The End of Truth

Adam Hill · January-17th-2006, 12:52 PM

There's an interesting piece in today's NY Times by their chief book critic Michiko Kakutani on the status of truth in our culture. It is worth reading and can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/bo...gewanted=print

To me, this is one of the more disturbing aspects of the culture. An utter disregard for the factual truth, an undermining of what constitutes reality, and the passive acceptance of sophistry & spin, may have been around for a long time in our country, but I do not think it has ever before been so widespread.

It is no wonder we continue to have debates over what should be taught in science courses (science or religion) or what should be taught in history courses (nationalist propaganda or what actually occurred).

It is also no surprise that anyone who demands a fuller examination of any 'official explanation' by any institution of power and influence, is now often portrayed as a conspiracy theorist or an unhappy cynic or as godless or as a traitor.

Clay Fink · January-17th-2006, 02:38 PM

Nothing that Michiko guy says is true...

cookie · January-17th-2006, 03:59 PM

I'm rather disgusted with Oprah's support of that Frey guy. She says that it doesn't matter if it's factual because it's still a story of redemption? Please. The guy lied. Addicts do it all the time. But an addict who continues to lie isn't "recovered" or completely "redeemed." It's bullshit from the queen of "honesty" with one's self. That she lets this guy off the hook without scolding is really lame, IMO.

And then she follows up with NIGHT by Elie Wiesel? Is it possible that people might mistake the atrocities for over-the-top embellishment? That folks won't believe it was really that bad? Most intelligent folks won't, of course. They know that what happened in the Holocaust was as bad as survivors' reports. We've seen the pictures and seen the tattoos.

I think Frey should be slapped and should sit in a few years more of meetings. His book should either be edited or carry a disclaimer sticker.

I used to be interested in the book, but now I don't think I'll buy it or even read it from the library.

rollhead · January-17th-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay Fink

Nothing that Michiko guy says is true...

So, you don't think she actually hates all those books she says she hates, or that she is really a girl and not a guy?

Adam Hill · January-17th-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie

I'm rather disgusted with Oprah's support of that Frey guy. She says that it doesn't matter if it's factual because it's still a story of redemption? Please. The guy lied. Addicts do it all the time. But an addict who continues to lie isn't "recovered" or completely "redeemed." It's bullshit from the queen of "honesty" with one's self. That she lets this guy off the hook without scolding is really lame, IMO.

Exactly.

Too, take away what he lied about, and it's just another story about a rich kid who gets addicted to drugs and booze and has to get help.

Darryl G. Thomas · January-17th-2006, 05:02 PM

I think about this subject a lot. I pay close attention to political discourse and it's amazing how important spin has become. We've always spun and lied and rationalized but it seesm that all have been honed to a fine science.

Our society is becoming more Orwellian as we go along. Language has no meaning anymore. WMDs are labelled "peacekeepers". Bribery is labelled "campaign financing or free speech".

Tanager · January-17th-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie

I used to be interested in the book, but now I don't think I'll buy it or even read it from the library.

I was interested until I read some reader reviews which basically labelled it as crap. When I heard about the allegations of "embellishment" (fabrication), I had already lost interest. But it's still sad as hell.

There's a sad irony, Cookie, in the parallel between the possible backlash against Night and that against the NY Times after the scandal from what's-his-name fabricating his articles (and then also writing a book about his supposed redemption or whatever).

rollhead · January-17th-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Bribery is labelled "campaign financing or free speech".

Well said.

Sergio Zamora · January-17th-2006, 08:12 PM

Frey's response to accusations of lies was: same conceptual focus

You see there is no such thing as truth or reality or fact. There are only conceptual foci. This is what I learned in my 'philosophy of design' classes.

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 09:31 PM

This whole business reminds me of the book entitled A CHILD CALLED IT.

The same issues came up regarding the author's authenticity.

Personally? I think it just plain does not matter if it is fiction or fact....the story needed to be told.

patricia · January-17th-2006, 09:43 PM

FWIW, my daughter and several of her friends [late teens, early twenties] have read Frey's book and were tremendously inspired by it. I watched the interview with Frey on Larry King with my daughter and she said that it was not surprising that some of the book is not totally factual, but considering that Frey was doing drugs at the time he was remembering, it stood to reason that some of his recollections may have been flawed. She felt that the book's message was still valid.
I haven't read the book, but thought that my daughter's reaction was interesting.

Pete C · January-17th-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Personally? I think it just plain does not matter if it is fiction or fact....the story needed to be told.

Are genre distinctions relevant to the work you do?

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 10:13 PM

Fixed.

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete C

Are genre distinctions relevant to the work you do?

What a question to ask an English teacher, Pete.

I mean, c'mon.

Of course they are...but you need to balance that with the reality of book sales and media.

We teach the Classics and accepted modern fiction...not tabloid trash. OK?

