Tell Me a Story

I just got an email from a friend asking, "where's the blog?" Do you all miss me that much?

The truth is, I often write these things during the workday, and many of those times I should have been doing my work. Lately work has just gotten too busy for me to take time out to spend so much time on my posts, and it's probably going to stay that way, so I suppose I will have to adjust. I get a full hour for lunch, and I take it every day, so that would seem like a good time to post.

Anyway, there's also the matter of material. Believe it or not, there are times when I don't have any topic ideas at the ready. Sometimes my daily commute provides me with impromptu blog fodder, but (thankfully, really) that doesn't happen every day. But sometimes inspiration comes from unexpected places, and I did read something in the paper this morning that raised my eyebrows.

For the second time in less than a week, the author of a memoir has been exposed for fabricating the work. Last week the person in question happened to be a resident of this area, but the story I read about today was more interesting to me, partly because I happened to read a profile of the writer in the same paper just last week. Even then, there were elements of her story that did not sound quite right to me, and some things were glossed over in the profile that left me wondering.

This woman wrote a book under a different name, presenting it as the story of her childhood and adolescence as a half-white, half-Native American living in a black family's foster home in South Central Los Angeles. She said she had followed her foster brothers into the Bloods gang and worked as a drug runner for gang members. In fact, she is white, was never a foster child, and had a reasonably privileged upbringing as a Valley girl. She now says that much of the book is based on the experiences of people she met while working with anti-gang violence organizations, and that she felt those people did not have the opportunity to tell their own stories, so she (sort of) did it on their behalf.

When I hear about situations like this, what I wonder is: how do you think you can pull off a lie of such magnitude and get away with it, especially now that we're in the age of the internet? This woman's older sister saw the profile I read last week, that had the fabricator's PICTURE in it, and contacted her publisher to tell them she was a fake. (Gotta be some bad blood in that family, huh?) But if it wasn't a family member, it might have been someone she went to school with, or a neighbor of her parents, or her piano teacher, or any of a dozen other possibilities.

If you're trying to scam the world in such a manner, why not say to the reporter, "Um, yeah, I would really prefer if you didn't put my picture in the paper because, well, there might be people from back in my gang days who wouldn't want me talking about this stuff so openly" or some bullshit like that. Maybe it was intentional--maybe it was all just a publicity stunt, except that the publisher has recalled the book and pulled the plug on her tour, probably not the desired end result.

One other nagging question: why has there been this recent spate of embellishments and falsifications? What's so terrible about presenting these stories as fiction? Why try to fool everyone? It would be clear that they were informed by real people and events, and would certainly be as powerful as a memoir. I can't understand why one would risk so much: reputation, friends, possibly livelihood. It doesn't seem worth the price.

I occasionally fudge dates a little, such as saying something happened "yesterday" when it actually happened a few days or a week before--sometimes I don't get around to telling the story right away--but I don't make up stuff.

Vile Media Whore Dept.

I didn't have any intention of mentioning this subject, but I just read this bit in Gregg Easterbrook's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" column on ESPN.com and thought it was a very apt take on the situation:

"And in sad, nauseating news, O.J. Simpson has confessed. There is no way on God's green Earth an innocent man, falsely accused, could put his name on a book in which he 'imagines' what it 'would' have been like to cut a helpless woman's throat. His acquittal might protect Simpson from jail, but it no longer protects his honor; Simpson himself has voided that by doing something that only a guilty man would even contemplate. Maybe at this point Simpson belongs in a treatment facility for the criminally insane--but he does not belong in the Hall of Fame or on the wall at Ralph Wilson Stadium. His bust must immediately be removed from Canton and his name pulled down from that place of respect. Take a crowbar to them today. The fact that Fox and its publishing subsidiary just canceled the book and associated television show does not create any excuse for the National Football League. Any other course other than the removal of Simpson's bust from the Hall and his name from the stadium wall will put the NFL in a state of disgrace. Once the bust and the name are gone, sandblast the areas to get the filth off."

Will it happen? Probably not. But it's nice to contemplate.