Week 7: Prompt Response
.png)
The idea of a literary hoax seems very meta to me. Before you read any further, I am not saying that hoaxes don't matter nor am I saying that there aren't series ethical dilemmas involved with hoaxes. When I think about books and hoaxes, I am more interested in why some books were published as non-fiction instead of fiction and if a hoax could be avoided by publishing under a different genre or category.
The article in The New Yorker lists a few lines of defense for books accused of hoax, including "the surrogacy defense [which is] the theory that, although a particular event recounted in [a] book may not have happened to the author, it happened to someone. Such a book, then, is really the life story of a group. Experiences common to the group are therefore legitimately represented as happening to a single, quasi-allegorical figure" (Menand, 2018, para. 5). While it is not be ethical to embellish certain details from one's life or completely insert fiction on the grounds that "it happened to someone/someone who knew someone who I know," would there be harm in publishing the title as fiction and instead claiming it was "inspired by true events?" I'm wondering if the author had approached their writing as fiction or fable or allegory, if instead of calling a book a "hoax," we could say that the story was "thought provoking and compelling." After all, I often say "if you can think of it, someone else has probably lived it" and it seems safer to publish these works as fiction if you can't fully cite your sources as to where or when they happened.
Another defense that Menand gives is the "high-truth defense [which is] the argument that fabrications and exaggerations in books like these are in the service of more fully conveying 'what it is really like' to be" part of a certain group (2018, para. 6). He further argues that "readers don't care whether these things literally happened to [the author], because they didn't buy the book to find out about [the author]. They bought it to learn about addiction and recovery" or whatever other topic a book claims to be about (2018, para. 6). I agree with Menand that many readers want to peer into a lifestyle or situation that they know nothing about or have little experience with, however the problem lies in the miscommunication that may happen when a reader then recommends a book to a friend and can't fully convey that the events within didn't happen to the author themselves and thus create a game of telephone. I said before that I think hoaxes are meta because it seems that we concerned about whether events actually happened to an author, which makes us question whether a book is fact or fiction, but then if we decide that some parts happened to someone it could be fact again, but then if anything that happens in a fiction book could happen to someone, aren't all the realities within fiction actually non-fiction? This cycle of thinking could go on forever, never ending, like a literary ouroboros!
Overall, I think literary hoaxes and the search for truth within stories is a topic that offers a lot of exploration. I don't have all the answers today, but readers should always question what they are reading and consider that every person we meet or see has a whole life and story that we know nothing about, and anything is possible within their story.
References
Menand, L. (2018, Dec. 3). Literary hoaxes and the ethics of authorship. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/literary-hoaxes-and-the-ethics-of-authorship
.png)
I kind of felt like you did after considering this prompt, that there isn't a real answer to this topic. I liked what you said about publishing these kinds of books as fiction "based on true events" instead. I definitely think this would solve some of the ethical dilemmas that these situations create.
ReplyDeleteEven something "based on true events" is enough to catch my attention! In the past when I have looked at the truth behind a "based on" story, it truth is even more wild and I assume that things are edited for clarity at some point during publishing/production.
DeleteUnfortunately, we as readers have to just trust that authors aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes in situations like this. Whenever something says "based on true events" or "inspired by true events," I've learned to take it with a grain of salt, because sometimes the stories are too sensational. There are books that I go into hoping that the author isn't pulling my leg on anything, like Jennette McCurdy's or Matthew Perry's autobiography. I agree wholeheartedly that some should be classified as fiction, especially if we can prove that less than 50% of the book is not based on true events.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing as you, Kayla, that we have to just trust that authors are actually being truthful. And while I also take it with a grain of salt when I see "based on a true story" at least I know after reading that, that the events have most likely altered for the sake of the story. I would have less problem reading a book with that tag line verses reading a memoir that someone says is completely factual.
DeleteAnd if I found out that Jennette McCurdy's book was actually not completely true I think I would be pretty upset. It just doesn't seem right to me to make up such horrific events and pass them off as someone's real life.
Haley, I think I agree with you. Certainly on your first point, I agree that if the thing you are writing about it not fully true, then list it as "based on fact." It seems like there are plenty of books like that. And I think I'm tracking with you on the "meta" argument. I think you are saying that if we accept Menand's position that a thing doesn't have to be fully true to be considered non-fiction, then really all literature is non-fiction. Because it's true, fiction comes from our own personal experiences. Don't they say to authors "write what you know?" So the fictional story comes from something the author experienced, but has turned into a story. So, if you're doing that in your writing a "memoir" then I think you need to call it a "fictionalized memoir, based on facts" or something like that. Maybe we need yet another new genre! Ha.
ReplyDeleteHi Janna, yes maybe we just created a new genre! Or we are quickly slipping into an SNL skit level of truth for non-fiction!
DeleteHi Haley,
ReplyDeleteI've seen this discussion happen a lot in my writer circles when it comes to writing about the lived experiences of groups the author doesn't belong to. (Like with American Dirt). Personally, even if a book by an author outside that cultural group were word for word the same as a book by an author within that cultural group in the book, I would prefer the #OwnVoices title because it has that ring of authenticity. It's the difference between having someone tell you a story secondhand versus telling you about something they actually experienced.
The surrogacy defense reminds me of stolen valor. Imagine that someone published a whole book about their time as a marine in Afghanistan and it turns out they were telling the story of a marine they knew? Ideally, you have to be really clear about whether the character in the book is you, if you are the author. I agree with Liz that there is not a great answer that fits all situations.
ReplyDeleteHi Jackie, yes, it feels like the same problem under a different name!
DeleteI appreciated your viewpoint on literary hoaxes and how you see them as more meta. I can see fiction being "based on true events" after all most movies that portray semi-true events are called the same. I would say it's almost like catfishing someone, where a person portrays themselves differently than they actually are.
ReplyDelete