-
Quote
-
0
login to like this post
Post
by Bubbles » Mon, 16 Jan 2006 5:11 pm
A very interesting discussion. Firstly, let me say that I haven't read this book but have heard nothing but complementary comments about it.
Secondly....... I think a large part of this book's appeal is that it was touted as a real life struggle, and the author was deliberately shown publicly. This was obviously part of Random House's plan for sales, that the writer be part of the selling process by being available for inspection. Being on Oprah was most probably orchestrated by RH's publicity department and a slot on the show would have been hard fought for. Yes, Oprah has her 'reading list' for the month, and it usually follows that whatever book she has on goes onto be a success, and RH would have fought tooth and nail to have her read this.....you can bet your bottom dollar she does not just peruse the bookshelves of her local bookshop herself and 'come up' with a choice.
However, Random House, one of the world's largest publishing houses, would NOT have gone with this author if they had not thought he was good enough to sell....(definition of 'good' in publishing terms is a movable feast, it's all about the money....if it's 'of the moment' or 'something completely different' then it's more likely to make money....and that's what it is...a business to make money after all)....
However, publishing it as a memoir still does not preclude some fictional recollections being included, but these should be side issues, and perhaps involve emotions that did or did not get felt....and should never be checkable, verifiable facts which are in the public domain. It does make you think, doesn't it, if Random House have offered to refund the public....something I have NEVER heard of before...then they must be aware that a large percentage, or important quoted facts, within the book are fabricated. They could have done this for legal reasons, and not out of the goodness of their hearts, for if they were rock solid on their facts all we'd get is a 'tough!'
And the question, 'Should the author have owned up and said that not every single fact was reality?'.....hmm, I think not. Every time every one of us looks back on an incident it is different. If we were to write it down after it happened, you would get fabrications everywhere.....and we'd be doing it unconsciously, because unless you have a machine brain, then how can we remember everything fact for fact? A writers job is to make a scene look interesting by adding colour....not say something like, 'I woke up, got out of bed, went to work, did work, had lunch, did more work, caught the tube, got home, watched tv, went to bed.'....is it?
HOWEVER....and here's the dispute......it depends how much he altered and whether, in that alteration, he can be said to be encouraging others to follow a path or action or glorify something he did not experience. But if the main part of the book DID happen to him, and the ending DID happen.....then unless he quoted real people, doing things they did not do, or him following a fictional course of therapy which does not exist...(and would cause others to try to find it) well, I say he presents a hope to hard drug users, and that can't be bad, made up story or not.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas.