A Million Little Pieces scandal

[girlinterrupted]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com

What do you guys think of this?

[pisces2473]

I was waiting for someone to post about this.

I don't know if you guys know, but Random House is now saying that they'll refund people their money from buying the book. WTF? That's so fucking lame. People shouldn't get their money back!!!! Those of us in other parts of the publishing industry are NOT happy with the RH decision.

I bet Oprah is PISSSSSSSED.

[paiger81]

What gets me is why they get a refund.

I mean, ok, so it's really possible the guy embelished his story....but that doesn't mean his story isn't any less interesting to read. Just redo the cover to say Fiction instead of Non-Fiction.

[pisces2473]

Just redo the cover to say Fiction instead of Non-Fiction.
That's EXACTLY what I told my boss, who practically threw a temper tantrum when she saw the story online.

[Ciderhillnh]

If you buy something like a book and there is then a scandal about it....you dont refund peoples money.

If its food thats going to make us or animals sick....then YES....if its a product that could potentially HARM you then yes.

But a book?
This is like returning used kleenex because they didnt get all the snot out of your nose......uhm no.

[pisces2473]

If you buy something like a book and there is then a scandal about it....you dont refund peoples money.

If its food thats going to make us or animals sick....then YES....if its a product that could potentially HARM you then yes.

But a book?
This is like returning used kleenex because they didnt get all the snot out of your nose......uhm no.
So true. There's nothing WRONG with the book itself. Not like the ink is poisonous to the touch...

[Ciderhillnh]

People who have read it should be smart enough to think 'wow gee if he was lying that sucks that the book wasnt true'

or 'I dont believe he is lying after reading his book what a crappy scandal'

If this keeps up, we should all be able to purchase and use whatever we want then demand our money back when it upsets us.

Oh that book, yeah it made me cry so I asked for my money back.
That movie? It made me angry so I got my money back.

Have we REALLY gotten to this point in society?

Will people now sue because the story was a lie and they read it? Will they sue for the time they spend reading the book because it wasnt true and therefor a waste to read?

[MetFanL]

Have you guys read it? A lot of the experience of reading the book is stopping and saying, "Holy sh*t, I can't believe he lived through that!" Knowing that it could be a lie or an embellishment takes a lot of the fun out of it. I'll still read it and I certainly don't expect my money back, but it's just not the same.

[pisces2473]

Many people, when writing their autobiographies, put in a clause like this:
In writing a memoir such as this, the truth becomes liquid. The true volume of all that brought me to France and all that happened at this bookstore would require a far greater capacity than these pages allow. Thus, the events have been distilled and condensed and then distilled again. Minor liberties have been taken with chronology; select incidents have been omitted or amended; and the name of one person has been changed at their request.

Otherwise, this is as true a story as can be told at this time.
From Time Was Soft There, Jeremy Mercer, 2005.

[tina1979]

I saw it on the gun yesterday I think. I think its hilarious. For someone who has come off in the manner in which he has. I don't think he should get away with it. I think if he wanted to write a story like that he should have come right out and said BASED on my life, or some such disclaimer.

[WeirdBrake]

So true. There's nothing WRONG with the book itself. Not like the ink is poisonous to the touch...

But this is a matter of fraud in the inducement. When people buy a memoir, they expect that what they're reading is a true account or a basically true account. Otherwise, it's not a memoir, and you're not getting what you paid for. You were deceived, and the deception probably induced you to purchase the book. Why shouldn't you be able to get your money back? It's basic contracts/sales law.

[tdko]

I'm a firm believer that the value in a story doesn't lie in its historical accuracy. If it reached you and affected you...who cares if it's accurate or not? "It's not the same" doesn't apply--it still affected you while you read it. Sorry if you're let down now, but the tooth fairy and santa claus are fake too. Still bummed about them?

Art is only as good as the reaction it gets. I agree with whoever said that the publisher should just change "non-fiction" to "fiction" and keep releasing it. A good story is a good story.

[pisces2473]

But this is a matter of fraud in the inducement. When people buy a memoir, they expect that what they're reading is a true account or a basically true account. Otherwise, it's not a memoir, and you're not getting what you paid for. You were deceived, and the deception probably induced you to purchase the book. Why shouldn't you be able to get your money back? It's basic contracts/sales law.
When it comes out of my paycheck, it matters.

[WeirdBrake]

I'm a firm believer that the value in a story doesn't lie in its historical accuracy. If it reached you and affected you...who cares if it's accurate or not?

People care if they mistakenly thought they were buying a truthful account story. When someone is caused by a major misrepresentation to purchase an item, it's called fraud, and that person has the right to legal remedies (including a refund).

I agree with whoever said that the publisher should just change "non-fiction" to "fiction" and keep releasing it.

If they had only done this to begin with, there wouldn't be any problem. Look at how Stephen Glass's The Fabulist was done. It was marketed as fiction even though it was "loosely inspired" by his own experiences and written in a semi-autobiographical way. No one expected it to be even close to the truth, and no one had any problem with that.

[tdko]

People care if they mistakenly thought they were buying a truthful account story. When someone is caused by a major misrepresentation to purchase an item, it's called fraud, and that person has the right to legal remedies (including a refund).
I wasn't referring to whether people are entitled to legal damages, just how factuality affects the value of the book.

Legally, one might be entitled to a refund under the law. IANAL. But I think it's a matter of whininess--you don't like the fact he lied, don't buy his next book. Vote with your pocketbook, as they used to say. He swindled the public, and odds are his next book's NOT going to be endorsed by Oprah.

[lawya girl]

But this is a matter of fraud in the inducement. When people buy a memoir, they expect that what they're reading is a true account or a basically true account. Otherwise, it's not a memoir, and you're not getting what you paid for. You were deceived, and the deception probably induced you to purchase the book. Why shouldn't you be able to get your money back? It's basic contracts/sales law.


I agree. It sucks that it has to come out of people like Jen's paychecks but I think people are altogether justified in asking for their money back. I wouldn't go to the trouble but still...

[pisces2473]

I agree. It sucks that it has to come out of people like Jen's paychecks but I think people are altogether justified in asking for their money back. I wouldn't go to the trouble but still...
I can't wait to see how many people TRY this crap...with their dog-eared copies, all stained and stuff.

Utter chaos.

[Tayl405]

I read the book and loved it. I don't care if it's true or not - I think it's BS that people are trying to get their money refunded. A good book is a good book.

Has he actually admitted that it's a scam?

[pisces2473]

Has he actually admitted that it's a scam?
Well, scam is sort of harsh...it's more like an embellishment of the truth. He's claiming that he wrote the truth and he knows what happened and everyone is pulling a bunch of bullshit.

[Blythe]

Well, in this case I think I deserve my ticket $$ back for The Blair Witch Project. I thought that was true too :neutral: .

[meatwad]

See. This is why people shouldn't read. :D

[pisces2473]

But I think it's a matter of whininess--you don't like the fact he lied, don't buy his next book. Vote with your pocketbook, as they used to say. He swindled the public, and odds are his next book's NOT going to be endorsed by Oprah.
I definitely agree. It's like people who hate things, whine about them, and don't change them.

I forecast "My Friend Leonard," his newest book about his Mafia friend, going wayyyyyy down the best-seller list.

[Tayl405]

I'm actually reading 'My Friend Leanard' right now. Although I bought it before the controversy, I don't think what's happening would have changed my decision to purchase the book.

The media will come up with anything to get attention.

[steamroller]

Utterly ridiculous! Maya Angelou's "memoirs" were exaggerated. So what?! Good books are just good books....who cares if they're memoirs or novels?

Oprah called in on Larry King and stated that she still felt that it was a good book that touched many people.

Random House is, however, pretty DUMB for not checking out the author's details.

[WeirdBrake]

Good books are just good books....who cares if they're memoirs or novels?

Let's say you ordered a chef's cookbook from Amazon, and instead you got a copy of Orwell's 1984, which is an awesome book. You called up to complain and were told, "Good books are just good books. Who cares if they're cookbooks or dystopian novels?" You wouldn't have a problem with it?

Same thing here. When you buy a memoir, you expect that the story is true. It can be exaggerated, edited, shifted around a little, but you expect that it's basically true. You don't expect major stuff to be made up entirely. That's what separates a memoir from a novel. Just like some books contain made up stories while others contain lists of food recipes. Doesn't matter that they might be equally valuable. It only matters that you paid for a book you thought was a memoir but wasn't. Just like if you had paid for a book you thought was a cookbook but wasn't.

The media will come up with anything to get attention.

Well, the media is the root of all evil; we've established that. :twisted: :p

[girlinterrupted]

I watched Larry King last night, and I just felt really bad for him. The heart of the book is about his addiction, not his criminal record, and that is what is coming under scrutiny. I've read the book, I've meet him in person, and I think that it is a powerful story, embellished or not. Like he said on Larry King, about 18 pages of 423 pages of his book are being disputed. The book should have been marketed a different way, and I'm not sure how much control he had over that.

[Bugsey34]

Apparently Random House just posted something on their site saying it's not true that they are offering refunds.

[paiger81]

Yep, here's the link:
http://www.randomhouse.com/trade/publicity/index.html

[wordsmith]

The media will come up with anything to get attention? More like an author who knows that memoir is a hot seller right now will do anything to jump on the bandwagon, even if it means amping your story up to make it more exciting than it is. Lying in memoir is a pretty stupid thing for a writer to do, particularly when it's details that can be easily checked up on.

I bought AMLP (in hardback, no less) when it first came out, after reading the reviews. I enjoyed it a great deal, although certain things rang, well, somewhat fantastical (airlines won't seat passengers falling down drunk; he's not likely to have been put on a plane unconscious, blood and bodily fluids encrusted, with a hole gashed in his face). But, still, it seemed like an honest take on addiction. Key word being HONEST. The problem is, like with journalists Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, you get exposed as outright lying in what you write, everything you write is suspect. It totally cheapens the value of anything that Frey wrote, period, because who knows what was embellished or outright faked? The entire scope of his "addictions" could be that he and his frat brothers smoked some dope in college. Geez, by that token, any number of my class of '99 fellow alums could have their heartrending tales of woe end up on the best-seller charts. And maybe most of the root of what he wrote is true...but once you shoot your credibility, nobody cares to do the weedout.

He could have simply written and marketed a work of fiction...but instead, it was probably more tempting to jump on the Dave Eggers, Frank McCourt, etc. band wagon of memoir. It's really a shame that he didn't feel the need to actually tell his story with integrity...a good writer wouldn't need to dramatize crap to make it interesting in memoir. That's called writing fiction.

Regardless of my disappointment in him as an author, and feeling that he's shot himself in the foot, this whole money back thing is ridiculous. And I'm not outraged. It's a memoir. It's not the NY Times...it wasn't trusted by millions to be fact. It was something people read for their book club, or lounging in bed on a Saturday a.m.

[lawya girl]

Let's say you ordered a chef's cookbook from Amazon, and instead you got a copy of Orwell's 1984, which is an awesome book. You called up to complain and were told, "Good books are just good books. Who cares if they're cookbooks or dystopian novels?" You wouldn't have a problem with it?

Same thing here. When you buy a memoir, you expect that the story is true. It can be exaggerated, edited, shifted around a little, but you expect that it's basically true. You don't expect major stuff to be made up entirely. That's what separates a memoir from a novel. Just like some books contain made up stories while others contain lists of food recipes. Doesn't matter that they might be equally valuable. It only matters that you paid for a book you thought was a memoir but wasn't. Just like if you had paid for a book you thought was a cookbook but wasn't.



Again, my thoughts exactly.

[wordsmith]

Buyer beware? I don't assume that my reading materials, outside of news sources, are fact-checked.

[Kitty]

I thought that book sucked because it was so melodramatic and I'm not surprised to find out it wasn't true. It doesn't really matter..it still sucked :)

[wordsmith]

Well...supposedly most of it IS true...but who's to know? Again with the credibility.

[Kitty]

This is sort of tangential..

Has anyone seen this documentary called "Fandom"? Its basically about this guy who is obsessed w/ Natalie Portman and he travels across the US because he thinks he's going to meet her. Anyway, the entire thing is marketed as a "Documentary" and I think the subtitle of the documentary is "A true story about fan addiction" or something. Anyway, its done EXTREMELY realistically...we watched the entire thing and then at the very end they had some sentence about how the entire thing isn't true and it was all acting. THen they list the actor credits. It is extremely horrible to invest yourself in something thinking its 100% true and getting emotionally involved in a story only to find out you've been strung along. I still get really annoyed when I think of that documentary....

[wordsmith]

Bait and switch, man...it's never fun to feel like you've been taken for a ride.

[pisces2473]

Let's say you ordered a chef's cookbook from Amazon, and instead you got a copy of Orwell's 1984, which is an awesome book. You called up to complain and were told, "Good books are just good books. Who cares if they're cookbooks or dystopian novels?" You wouldn't have a problem with it?
Um dude, no. Having something mis-shipped is a problem and should be corrected. Your example is not that good in comparing what the situation here is.

[WeirdBrake]

Um dude, no. Having something mis-shipped is a problem and should be corrected. Your example is not that good in comparing what the situation here is.

In both cases, you're not getting the item you paid for. If you buy a book marketed as a memoir, you expect that it's a memoir, which, by definition, is a basically true account of someone's life. Just like if you buy a cookbook, you expect it to have recipes in it rather than a fiction story about a totalitarian government.

[tdko]

This is sort of tangential..

Has anyone seen this documentary called "Fandom"? Its basically about this guy who is obsessed w/ Natalie Portman and he travels across the US because he thinks he's going to meet her. Anyway, the entire thing is marketed as a "Documentary" and I think the subtitle of the documentary is "A true story about fan addiction" or something. Anyway, its done EXTREMELY realistically...we watched the entire thing and then at the very end they had some sentence about how the entire thing isn't true and it was all acting. THen they list the actor credits. It is extremely horrible to invest yourself in something thinking its 100% true and getting emotionally involved in a story only to find out you've been strung along. I still get really annoyed when I think of that documentary....
That's a convincing point. Reminds me of how I felt when I found out the facts in "The Da Vinci Code" were largely hypothetical musings of non-mainstream historians. You think it's the truth, which is what made that book so compelling for many readers. Like you, I was bummed.

[red]

the publishing industry sucks!

i rest my case.

(you believe me now right?)

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, www.dictionary.com (not an authoritative site, but it'll do) has for its first definition of memoir: "An account of the personal experiences of an author." IMO, implied in this statement is an acknowledgment that the account will be subjective, and not a researched autobiography. I've never read a memoir thinking that it was 100% accurate.

From what little I've heard about this story, the author changed some details in some of the scenes he described. It's not like he made the whole thing up. It still counts as a memoir, IMO.

[LakeJay]

Well, www.dictionary.com (not an authoritative site, but it'll do) has for its first definition of memoir: "An account of the personal experiences of an author." IMO, implied in this statement is an acknowledgment that the account will be subjective, and not a researched autobiography. I've never read a memoir thinking that it was 100% accurate.

From what little I've heard about this story, the author changed some details in some of the scenes he described. It's not like he made the whole thing up. It still counts as a memoir, IMO.

I agree as well. I don't know a whole lot about the book or the author but I know events in my life have been a bit foggy due to being drunk and/or stoned. Does that mean when I recount an event and it's not as accurate as I thought it was that I am lying? This maybe a situation of "apples and oranges" but it's still in the same produce section, in my opinion.

[WeirdBrake]

Well, www.dictionary.com (not an authoritative site, but it'll do) has for its first definition of memoir: "An account of the personal experiences of an author." IMO, implied in this statement is an acknowledgment that the account will be subjective, and not a researched autobiography. I've never read a memoir thinking that it was 100% accurate.

From what little I've heard about this story, the author changed some details in some of the scenes he described. It's not like he made the whole thing up. It still counts as a memoir, IMO.

Saying you served time in prison when you didn't? That goes beyond the liberties of subjective recounting of your personal story. That's outright lying. Not exactly a minor change.

[wordsmith]

I say if you aren't able to write about your life with enough skill to make it an interesting memoir without making up entire segments of it, you probably have no business writing a memoir in the first place.

[WeirdBrake]

I say if you aren't able to write about your life with enough skill to make it an interesting memoir without making up entire segments of it, you probably have no business writing a memoir in the first place.

Definitely agreed.

[Benwa]

I haven't read the book yet, but here's some thoughts

I love that he scammed Oprah and her minions, if that were his intention the whole time. I love a fantastic hoax. But this doesn't seem to be the case, he was going for the loot. So, now I love that he's pretty much finished as a writer

From the excerpts in the article, I wasn't too impressed with the writing. It was more of a "this happened and then this happened and this happened..." I like drug induced stories. But they must be a good writer. Stick to Hunter S Thompson and William S Burroughs.

The guys a poser and a bullshit artist. Trying to validate his life by embellishing somewhat mediocre events. We all know a guy like that. "Dude I drank like 25 Jager-bombs and fought this marine and I broke his jaw, exploded his eye and ruptured his jugular in one punch, then I got a hooker and then...". I avoid partying with people like that, not because I fear there stories are true and I'm running with a dangerous person, but because they are hopelessly full of shit and I'd get the urge to abandon them on a dark country road.

And finally it gives the anti-drug, do-gooder, church law assholes more ammo. "See what drugs can do! Look at this guy!" It gives drugs a worse image, an image that has already been the victim of some of the worse bullshit propaganda ever. And this asshole is making it worse. He's a turd in the information stream. And his little rehab approach is basically a new "Just say No" thing. This guy has all the markings of some under cover anti-drug propogandist. Anyone with even moderate drug experience should be able to sniff this shithead out.

This guy is a menace to humanity and the only way for him to redeem himself would be for him to take his own life. Is that too harsh? I don't think so. Damn this is working me up. I really need to smoke a bowl or something.

[pisces2473]

I agree as well. I don't know a whole lot about the book or the author but I know events in my life have been a bit foggy due to being drunk and/or stoned. Does that mean when I recount an event and it's not as accurate as I thought it was that I am lying? This maybe a situation of "apples and oranges" but it's still in the same produce section, in my opinion.
I know! That was my whole argument...that the influences of drugs/alcohol changed his perceptions.

[wordsmith]

I haven't read the book yet, but here's some thoughts

I love that he scammed Oprah and her minions, if that were his intention the whole time. I love a fantastic hoax. But this doesn't seem to be the case, he was going for the loot. So, now I love that he's pretty much finished as a writer

Well, he wrote the book years ago, and it was published in I think '02 (although just picked up by Oprah), so I really doubt that pulling one over on her was the master plan...in fact, I'd be be surprised if he didn't realize that the book being Oprah listed would bring scrutiny down on him...probably why he was being a kissass.

The guys a poser and a bullshit artist. Trying to validate his life by embellishing somewhat mediocre events.

I'm not sure it's "validate his life." I'm guessing it "get a book and screenplay deal and make lots of money." Memoir's a hot field, and there wasn't anything super angry and violent in it, yet, in that style...if he'd marketed it as fiction, it may well have been dismissed as second-rate Pahlaniuk, etc.

[pisces2473]

At work, we've discussed creating a new genre...reality fiction. :razz:

[WeirdBrake]

I just read this article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It's very funny and makes some good points. Enjoy.

First Person: Say it ain't so, James
The counterintuitive little fibs of 'A Million Little Pieces'
Saturday, January 14, 2006

I've been seeing a lot of stories this week slamming this guy James Frey, who from what I understand wrote a best-selling memoir of his drug addiction called "A Million Little Pieces," which maybe had a million or so little falsehoods in it. Well, this isn't going to be one of those stories.

You see, I've been known to tell a lie every now and again myself. For instance, every time I enter a bar, I like to tell all the women who are gathered in there that I'm an astronaut and that my great-grandfather invented Tupperware. So, you know, glass houses and all that.

But not only is this not going to be an attack on Mr. Frey, it's actually going to be something of a valentine to him. Because I think I owe the man something for showing me the error of my ways.

Up until now, I had been operating under the misguided assumption that people out there were impressed by things that were, oh, I don't know, impressive. I was not alone in this silly belief. Several months ago, a fellow romantic by the name of Brian R. Jackson of Brentwood was arrested for pretending to be Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Mr. Jackson, in an attempt to win over a woman, gave her an autographed football and even signed Roethlisberger's name on a Steelers jersey owned by the woman's neighbor. He was charged with criminal mischief and harassment.

But to me, Mr. Jackson's problem was not that he wasn't telling the truth; it was that he told the wrong kind of lie. See, Brian Jackson's mistake was trying to pass himself off as Ben Roethlisberger, a man of accomplishment, a hero. If we can learn anything from the story of James Frey, it's that Mr. Jackson should have gone the other way.

According to the Web site The Smoking Gun, Mr. Frey's book is an account of his "vomit-caked years as an alcoholic, drug addict and criminal." But apparently, James added a few extra layers of revisionist vomit and made up some of his criminal exploits entirely. The Smoking Gun said that he "wholly fabricated or wildly embellished details of his purported criminal career, jail terms and status as an outlaw wanted in three states."

For example, in this alleged nonfiction memoir, Mr. Frey writes that he spent three months in an Ohio jail after hitting a police officer with his car and then starting a huge melee. I saw one of the officers involved in the incident on CNN the other night, and he said that Mr. Frey was "polite and cooperative" and released from custody that very same night.

Despite Mr. Frey's success, I hadn't heard of him or his book before all of this stuff broke. So the first thought that occurred to me was this: Aren't throwing up on yourself and huffing nitrous oxide and striking a cop or two the sorts of things that (if they had really happened) you'd try to, ordinarily, sweep under the rug? I mean, aren't these things to be embarrassed by?

And if they hadn't happened -- or, more likely, if they had happened to a much less gruesome or grisly degree -- what is it about our society that would compel a man to say to himself, "Gee, I've done some heinous, disgusting things in my life, but I wonder if there's a way to make them come across as more heinous and more disgusting"?

But those weren't the kinds of questions that were getting asked -- maybe because Oprah was involved. Oprah Winfrey had made Mr. Frey's book one of her vaunted "Oprah's Book Club" selections, turning it into a smash hit that has sold more than 3.5 million copies and given it a place at the top of The New York Times non-fiction paperback best-seller list for the last 15 weeks.

All everyone seemed to want to know is, How could this man lie? Not just to us, but to Oprah too? (Even the title of the story on The Smoking Gun site was "The Man Who Conned Oprah")

But the big story here, it seems to me, is not one man lying. People lie all the time; it's hardly newsworthy. Mr. Frey's publisher, the esteemed house of Doubleday, doesn't seem to care, saying in an official statement that memoir, by definition, is "highly personal" and "recent accusations against [Mr. Frey] notwithstanding, the power of the overall reading experience is such that the book remains a deeply inspiring and redemptive story for millions of readers." Even Oprah isn't really steamed. "Much ado about nothing," she called this week's uproar.


So I guess if James Frey did make some of this stuff up, the most indignation that I can muster is: Hey, shame on him. But I have more of it for the 3.5 million people who lined up to buy the book. Yes, it has been an inspiration to many recovering addicts and their families. But isn't the real appeal the (possibly made-up) lurid details of this man's horrible life? Isn't that the stuff that titillated us and made us buy the book? For that, shame on us.

One other thing that I learned from the report on CNN: James Frey had sold the movie rights to his story to Warner Brothers for what can only be assumed is an obscene amount of money. Brian Jackson, who got it all wrong, was ordered by the court to pay a $300 fine.

I am now going to throw away the first draft of my memoir, in which I rescued an infant from a burning building and saved the Earth from being destroyed by a meteor.

(Frank Nepa is a writer living in Shadyside (fnepa@aol.com).)

[MetFanL]

*bump*

Apparently James Frey will be on Oprah today. They tape live and someone from Gawker was there... Looks to be good TV. What a mess...

James Frey on Oprah: Live-Blogging the Live Feed
READ MORE: books, fake writer day, james frey, oprah, writers
So James Frey is appearing on Oprah this afternoon, but we’re lucky to have an honest-to-God sneak preview for you (the show is taping live, right now, in Chicago). We’ll keep updating this post as the show progresses.

Oprah opens the show by saying she’s sorry; she also apologizes for calling Larry King to defend Frey. And then the kicker: Oprah says to Frey, “You betrayed millions of readers.” Remember how we said Oprah had totally saved Frey’s ass? Yeah, not anymore.

