Posted on 02/01/2006 10:29:27 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Leave Oprah out, he came on her show again and she ripped him a new one for his lies. The Daily Show had a good contrast between her treatment of him and how nice the MSM is to those caught lying.
I wonder if I could sue that yokel Clinton for his equally fictitious memoire, all three trillian boring, self-absorbed pages of it.
There was a recent thread about the publisher saying they don't even bother with fact-checking.
Ummmm...those causes of action all sound in contract or statutory law....not tort.
The ONLY reason that Oprah tore him a new one is because she caught hell from her fans for defending this turd on Larry King.
Besides, is this any different from Michael Moore calling Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary? Can we sue him?
Nobody likes being made a fool of. I caught the original interview (my wife was watching, honestly) and the guy was very convincing, enough to make my wife want the book. At least Oprah is in a position to publicly humiliate and vilify him like he deserves.
Now my wife doesn't want to put any money in his pocket, but she might still get it when it shows up at a dollar store for a buck in a few months. I don't think he would make anything off that.
I read in a magazine that there is a class action against 3M for selling their clear tape at the wrong price, or some such nonsense. My daughter was asking me what it was about and I told her lawyers would make a lot of money and the consumers who were supposedly ripped off would get about 12 cents each in a cute little check. Strange system we have.
Oprah should have had him eat his book.
About 10 years ago, I wrote a humorous book that was published by St. Martin's Press, and they made me and my co-author verify everything in it to a ridiculous extent. There was a joke about Fabio's chest being bigger than Jayne Manfield's, and they actually made me send them the measurements of each one to prove it. So how in the hell did Frey's book, and so many others like it, get published? I guess all the editors and fact-checkers have been fired since 1996.
Very interesting observation.
Am in the process of reading all of Dickens and even Barnaby Rudge seems more real to me than James Frey.
St. Martin's is a good press.
Looks like there is a double standard here. Wonder why?
"Market" and "publishing" are of no relevance to me here, that's all about money, I'm interested in the behaviour of the public, and if you measure everything in $, like many here do, then there is no discussion.
So maybe it's the death of a demand for stimuli to imagination, except the most outlandish, and juvenile kind, like Captain Kirk's travails. (I'm just trying to focus and get a better definition of what I have in mind.) I've read at least 6 well thought out articles commenting on Frey and Leroy, and each one blames the fakers and the "greedy" publishers (easy targets), none attempts to analyze the public demand and tastes, or the reasons for them being what they are. (Avoiding to offend the readers?)
And literary fiction has indeed changed. In the past several years I've read a number of books, sold as fiction, but written as if they were memoirs. Examples: W.G. Sebald, Alexandar Hemon. Yet, they are fiction, and as a reader I don't ask if they are based on the author's own experiences. On the other hand DaVinci Code is supposed to be factual, yes? Bad craziness...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.