For me, this is a question of genre. What's the difference between ';autobiography'; and ';memoir';, if both purport to be true and written by the person who occupies the central perspective? Since memory is necessarily faulty (it won't correspond to the actual ';facts';), we must expect a certain degree of fabrication. But this is a slippery slope, which leads us to blurring the lines between fiction and nonfiction. I find that the emotional truths derived from the text are far more important, and even more real, than any supposedly factual truths, but that doesn't amount to an excuse for misrepresenting a clearly ficionalized piece as memoir. It comes down to a sincerity of the author, who chooses a genre knowing full well the expectations of the audience based on that choice. The text remains valuable (even Frey's wholly debunked work has a unique value to it, in that it brings these questions to light) despite the misrepresentations, but the community has spoken (or rather, has vacantly agreed with the force of O) - Frey's going back to flipping burgers.Does a memoir have to be ';true'; in order to be valuable as a work of literature?
There's an *intent* factor that must be examined. Clearly, if George Washington wrote his memoirs and claimed the ability to fly, we'd guess that was a dream and not reality. But memory is based on perspective - two different people seeing the same event will probably describe it differently.
Report Abuse
Of course it doesn't have to be true to be valuable as a work of literature, but if it is not true, why call it a memoir? If you are going to completely make up the stuff, label it fiction and get on with it. Many fictional memoirs have been written (I, Claudius for instance), and they are excellent books, but properly labeled.
It has to be true in order to be valuable as a work of non-fiction.
It does not have to be true in order to be valuable as a work of fiction.
The dictionary defines memoir, as ';An account of the personal experiences of an author';. A memoir, in every sense of the word, has to be ';true'; in order to gain the acceptance of being called a memoir. I assume that you have heard of the book ';A Million Little Pieces';? The book has recently been under fire for having parts of the exaggerated, or in some instances, complete facts altered.
Does a memoir have to be ';true'; in order to be valuable as a work of literature? If the writer deemed the book a memoir, it must be true, or else it is serving the public, and the masses, a bunch of swindle and lies.
324g
If its not true then its a novel based on a true story.
They as well as an autobiograhy should be acurate in its factual state, if not you should title it as a fiction novel and sell it as such.
Readers buy and read memoirs because they are interested in your life experience and not something created in your mind. So if you are a serious writer you should def. take this serious and publish it under the correct pretense.
If some one discredits you, you will become a laughing stock in the writing community.
You're asking several questions at once. There are plenty of fictional ';memoirs'; that are fine literature--but the author does not pretend to be the same person as the character narrating the work of fiction (e.g. David Copperfield by Dickens). Then there are ';memoirs'; that nobody entirely believes, but are lots of fun to read, such as the memoirs of Casanova. And there are memoirs such as James Frey's, which are presented as autobiography but are so embellished as to be fiction. That's probably where your question comes from.
Is James Frey a good writer? I suppose so--I haven't read the book, but a lot of other people have. Is he a truthful person? Apparently not.
I think the big stink came because he embarrassed Oprah by telling her on TV that the whole book was true, and then it turned out to be largely made up. That's not a question about literature--it's a question about personal honesty. The book may still be a good read, but it belongs in the fiction section of the library.
Yes, if it is written under the guise of an autobiography or biography it should be all true or as true as the person can make it to their knowledge, if a book is written that is written knowingly with lies then it should not be listed as a memoir or autobiography and it should be written up front as a novel or work of fiction.
Basically memoirs are really just historical accounts. and history is just an acculmination of lies that most have people agreed upon.
there isnt ever going to be a 100 % memoir its someone writing their side of how things went not the whole truth but thats ok it can still be valuable as long as its acurate from that person point of view.
Yeah! The whole thing must be ';true'; to be a valuble work of literature. Look at James Frey's ';A Million Little Pieces';: He said it was true originally, but now it's not and it's being published as a novel.
I agree with the first answer. it is not a memroir if it has nothing but ';colourful'; untrue stories! If your life isn't as exciting then don't pull a walter mitty and lie about it. just go ahead and write a great fiction novel!
yes and no ..it has to be as actual as the author can remember.....but then again peoples memories are always called into question .by someone elses memory of the same situation ...but no fraud is allowed.......in other words no lieing......liars are not consider reliable sourses of the facts by anyone ......unless it was billed as a fictional work and then reader beware....because you don't want to use it for a refrence on a paper, for say a science class .hee hee ......
