Oh, the idiocy.
I haven't really been keeping up with the whole Frey fiasco, mostly because it makes me ill, but then this quote caught my eye, and I just had to comment.
"Angry readers in New York, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles have filed federal class-action suits against publishers Random House and Nan Talese, claiming that reading A Million Little Pieces was a waste of time and demanding that they be reimbursed for the cost of the book, as well as for their lost hours."
First of all, the concept of suing over wasted time boggles my mind, but that's neither here nor there. Second of all, I just cannot understand why one would read a whole book and then complain that it was wasted time only after finding out the contents were fabricated. I understand that it matters that this man lied, and I think what he did was absolutely reprehensible. (Not to mention self-serving and really, really stupid.) But if the book itself, taken as a work of literature (fiction or nonfiction) really had so little value that one could consider it a "waste of time", then why would you read it?
The article also mentions a social worker who's suing on behalf of her patients. Apparently she recommended they read the book because of its "redemptive theme." What, the redemptive theme is only valid if the events described are true? If she found enough value in the book that she thought it would help her patients, then I would certainly hope that that "value" came from what was in the darn thing and not merely the fact that it was passed off as a memoir.
Sorry. Venting over.
Hmph.
"Angry readers in New York, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles have filed federal class-action suits against publishers Random House and Nan Talese, claiming that reading A Million Little Pieces was a waste of time and demanding that they be reimbursed for the cost of the book, as well as for their lost hours."
First of all, the concept of suing over wasted time boggles my mind, but that's neither here nor there. Second of all, I just cannot understand why one would read a whole book and then complain that it was wasted time only after finding out the contents were fabricated. I understand that it matters that this man lied, and I think what he did was absolutely reprehensible. (Not to mention self-serving and really, really stupid.) But if the book itself, taken as a work of literature (fiction or nonfiction) really had so little value that one could consider it a "waste of time", then why would you read it?
The article also mentions a social worker who's suing on behalf of her patients. Apparently she recommended they read the book because of its "redemptive theme." What, the redemptive theme is only valid if the events described are true? If she found enough value in the book that she thought it would help her patients, then I would certainly hope that that "value" came from what was in the darn thing and not merely the fact that it was passed off as a memoir.
Sorry. Venting over.
Hmph.