Based on a True Story: How Truthful Are We?

I was having a discussion with my father one day and somehow we ended up on the topic of books/films/etc. based on true stories. We talked about the purpose of adding that phrase to a work and what it meant for the person who consumes that work.

For example, look at the author James Frey in his highly popularized and subsequently denounced book A Million Little Pieces. When it was first marketed, it was based on a true story about an addict and the struggles he went through in his life. After it came out that much of what happened in the memoir didn't actually occur, Frey was deemed a monster. He fooled Oprah, which I doubt is a small feat. When accusations of his book came to light, readers and viewers learned that eighty-seven days in prison was only a few hours and hitting an officer while high on crack was actually only a minor offense, to which Frey was released on bail. After his exposure as a fraud, Frey was demonized. We couldn't trust him anymore and anything he said henceforth was obviously a lie.

I feel that what Frey did, whether consciously or not, is borderline brilliant. He blends and blurs the line between truth and falsity. Everyone was caught with their pants down. While he is lambasted for being a liar, I believe that Frey exposed a side of the public that we tend not to think about or purposely ignore outright. I think that when we see the phrase "based on a true story," we don't realize that we have been unconsciously conditioned. We've been conditioned to believe that the film/book is going to take us to a world of depravity, exposing aspects of the world we never considered before. However, after this exposure, there is a sense of hope at the end, that feel-good moment where we know everything is going to be alright. Almost any sports movie based on a true story demonstrates this to us. Frey tears down the wall between fact and fiction, making his readers question how much of his work actually occurred. If we don't know whether or not it's true, do we then feel that we have been deceived and, subsequently, should we disregard his story entirely?

In Frey's note to readers post-exposure, he contends "People cope with adversity in many different ways, ways that are deeply personal. [...] My mistake [...] is writing about the person I created in my mind to help me cope, and not the person who went through the experience" and "I wanted the stories in the book to ebb and flow, to have dramatic arcs, to have the tension that all great stories require." Frey is a writer and he is also the person being written on. He wants his story told but he also wants a story told. I think all writers have this problem. How much truth is there in what we write? Is it enough to say that it's based on a true story? Is there too much to call it a work of fiction?

Black Static

In fulfilling my class requirement, I present to you the literary journal Black Static. Black Static is a British horror magazine that I've taken an interest in. While I'll confess that I am not up-to-date on the latest genre journals, I find Black Static to be interesting mostly in part because of their dedication to their website. They publish what stories that they have accepted so far, their competitions, and links to the blogs of their contributors. I believe that I'll be grabbing myself a subscription in the near future.

http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/

Writing My Portfolio

As I write my story for my portfolio, I've found myself encountering a major problem. Since roughly half of the story is set within a diary, I am finding it difficult to keep in character while at the same time providing the needed exposition for the story. I'm trying to incorporate a fabricated mythology in a 1950s veteran. It's proving to be a challenge, as the words I want to use to describe the mythology aren't necessarily the words that my character would use. I'm having trouble finding the balance between my exposition and my character. On the one hand, I could describe a whole parallel universe regarding this fabricated mythology. However, this would either seem boring/uncharacteristic of my character. On the other hand, I could be quite ambiguous as possible and leave the reader to fill in the details, which isn't very fun for neither the reader nor me. I think I'm going to have to look at some writing resources online to help me better understand that balance.

A Cure for Terminal Loneliness

As I was flipping though channels on tv, I came across a short that Showcase played as a bit of filler between the end of a movie and their next program. It is called "A Cure for Terminal Loneliness." I was moved by it that I felt the need to share it. I'd recommend this for anyone who writes in the genres. Even though the film is only five minutes long, there is a lot to be said about it. It's a love story. It's an urban fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMUEuywZFkY

Let's Talk About Flâneurs

I'm sure a lot of writers already do this, but I figured it would be worth mentioning. I've been thinking about what it means to be a writer and the process of writing. Particularly, I've been having trouble writing emotion into my stories. In my search for a solution, my mind started to turn to literary theory. Today, I thought I would discuss one a term from one of my favorite theorists, Charles Baudelaire.

Baudelaire, in his literary theory, uses the term flâneur as a means to explain, at least partly, the writing process. The flâneur is a strange creature. It means "stroller" or "wanderer." The flâneur would stroll the streets of city he/she lives in, play witness to it, and ponder what he/she experiences. It is the job of this person to become part of the city he/she is immersed in: the understand, participate, and portray it in their art(s). By participating in this stroll, it was hoped that the artist would be able to better understand his/her craft.

Whenever I'm out and about, I find that it is always worthwhile to pay attention to the world around you. I'll never forget this time when I was going to a movie with a friend at the theater a few years ago. I picked up the tickets ahead of time, and realized I had time to kill. As I left the theater, I remember seeing a mother and her daughter. The daughter, who was probably no older than sixteen, was covering her mouth with her sleeves. The only thing I heard came from the mother, who seemed terribly exasperated. She said "you don't have swine flu" as she sighed and rolled her eyes. This was during the big swine flu epidemic when people were more afraid and uncertain of the sickness.

It was at that point, I realized I became the flâneur. I couldn't realize at the time how swine flu would progress - whether it would all blow over or become something much more serious. This conversation, I believe, encapsulates this uncertainty.The mother/daughter conversation is a product of its time.


It's something to think about as writers. We all bear witness to our time and cannot possibly know what it was like outside our time. We cannot witness the fear, anxiety, happiness, anger, sadness, optimism, disappointment of events prior to us. And yet, we can witness all those emotions in our time by observing the world around us. For writers having trouble with emotion in their stories, all you need to do is take a stroll downtown and see the city come alive.