A Million Little Pieces

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by sara1998

What's that?

Dry drunk is when people actually get sober but the habits they formed when drunk are still with them. So even though they're sober, they're still trapped in the rut of bad behavioral patterns that afflicted them when drunk.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I was thinking this exact thing, lying is part of the disease. I haven't read the book but I did see that Oprah episode. The follow-up episode should be interesting - she must be livid.

She's not. She called in to Larry King last night and said she stands behind him.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

She's not. She called in to Larry King last night and said she stands behind him.

Hmm. What does she mean by that? That she's okay with his lying or she does not believe he lied?

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Dry drunk is when people actually get sober but the habits they formed when drunk are still with them. So even though they're sober, they're still trapped in the rut of bad behavioral patterns that afflicted them when drunk.

Another part of the meaning of this is that dry drunks are not in a treatment program like AA which will help keep them sober while also fostering good relationships and character. Some call the president a dry drunk.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Hmm. What does she mean by that? That she's okay with his lying or she does not believe he lied?

She means that she chose the book for her book club because she thought it was a good book with a good message that people would enjoy reading and get a lot out of. Whether or not the events described in the book actually happened has no effect on any of that.

You people who are all outraged at this guy and calling him scum because you somehow feel cheated or duped because the book isn't entirely true are just ridiculous. What the hell difference does it possibly make to you?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

You people who are all outraged at this guy and calling him scum because you somehow feel cheated or duped because the book isn't entirely true are just ridiculous. What the hell difference does it possibly make to you?

I take it you've never read Jerzy Kosinski's book, pal. When I read nonfiction, I expect it to be truthful, especially when the prick who wrote it is going around town telling everyone who will listen that it's all a completely true account of his life and something that he wrote in attempt to be honest with himself over his past transgressions. Call me silly, but I think it's pretty disgusting and scummy when someone invents a role for themself in an accident that claimed the lives of two people. Just as it's equally scummy to write a book detailing all of the horrible things that your involvement with drugs were partly responsible for when half of those things were fictionalized in your head. So, what difference does it make to me? A helluva lot. Not to mention the fact that it makes me sick to see him enjoying all the riches and accolades that this book brought him when he lied to everyone so blatantly. Without his truth banner attached to it, it wouldn't have sold or become as popular as it has.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

She means that she chose the book for her book club because she thought it was a good book with a good message that people would enjoy reading and get a lot out of. Whether or not the events described in the book actually happened has no effect on any of that.

What a crock of ****. She chose it mostly because it was a "true story," so that people could look at this Frey character and say to themselves 'Look at all the incredible stuff he's been through and he's still here.'

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

I take it you've never read Jerzy Kosinski's book, pal. When I read nonfiction, I expect it to be truthful, especially when the prick who wrote it is going around town telling everyone who will listen that it's all a completely true account of his life and something that he wrote in attempt to be honest with himself over his past transgressions. Call me silly, but I think it's pretty disgusting and scummy when someone invents a role for themself in an accident that claimed the lives of two people. Just as it's equally scummy to write a book detailing all of the horrible things that your involvement with drugs were partly responsible for when half of those things were fictionalized in your head.

How is this scummy?

So, what difference does it make to me? A helluva lot.

Sorry, I know that question can be read two different ways. I didn't mean, "How much of a difference does it make to you?" I meant, "What difference does it make to you?"

Not to mention the fact that it makes me sick to see him enjoying all the riches and accolades that this book brought him when he lied to everyone so blatantly.

I'm enjoying the fact that the "scandal" is bringing him twice the riches and accolades he had even a week ago.

Without his truth banner attached to it, it wouldn't have sold or become as popular as it has.

No, it certainly would not have. Which again begs the question: What's the difference?

I say good for him for exploiting an America that doesn't give a **** about fiction anymore but creams all over every two-bit inspirational memoir it can get its hands on. And good for Oprah and Doubleday for recognizing that a good book is a good book (according to them, anyway, I haven't read it).

