" directly from the publisher, following accusations the author exaggerated his story.
Readers calling Random House's customer service line to complain on Wednesday were told that if the book was bought directly from the publisher it could be returned for a full refund. Those who bought the book at a bookstore were told to try and return it to the store where it was bought.
"If the book was bought directly from us we will refund the purchase price in full," one Random House customer service told Reuters, adding that readers would have to return the book with the original invoice. "If you bought it at a book store, we ask that you return the book to the book store."
Only a small portion of consumers buy books directly from publishers. However, the agent said Random House normally sells books to consumers as nonrefundable but is offering refunds on Frey's book "because of the controversy surrounding it."
1
I think this is crap. It's a BOOK ... people read to be entertained or to satisfy a desire for knowledge. Why people are making such a big deal about this is beyond me ... NOT A BIG DEAL. Hollywood does it all the time - "based on a true story" ... why can't books? So what if he exaggerated some of the details ... it probably made for a better book and more enjoyable for the reader - which was the GOAL of the reader in buying the damn thing. Sorry, but this annoys me.
If it weren't selected into Oprah's club, then nobody would even care ... but I'm sure SHE raised the big stink about it, so now it's making headlines.
Posted by: Iceman at January 12, 2006 08:23 AM (Iomwr)
2
I'm not sure who originally raised a stink about it, but it wasn't Oprah. In fact, she stands by him and his story (and basically says some of the same things you do, Ice).
http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1148131,00.html
Posted by: Lawren at January 12, 2006 08:30 AM (Z93ge)
3
The stink is because of the philosophy of AA and Hazelden...honesty and taking personal responsibility.
Posted by: Lester at January 12, 2006 08:46 AM (bUhwz)
4
If it had been marketed as "based on a true story" there would be no problem.
The stink is because it's supposed to be a non-fiction (AKA truthful) memoir, and much of the content is completely fabricated.
It's the same reason people made a stink about the NYTimes' Jayson Blair.
Posted by: Sheryl at January 12, 2006 09:10 AM (cmjCY)
5
It's reprehensible.
So truth is not the trend in non-fiction anymore? Oprah was duped and doesn't want to admit it.
This quasi-addict has denounced AA and other programs and people listened to him.
Let me ask you this: Do you think The Great "O" would have chosen to laud this book now?
Posted by: Nancy at January 12, 2006 09:30 AM (Mky7g)
6
I must admit, I didn't read the article about this and I haven't watched a television in forever unless it involves college basketball, so I now see that Oprah is standing behind the author. My apologies for assuming she was the one raising the initial fuss over it (though I don't know if I trust her; I bet she's pissed). I still think it has a heightened publicity pull because it was an OBC selection.
That being said, I still firmly believe this is being blown way out of proportion. I am willing to bet that MANY non-fiction books are not 100% non-fiction. It's a compelling story and an entertaining read (yes, I've read various chapters), and it still has value to others and should be shared with anyone who might need to read it (for whatever personal reasons), and I don't think it should have less of an impact because there are some exaggerations contained within the text. It's still the story of this guy's life - it's just "spiced" up a little.
This is just one of those issues where people will side one way or the other and you'll likely never be able to convince them otherwise - see politics. I've stated my opinion, and others will (and have done) do the same.
Posted by: Iceman at January 12, 2006 09:51 AM (Iomwr)
7
The Smoking Gun (aka court tv) deserves the credit.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html
Posted by: Lynne at January 12, 2006 09:54 AM (f9tTR)
8
I apparently have been under a rock because I haven't heard a thing about this. So what exactly happened?? The guy exaggerated some parts and someone found out about it?? Were the exaggerated parts central to the book??
Posted by: EJ at January 12, 2006 10:06 AM (jetnq)
9
I liked this book, read it over my fall break. Whether it was true or not - who cares. It was a strong and powerful book with an educational and impressive message.
Posted by: L-train at January 12, 2006 04:23 PM (RiWh0)
10
I've not read the book, but if the writer embellished points in the story, it's only fair that he come clean with that.
It's sort of like the George O'Learly flap a few years ago, when he was caught for a phony resume: did it make him any better or worse as a football coach? No. But it was a dishonest representation of himself.
Posted by: Kevvy the Unnamed Source at January 13, 2006 02:47 AM (DlkhG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