What our students read beyond that is up to them.

Crimony.

Rob C · January-17th-2006, 10:32 PM

I haven't read the Frey book, but I can see the "essential truth" argument, at least up to a point.

I remember when the Oliver Stone film Nixon came out, and conservative pundits were lining up to trash it. I believe it was George Will who I saw complaining that the film showed Nixon endlessly drinking scotch, and that that was a blatant lie--because everyone knew that Nixon drank martinis!

Brian Olewnick · January-17th-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Crimony.

Google hits for "crimony": 936

Google hits for "criminy": 87,200

Crikey!

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 10:52 PM

Well...alrighty then.

cookie · January-17th-2006, 11:09 PM

Whoa, whoa! Goodz: why you talking 'bout AMBER Frey of Peterson trial fame? I thought we were talking about JAMES Frey who wrote the "Million Little Pieces" thing!! How the hell did Amber get in here???

Did you read the NY Times article linked? How did Amber Frey (and how many children she had and by whom) get up in here??

Man, that was the non-sequitors of non-sequitors. Wha' ??????

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie

Whoa, whoa! Goodz: why you talking 'bout AMBER Frey of Peterson trial fame? I thought we were talking about JAMES Frey who wrote the "Million Little Pieces" thing!! How the hell did Amber get in here???

Did you read the NY Times article sourced.

Man, that was the non-sequitors of non-sequitors. Wha' ??????

It is topical hereabouts.

Fresno is only a short drive from my humble abode.

NY Times is a far cry from these parts...didn't read it, no.

My bad.

GoodSpeak · January-17th-2006, 11:13 PM

First mistake I've made all year.

crawjo · January-17th-2006, 11:47 PM

What a narrow-minded and ridiculous piece of tripe this column was. Memoirs have always been subjective and history has always depended on who is telling it. Fiction and non-fiction do indeed blend together at some point, as any honest historian knows. When someone decries "the end of truth," it's usually because they feel their version of what is true is coming under attack, and they feel threatened.

None of this is to excuse Frey or Winfrey. That's a separate issue from the larger point the author of this column was attempting to make. The author took one mini-scandal and tried to make it a harbinger for the apocalypse, or at least the apocalypse of reason. But I'd like to see someone try to defend the idea that non-fiction is objective, or that history does not actually depend on who has written it (or, in the case of oral cultures, told it.) The author wants to pretend that history and truth are out there just waiting to be discovered and acknowledged by any objective observer. What bullshit.

This column reads like it was written by John Stossel.

Adam Hill · January-18th-2006, 12:11 AM

Well, obviously I disagree with you, David, and I think your response is far more hyperbolic and overly generalized than the author's claims--which you totally exaggerrate.

First off to be clear, Frey wholly fabricated essential plot elements of his book. Without them, his story of redemption is not particularly remarkable. Rather it is the story of a rich kid who spent most of his 20's drinking and doing drugs before his family got him into the most expensive rehab program in the country. This is not about embellishment--it's willfully making stuff up and saying it's true. That's a rather important distinction.

Secondly, when challenged about it, even before the Smoking Gun piece, he repeatedly lied (he thought he had successfully expunged his records; he hadn't). Why would he even attempt to cover his tracks if he hadn't willfully lied?

But if you do not believe in any objective truth and think that even facts are mostly a matter of interpretation, than I'm not surpised you're so dismissive of this column. And if you do not see in the culture at every level--lying, distortion, sophistry, and spin, then I think you're not paying attention. Hell, in the field of history alone there have been of a late an assortment of scandals involving plagiarism and fabrication. You must be aware of this, no?

crawjo · January-18th-2006, 12:34 AM

C'mon, Adam. I said in my response that the author's larger claims really have nothing to do with Frey. I'm not defending Frey or Winfrey, as I said above. Also, lying, distortion, spin, and sophistry have been around for centuries. I see no evidence that they are on the rise or ascendant within our culture.

But anyway, the largest exaggeration is your title for this thread: The End of Truth. What do you mean by that? What is truth? Objectively observable reality? And what is that, exactly? Who gets to define truth, and why? And if something is true, how can it end?

patricia · January-18th-2006, 12:38 AM

I absolutely understand what you are saying, Adam. But, you cannot dismiss the fact that the kids and young adults read this book and were inspired by it.
Are you saying that all other autobiographies are totally factual? I would imagine that most, if not all, either embellish or edit their life stories, if they are writing a book about themselves.

Does that make it OK? Not to me. But, the positive reaction of the target readers, young adults, cannot be dismissed, IMO.