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

What a crock of ****. She chose it mostly because it was a "true story," so that people could look at this Frey character and say to themselves 'Look at all the incredible stuff he's been through and he's still here.'

How is this purpose and effect any different whether the book in question is a meoir or a novel? Are people these days so entrenched in their own realities and so far removed from the possibilities and promises of literature that they need to be told that the main character of a book is a real person in order to get anything out of it?

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

She means that she chose the book for her book club because she thought it was a good book with a good message that people would enjoy reading and get a lot out of. Whether or not the events described in the book actually happened has no effect on any of that.

You people who are all outraged at this guy and calling him scum because you somehow feel cheated or duped because the book isn't entirely true are just ridiculous. What the hell difference does it possibly make to you?

I guess our period of peace is over. Telling people they're rediculous for an opinion just stirs the pot.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

How is this scummy?

That's up to you, babe. Your sense of morality must be different from mine and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I'm enjoying the fact that the "scandal" is bringing him twice the riches and accolades he had even a week ago.

He had better enjoy it while it lasts because I predict his next book will sink as quickly as Jayson Blair's and Stephen Glass'.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

No, it certainly would not have. Which again begs the question: What's the difference?

The difference is that he lied to the book-buying public to sell his book. It's a work of fiction and should have been treated as such.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I say good for him for exploiting an America that doesn't give a **** about fiction anymore but creams all over every two-bit inspirational memoir it can get its hands on. And good for Oprah and Doubleday for recognizing that a good book is a good book (according to them, anyway, I haven't read it).

The book is fabulously entertaining, but he can't write for ****. It reads like a Hubert Selby Jr. rip-off.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Telling people they're ridiculous for an opinion just stirs the pot.

I'm sorry, Nurse Ratched.

Don't worry, though, I think Josh and I are largely capable of having an interesting, heated discussion without... whatever it is that people seem to be so afraid will happen if people actually have an interesting, heated discussion around here.

But I'll be sure to make my next post about which brands of shampoo people prefer, if it will make everybody feel better about themselves.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Are people these days so entrenched in their own realities and so far removed from the possibilities and promises of literature that they need to be told that the main character of a book is a real person in order to get anything out of it?

I find it hilarious that you feel the need to ask such a question when the answer is as obvious as the nose on your face.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

The difference is that he lied to the book-buying public to sell his book. It's a work of fiction and should have been treated as such.

Okay, so again: What's the difference? What difference does that make?

(Sorry if it seems like I'm repeating myself or beating you over the head with this, but it's an honest question. I read novels and memoirs more or less in the same way, and I'm interested in what the difference is for some people.)

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

I find it hilarious that you feel the need to ask such a question when the answer is as obvious as the nose on your face.

I actually lost my nose in a drug-induced car wreck, you insensitive--nah, I just made that up.

Rhetorical, dear! The question was rhetorical!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Okay, so again: What's the difference? What difference does that make?

(Sorry if it seems like I'm repeating myself or beating you over the head with this, but it's an honest question. I read novels and memoirs more or less in the same way, and I'm interested in what the difference is for some people.)

When I read novels, I don't expect to read something that the author is trying to pass off as reality to me. When I read nonfiction, I expect the works to have enough truth to them to be respectable and deserving of the label "nonfiction." I don't expect the author to invent entire criminal records, prison stays, drug offenses, involvements in train accidents, and tense meetings in rehab about how they're going to deal with all of the things they've supposedly done. It's deceptive and unfair to the reader.

Just last night on Larry King, he said that he wrote of cutting his cheek when, in reality, he "fell down, [his] lower teeth tore up my lip and penetrated it in two separate places." When pressed by King as to why, he said "Because it's a lot easier than saying over and over again that I cut the area between my lower lip and my chin." That answer made me wonder if he was still lighting that crackpipe up. He had no reason to invent all of these things or exaggerate these things unless his actual story wasn't all that interesting to begin with. Don't tell me it's 100% true when it's 75% bull****.