs like this should be read warily. It’s important to keep in mind that just because someone went through what may have been an unlikely and exciting story, doesn’t mean that they are good writers.