Creative Nonfiction: A literary oxymoron?

Another literary lie?

Until today when I found this article on the NPR website, it never ocurred to me that Augsten Burroughs' book "Running With Scissors" was an actual memoir. Sure the cover said memoir right on it, but I thought it was taking massive liberties with the truth of Burroughs' life (his real name, Chris Robison, is far less extravagant). For taking real life, particularly your own real life, and changing everything around should not be considered a memoir. Oprah tore James Frey apart for misrepresenting his memoir "A Million Little Pieces" based on his exaggerations, downright lies, and reassembly of the facts. Why didn't someone attack Burroughs with the same vehemance I wonder when his book was published just the year before?

The NPR article compares the three Robison's various "memoirs". Margaret, who you might know already from Burroughs book and his older brother John Elder Robison who recently wrote a book about living with Asperger's Syndrome - which is within the autism spectrum. Each memoir, the writer of the article claims, is different in that some major stories are told from three very separate points of view - in other words there are major discrepancies.

John Elder is quoted in the article talking about a story where Burroughs claims to have been burned on the forehead. John Elder thinks it was his little brother, but his wife says it was John Elder himself and on the chest. Their mother has no recollection of the incident at all.

"No matter what," John Elder says, "it's an ugly tale."

What I think is ugly about "creative nonfiction" is that it allows writers to distort their truths and sell it to readers under the guise of nonfiction. People buy these books often referred to as "misery lit" because they want to read about someone's firsthand experiences. There is an expectation from the reader that the sometimes horrible and traumatic experiences of the writer be true. If Frey's book and following downfall have taught the literary world anything it's that the truth that you present to the reader better be the truth or else. Frey's publishers was forced to return money to anyone who sent the book back to them after he was uncovered as having lied.

I didn't understand people's reaction at the time because I never read Frey's book, but it did change my perception about memoirs, especially memoirs where the writers have seemed to overcome harsh circumstances such as abuse. What is important is not only the relationship writers of these types of memoirs have with their readers - who may only buy the book because it is something they themselves have experienced - but also why writers might chose to write about these deeply personal aspects of their lives. On one side for the writer it could be a need for catharsis and for reader it could be a way for them to work through their own traumas.

I for one hate that publishers of "misery lit" have foregone the need to truly publish the truth for what has been for over a decade a massive moneymaker. Memoirs can inspire and help people. Burroughs has deceived the public with his "memoir" because it is evidentally more creative than nonfiction.

Creative nonfiction is a term that has been around since the 1970's. It was originally meant to define a form of nonfiction that uses literary craft to present nonfiction. Now professors and publishers and agents stumble over themselves to clarify: Creative nonfiction, which is what the memoir falls under in present day, has to be true. But there is now a difference between facts and the truth. If this is the definition of creative nonfiction then what isn't creative nonfiction?

The article quotes a professor from Arizona State University: [a memoir] "It's your own personal truth, and it's not neccessarily accurate..."

Which is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear coming out of the mouth of a politician. A lying one. In a world where we are constantly lied to by the media and by the people who govern us - shouldn't we be able to expect truth from a genre of art that was built on the concept of truth as its foundation?

The only thing that consoles me is that I never considered Burroughs to be a great writer. Yes the characters were interesting, but what Burroughs doesn't tell you is that he stole quite a lot from Salinger's Glass Family. Thank goodness that when I saw the Post-It on the title "A Memoir", I gave it as much credibility as Arthur Golden's "Memoirs of a Geisha". Otherwise I would be far more pissed off than I am right now.

What do you think? Should a memoir be accurate? Leave your thoughts below because I'd love to know if I'm simply overreacting.