June 11, 2008
Dear Clusterflock
What do you think about the mild controversy surrounding David Sedaris’s new book of essays, When You Are Engulfed in Flames, and, indeed, all of his work in general?
In case you didn’t know, Sedaris publishes as a memoirist/humorist, and his work is generally considered, promoted as, and referred to (by Sedaris and others) as non-fiction, though he admits, “it’s 97% true, I think that’s true enough. I’m not going to call it fiction because 3% of it isn’t true.” This is all the sort of thing, of course, that calls to mind the whole James Frey mess.
comments
Leave a Reply
For a little more background about said ‘controversy,’ it’s the sort of thing that causes idiot, asshole retards to write things like this (there I go hiding my opinion about things again):
As long as the words or actions of others have not been misrepresented in any meaningful way, I say Sedaris is right to call it non-fiction.
I like Sedaris. I especially loved an essay he wrote for the New Yorker sometime within the last year (again–too lazy and busy to look it up, sorry). But it was a personal essay about a man who lived near him in France. The man was convicted of a crime and ostracized by the community. Sedaris showed amazing insight in that piece–or, perhaps even more difficult to pull off, he demonstrated his own lack of insight in a way that opened the reader to thought. He’s funny as hell, but he’s a good deal more than that.
David Sedaris is brilliant. James Frey isn’t fit to lick his boots.
(neither is Augusten Burroughs)
As a writer myself who has, on occasion, written some memoir-esque pieces, I think Sedaris is in the right here. Every storyteller takes marginal liberties, and like Cindy says, as long as words or actions of others haven’t been misrepresented, I think the work stands as non-fiction.
To immediately extrapolate this ‘controversy’ to that of James Frey isn’t fair at all. Frey’s controversy involved the majority of Million Little Pieces being wholly untrue or fabricated outright.
But I will have to disagree with Kathy: Burroughs is fantastic, perhaps even better than Sedaris. And Sean Wilsey is right up there with him as well.
Kathy – THANK YOU.
I did not like “A Million Little Pieces”. I did not like “Running With Scissors”. I did not like “Dry”.
This kills me: “Sedaris has long insisted that his nonfiction stories are both true and exaggerated, which when you think about it is impossible.” Since we all select some events to speak of and exclude others, and compress time as we do it, all narration includes some portion of judgment that wouldn’t necessarily be matched by some other person telling the same story. Hell, even memory is a creation. Here’s a little experiment: close your eyes and call to mind a memory of the last time you stood on a beach or at the edge of a large body of water. Did you do it? if so, did you see yourself standing there looking out at the water? Most people will report this to be the case, and of course it represents a viewpoint that is impossible in an objective sense. We create a memory of experience that is not the experience simply being recorded from within.
Anyway, it’s usually the most gullible people who insist on absolute distinctions between fiction and non-fiction. Seems to me the best course to take is to imagine that everything you hear is likely to be partly a fiction.
Okay, it’s really not fair of me to lump Burroughs with Frey. I’ve read Running with Scissors and A Wolf at the Tableand I haven’t read Frey. RWS was entertaining, in a creepy way, but I question its absolute honesty. I thought A Wolf at the Table was unbearable. It struck me as unnatural that a person capable of recalling every detail of his life with such clarity would then lack any curiosity or empathy for the man who, dead or not, wields such power over his past, present, and future. Regardless of the alcoholic dad, it was too self-centered. Even if every word of it is true, I found the book overbearing, not a good read at all.
I think that it is altogether relevant to this recent Spike Lee-Clint Eastwood dust-up.
Nice covers on those Burroughs books (and the Sedaris ones too), though, huh?
Interesting point, Sheila. I hadn’t made that connection. I do, though, think there’s a marked difference between ‘memoir’ and ‘history.’
Jeff, I agree that relating this issue to the Frey deal seems like a stretch, but I can guarantee you that the relevant parties at Knopf/Random House are concerned about just that connection being made, and I’d say that we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place, had it not been for Million Little Pieces and the like.
Jonathan: totally agree.
Whoa. That’s a first. Run for the hills.
Jonathan: Oh, I too distinguish between ‘memoir’ and ‘history’. (Hey, I’m an archivist.) But . . . it do get tricky. Something we could have fun (if nothing else) jawing about.
I’d go first (and hope to in the here and later), but — eh, interestingly enough, I’ve got to knock out a summary of an ‘oral history’ interview.
Oral history. Heh heh.
Crepuscular history.
I may have to get my wife to intervene here shortly.
David Sedaris = thumbs up.
One of my memories of childhood is one I know to be wrong: not in the general sense, which is more or less accurate, but in the setting, which is absolutely wrong. And yet it’s my memory of what happened.
Which is not unlike this.
(One degree of separation between me and Chris Ware, by the way. Have I mentioned that? Sorry. I’m insufferable.)