Memoirs are generally skewed because the author is writing about his/her own experiences rather than from a detached perspective.
Memoirs are definitely not historical works although they might give you an insiders view into backroom dealings. But that view will always be tinted with the authors own opinions.
With that said, a skewed perspective would not necessarily mean the work is not valuable literature. It could very well be if it's written well and provides invaluable insight.
Memoirs are an account of a person life, some of it can be real and some can just be made up to make the story better.
We just wrote a memior in our English class and I think sometimes if you don't remember things you can put a fake thing in there. It probably shouldn't be something like:
';So he flew out the window to...'; blah blah blah... you get my point. It can be used but only sometimes if you don't remember parts and if you don't remember alot of it do a different one.
There is a certain level of personal interpretation in all aspects of life. and time does alter our memories (for better or worse) I think we have the right to expect major details in an autobiography to be accurate, but if someones first car was blue and they remember it as green, too picyune.
write a fiction book and say it's based on a true story. Memoirs should always be true or else your publishing a li_e story
If it's not true, it's not a memoir. I don't mean to say that it must be factually true; I mean to say that it must accurately reflect what the author believes to be true. Otherwise, don't call it a memoir, and maybe it (whatever it is) will have some literary value.
Yes; otherwise drop the word memoir.
Yes, a memoir has to be true. It isn't NOT valued if a story isn't true, but it gives me a chill to read a story that really happened. If you change things like names, pesonal info, and events, it can be called ';Based on a True story.';
Well, when looking for ';truth'; in a Memoir you do have to remember who it is that wrote the memoir and that you are getting a single perspective.
There is a memoir written by a man who was a Nazi soldier. (I can't remember the title, unfortunately). He wrote of wonderful victories of the early war and the honor of meeting Hitler himself. From his perspective, there wasn't really anything wrong with putting people in concentration camps.
Of course we know that's not ';true';. Concentration camps were horrible places, that noone would ever deserve to go.
Yet this book (oh my goodness I wish I remembered what it was called) is definately a valuble literary perspective when it comes to that period of history.
Well, if it's not true, it's not a memoir.
nothing is entirely acurate everybody lies.
it's human nature
yes, why write a memoir of lies?
Any non-fiction book needs to be taken with at least a small grain of salt.
As long as you accept that not all accounts in an autobiography are entirely accurate, it's all just a matter of extent.
I think a memoir has to be written in good faith that the information it contains is true, at least, that it is the truth from the perspective of the author.
If the author wants to diverge from the truth as they know it, they should be writing fiction.
Being a writer, though not published just yet, I've learned quite a bit about writing and memoirs can be fictionalized as long as the character is fictionalized. However, some writers take ';artistic license'; and fudge a little but I wouldn't. Memoirs are like diaries so generally for a real person they are true, exept of course the ones that just came back to bite the author of ';A Million Little Pieces'; in the booty. He embellished and outright lied in his memoirs and he got called on the carpet for it and had to have 'come to Jesus' meeting with Oprah because she had endorsed his book for being the real thing and really supported it. Then, when people checked out his story, and someone always does, they found out that a lot of his writing was far from the truth. The real shame is that he could have written it as fiction and it would have sold well but he decided to lie and it not only embarrassed him and Oprah, it embarrassed his editors and publisher. Not a good thing to do. It could be embarrassing if you're not careful. Good luck.
There was the perfect Oprah show for this. Remember hearing about the author she used in her book club, the sales when up and then a reporter showed errors in the ';memoirs';. He defended himself by saying they did not have to be completely true. His life story was reshaped into a better book with his liberties.
Certainly most of the people involved think he should have been more truthful. At least about the book being part fiction. The Regan Biographer got into some trouble for writing himself in the early years to make the story smoother when the author actually spent time with R.Regan and his first person narative was appropriate.
Oprah appoligised to the book club for not investigateing him Herself. {now if she would appologize for inviting GWBush on} Certainly is a good question.
Well, a memior is supposed to be a period in your lifetime. You could ';spice it up'; a little bit by adding things that aren't entirely true, I suppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment