History is all a matter of 'point of view', and 'best information available at the time' but a good author will tell you if he's just speculating. Sometimes you are just getting what someone remembers from an even and I think this is ok.
However making up something totally new and mixing it in with supposed non-ficticious writing is misleading and totally retarded. If someone is going to do this then it needs a big sticker saying 'based on a true story' or something like that, and should be in the fiction section.
If I were a more motivated person (and im not :P) I would complain to the publisher, and the store I bought the book, saying it should be placed in an appropriate section(ie fiction).
I'll give him a fair few points for kicking his habit too. And even not being completely honest to himself about his memories is something to overlook..
until it's put into a factual book. As an author writing a non-fiction book, He has a responsibility to his readers to ensure that the facts are there. They can be in amongst the "impression and feeling" and "individual recollection" but they _must_ be there. Otherwise the work is fiction based on real events.
I haven't read the book - but I'd be pissed off to find that out.
I'd say 'embellishing' the truth would be common in biographical books. It doesn't make it any more right.
Does he paint anyone in a negative light in the book and use their name (or at least give enough information to identify them)? If so, they probably have a case to sue.
Sounds like he hasn't kicked all the habits of addiction - lying being one of the worst and most insidious. I bet he thought 'hey, it doesn't matter.. if it comes out that it's not the complete truth that'll just be more publicity for me'.
I agree with you. If I read a book that I beleived to be a true story of someone overcoming a truly challenging part of thier lives I would be most annoyed to find out that it was bullshit.
I think his goal was actually to write something that would sell and make him lots of cash to be honest. Obviously the story of his own addiction wasnt colourful enough to be a bestseller, so he had to embellish it with content that would be.
Comments 9
However making up something totally new and mixing it in with supposed non-ficticious writing is misleading and totally retarded. If someone is going to do this then it needs a big sticker saying 'based on a true story' or something like that, and should be in the fiction section.
If I were a more motivated person (and im not :P) I would complain to the publisher, and the store I bought the book, saying it should be placed in an appropriate section(ie fiction).
Reply
Reply
until it's put into a factual book. As an author writing a non-fiction book, He has a responsibility to his readers to ensure that the facts are there. They can be in amongst the "impression and feeling" and "individual recollection" but they _must_ be there. Otherwise the work is fiction based on real events.
I haven't read the book - but I'd be pissed off to find that out.
Reply
Does he paint anyone in a negative light in the book and use their name (or at least give enough information to identify them)? If so, they probably have a case to sue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
If I read a book that I beleived to be a true story of someone overcoming a truly challenging part of thier lives I would be most annoyed to find out that it was bullshit.
I think his goal was actually to write something that would sell and make him lots of cash to be honest. Obviously the story of his own addiction wasnt colourful enough to be a bestseller, so he had to embellish it with content that would be.
Reply
Leave a comment