Perhaps it should have been presented as a novel "based on a true story", which seems to give film adaptations of people's lives legitamacy. So, that would have made it the fault of the publisher's fact-checkers. Obviously it is a powerful story and perhaps the marketing was flawed.

crawjo · January-18th-2006, 12:45 AM

And actually, the whole intelligent design thing (mentioned above in this thread), is nothing new either. "Intelligent design" is simply a name affixed to a belief that people have always had. It's not anything new in our culture. Neither is the debate between science and religion. But I do find it interesting that ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE people who know little to nothing about science get so up in arms about the other side's agenda. It's like I said above: people start proclaiming the end to truth when they feel their own belief systems are under attack, for whatever reason. Just look at the history of the Catholic Church, which has used every method at its disposal for centuries to silence people who disagree with them. It was always because they felt their truth--which, for them, was utterly beyond question--was under attack, and that they had a duty to defend what was true. But what it really always boiled down to (and still does) is power: who has the right to define what is true and what is not true. And when a group of people feels power slipping from its grasp, it gets desperate and will do anything it can to hold onto whatever it has. That's why truth, which should be eternal, can "end." Because it was never True to begin with; it was a model or ideal of reality that enabled one group of people to control another.

Adam Hill · January-18th-2006, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

C'mon, Adam. I said in my response that the author's larger claims really have nothing to do with Frey. I'm not defending Frey or Winfrey, as I said above. Also, lying, distortion, spin, and sophistry have been around for centuries. I see no evidence that they are on the rise or ascendant within our culture.

But anyway, the largest exaggeration is your title for this thread: The End of Truth. What do you mean by that? What is truth? Objectively observable reality? And what is that, exactly? Who gets to define truth, and why? And if something is true, how can it end?

Okay, David, I can see you objecting to this early sentence of hers--"where academics argue that history depends on who is writing the history"--if she didn't come back to it later in her piece. But she does. First she cites Deborah Lipstadt, whose book on Holocaust denial landed her in libel court in Britain--she ultimately won, but it is an instructive case on the dangers of relativism.

She also agrees with the contention by another historian that 'any historical work is necessarily imperfect, tentative, and partial.' But she objects to claims attaching themselves to such a reasonable notion--claims that basically contend that accuracy doesn't really matter. It does. There are ways to be accurate, there are ways to be honest to documentary fact.

I do not think this is a philosophical (epistemological) matter, which is, I think, what you are taking it to be. Blurring truth as if there is no such thing as documentary evidence is, to me, dangerous and it's where we're at. Otherwise, we might as well say there were WMD, because their absence is really just a matter of who is interpreting rather than a matter of observable reality.

Furthermore, lying, distortion, sophistry, and spin have gotten worse because we live in a time with the greatest amount of empirical evidence at our disposal, have the most convenient means to verify such information, and yet the facts do not seem to get in the way of various agendas.

patricia · January-18th-2006, 01:02 AM

There are thousands of people who buy the Fundamentalist Christian Shazam! explanation of the beginnings of life on earth as fact. Call it intelligent design if you like, but it is still impossible to prove. Still, the Bible has, to say the least, inspired and guided, for better or worse, millions of people's lives.
Wouldn't it be interesting if future editions of the Bible were published as novels, or short story compilations, with the addendum, "Based on true stories". Whew! Who's to say?

Adam Hill · January-18th-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

I absolutely understand what you are saying, Adam. But, you cannot dismiss the fact that the kids and young adults read this book and were inspired by it.
Are you saying that all other autobiographies are totally factual? I would imagine that most, if not all, either embellish or edit their life stories, if they are writing a book about themselves.

Does that make it OK? Not to me. But, the positive reaction of the target readers, young adults, cannot be dismissed, IMO.

Perhaps it should have been presented as a novel "based on a true story", which seems to give film adaptations of people's lives legitamacy. So, that would have made it the fault of the publisher's fact-checkers. Obviously it is a powerful story and perhaps the marketing was flawed.

My point, which I made above, is that it's not simply a case of embellishment. He willfully fabricated events that are central to the story of his recovery. This is an important distinction.

Furthermore he has lied and distorted to cover up, and as Cookie points out above, this completely undermines any 'inspirational' authenticity.

patricia · January-18th-2006, 01:09 AM

It will be interesting to see whether the book continues to sell, now that Oprah has publicly continued her endorsement of it. I would bet that it will.

Adam Hill · January-18th-2006, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

Just look at the history of the Catholic Church, which has used every method at its disposal for centuries to silence people who disagree with them. It was always because they felt their truth--which, for them, was utterly beyond question--was under attack, and that they had a duty to defend what was true. But what it really always boiled down to (and still does) is power: who has the right to define what is true and what is not true. And when a group of people feels power slipping from its grasp, it gets desperate and will do anything it can to hold onto whatever it has. That's why truth, which should be eternal, can "end." Because it was never True to begin with; it was a model or ideal of reality that enabled one group of people to control another.

You can't have it both ways. Was the Church defending truth or power? If you think they were doing both, than you are ascribing much better motives than I would to this institution of oppression and genocide. But you're not really, so which is it? Did they act in the interests of truth or power?