After commerical, Frey appears. Of the Smoking Gun report that broke this story, Frey says they “did a good job.” He admits to Oprah that he lied to her about jail. “I made a mistake,” he says.

Oprah’s not satisfied and keeps pushing. Frey admits that Lilly didn’t hang herself; claims that in reality she cut her wrist. “Why did you have to lie about that?” responds Oprah.

Update: Frey says, “I don’t think it is a novel — it’s a memoir.” When he says he wrote the book from memory, the audience actually boos him. “I have been really embarrassed by this,” says Oprah.

On the documents Frey refuses to share, Oprah asks, “Where are they?” She’s really angry. Regarding the dentist incident: “What is true?” Frey responds, “I have no idea if I had Novocaine.”

Frey says that he’s struggled with the book, to which Oprah retorts, “No, the lie of it.” The audience claps (OPRAH WE LOVE YOU YAY OMG!). She goes back to the root canal issue, he says he doesn’t know. Oprah’s visibly pissed; it’s almost painful.

More ass-kicking after the jump.

Update 2: In a taped interview, Maureen Dowd says Oprah should revoke her Book Club seal.

Publisher Nan Talese shows up, claims she’s had a root canal without novocaine. Considering that was likely in 1957, we don’t know how this helps Frey’s case.

Talese claims to have learned about the inaccuracies in Frey’s book at the same time as everyone else, through the Smoking Gun report. “But should I ask more questions?” she stupidly asks. “YES!” says Oprah. Duh.

Talese says this “whole experience has been sad.” Oprah snaps back, “It’s not sad for me. It’s embarrassing.”

Oprah’s people were contacted by someone from the Hazelden clinic days after the book was picked. This person questioned the book, so Oprah had her people contact Talese. Talese’s team backed up it up and said Frey’s book was “non-fiction.” More TK.

Update 3: After the commercial break, Richard Cohen from the Washington Post cozies up on the couch with Frey and Talese. Of the book’s beginning, in which Frey claims to be incredibly mangled en route to his parents, Cohen says, “How’d this guy get on an airplane? I can’t get on with a third piece of luggage.”

Oprah, more calm but still pissed, asks Frey, “Do you think you made a mistake or lied?” Frey answers, “Probably both.” Yes, James, PROBABLY.

Unreal: Now Frank Rich is here! He notes that this is all “amazing television.” Insightful…

Update 4: Now Rich and Cohen are discussing the issues surrounding Oprah’s latest pick, Night, and whether it is to be read as truth or fiction. Some journalism scholar comes out to pontificate, but everyone falls asleep.

Frey is still onstage, but he’s been relatively quiet since Talese came out. Talese’s phone rings onstage. Live television is awesome.

Oprah asks Frey if he could do things over, would he want a disclaimer in the book? He says no, but he would’ve written things “differently.”

Update 5: The show is wrapping up. Oprah has tamed her angry inner Harpo. She says to Frey, “I appreciate you being here. It is a difficult time and I hope you were joking about there being a gun backstage—not worth that. [Ed: Uh, WTF?] Just come clean and that begins the process. Maybe the beginning of another truth…”

Frey responds, “It hasn’t been a great day/week but I come out better and admit to lying. And that’s not easy.”

In the last moments, Frey is asked about anything else he wants to come clean on. He says he really did board a plan looking like a bloody mess; when he left rehab he was with only one person, not two. Claims that there are no other major issues. Well, that’s good, because if there were any more “major issues” with this, we’d expect every existing copy of the damn book to spontaneously burst into flames.

And scene. Later this afternoon, we’ll provide some photographic documentation of the Angry Oprah in her natural environment.

[girlinterrupted]

*bump*

Apparently James Frey will be on Oprah today. They tape live and someone from Gawker was there... Looks to be good TV. What a mess...

I just read that too Met...can't wait to see it at 7:00 tonight. I was surprised that she defended him on Larry King. The shit has officially hit the fan now.

[Benwa]

Grrrr! Oprah mad!!! Oprah smash!!! Rarrrrrr!!!

[dillydally]

Wow, Oprah totally went to town. Remind me not to get on her bad side...