laleo

Slight derailment (forgive me, diazbro). If anyone is interested in Grizzly Man, I highly recommend it. Like I said earlier, I first heard of this documentary in an NPR commentary about Frey's "memoir." In comparing the book with the documentary, the commentator used played back parts of an earlier interview, and noted that while each work is a factual misrepresentation of its subject matter, each tries to expose some sort of higher, deeper, "ecstatic" truth. My conclusion: The commentator gives Frey too much credit (since my impression of him is that he's more of a lying opportunist than a tortured artist), and not enough credit to the director of Grizzly Man. I can see where it isn't "factual" in the sense that it isn't a day-to-day recounting of Timothy Treadwell's Alaskan sojourns with the bears, but, rather, it's thematic. From what I can tell, the director is trying very hard to understand the aspirations and motivations of Treadwell's environmental activism, and while he doesn't understand, never understands (despite a valiant attempt) he maintains sympathy for his character. Great movie, for anyone inclined to watch it.

Back to the memoir writing. The thing I'm not understanding is why the publishing houses are saying, Hey, we're not The Atlantic Monthly; we don't hire fact-checkers, so we rely on the writers. Since when? Recently, there's been another memoirist -- a white, gay-porn writer from Anytown, Michigan who became a Navajo long enough to write a memoir and two sequels about growing up on a reservation. The publishers are crying ignorance, yet I remember back when I was taking 101 courses, I had to write essays about the popular American captivity narratives published centuries ago and make arguments about whether I was reading fact or fiction. We had to look for elements of fiction, and extrapolate from that what may or may not have been true about the story. I find it really hard to believe that these high-powered editors at huge publishing houses know less than I do about identifying the genre of the manuscripts they're reviewing. So it makes me wonder what's up.

It doesn't make sense to me, either, although it seems to be on the same grounds: Hey, I enjoyed the book, and it brought in lots of money for "The Teacher," plus, look at all the people who were "helped," so what does it matter if it's plagiarized, fabricated, stolen, concocted? The real irony, when it comes to Wierwille's "work," is how jealously and aggressively he protected his own copyrights, without seeming to have any internal conflict about "borrowing" freely from others. I mean, I would almost understand it if he practiced what he preached, meaning that his own work, including the PFAL series, and the work of others (I'm thinking of the original work of the artists and musicians in Way Productions) were offered without charge, with the thinking that since it belongs to God it also belongs to all of us, and no single one of us profits from it. (Oh, that's right. They were freely given . . . in exchange for a small donation -- our time, talent, energy, and lives. Hardly worth mentioning such an insignificant sacrifice, considering the time-consuming work Wierwille must have put into finding, sorting, and re-typing all those previously published paragraphs.) I don't get it. Who can defend that? Especially considering what it cost us. Digi: I got a copy of Grizzly Man and plan to watch it sometime this weekend. Come over for a bowl of popcorn, if you have the time.

I haven't read Joseph Conrad before this, but I think I like him: "The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement - but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims." "Who knows what true loneliness is - not the conventional word but the naked terror? To the lonely themselves it wears a mask. The most miserable outcast hugs some memory or some illusion." "A noble man compares and estimates himself by an idea which is higher than himself; and a mean man, by one lower than himself. The one produces aspiration; the other ambition, which is the way in which a vulgar man aspires." "Woe to the man whose heart has not learned while young to hope, to love - and to put its trust in life." Anyway, back to The Way. Was I in the wrong place at the wrong time? Oh, I don't know. I think whenever anyone makes an investment in someone or something else, whether it's financial or emotional or both, and it ends in a missed promotion at work, a love affair gone wrong, a religious conversion that doesn't produce salvation – whenever expectations aren't met – there may be a tendency to indulge in a little nihilism, to go back and re-write the pages of history, and memory, to accommodate the new, more cynical, view. Maybe we're ALL in a perpetual state of "transient vulnerability." It's how we live our lives, negotiate our needs and relationships, find both fulfillment and emptiness. And, because we live in a free state, we (mostly) have the freedom to indulge our whims, to act out our fantasies, to pursue our own vision of paradise. And, because we are free, we accept responsibility for our own loss of direction when we reach a dead end. Did The Way let us down? Of course it did. It was far, far less than what we wanted it to be. But I don't accept the comparisons to the Jim Jones cult and Nazi concentration camps any more than I believe The Way was the first century church in the twentieth. Did they lie to us? You bet they did. Deliberately? I don't know. I remind myself that it's very possible that they might have believed their own hype. After all, I believed my own hype. Didn't you? I sometimes wonder what the substantive difference is between the "lies" (distortions) told to us by The Way, and the "lies" (distortions) that I too often read in "About The Way." Maybe both are rooted in a desire for advantage, for social acceptance, for status, for recognition, or for something else. The Way was neither truly evil nor truly good, in my opinion. While I'd lean a little more toward the evil than the good, even so, I think a lot of the "abuses" are overstated, if not sensationalized, here at GreaseSpot. I can't help but think that maybe The Way was more a reflection of what resided in all of us. What we brought to it shaped its course, for better or worse, and, in later years, from what I hear, much worse. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that concluding that The Way is a nazi-dominated communist think tank murderously bent on world domination is any more clear-sighted than concluding that it was the truth of God's Word, and no one, not one person, not one soul, living or dead, had access to this unique revelation until there was snow on the gas pumps to announce a revival. I don't know if you're familiar with the Turkish writer, Orhan Pamuk, but he is a novelist who has committed himself to telling the truth about Turkey. A few years ago, I read his book, My Name is Red. Recently, he was arrested for saying publicly that the Turks had killed a million Armenians during WWI, and tens of thousands of Kurds during recent guerilla fighting. The charge against him: "insulting Turkishness." Never mind that he was telling the truth. So, anyway, here we have a person, a novelist, who is taking an actual risk in an effort to open up public debate over government policies. (The charges were dropped, incidentally, credited to Turkey's desire to be accepted into the European Union.) I read stories like that, then I come to GreaseSpot, where people say (almost) anything they want to say, make as many comparisons as they want, invoke Hitler and Stalin and Jim Jones and god knows who else, no matter how ludicrous the comparison, and think they are heroes for "telling the truth" about The Way International, without ever having witnessed a single murder, much less a genocide, or, forget murder, even a mugging, carried out in the name of God by The Way International. These comparisons just don't resonate much with me. It's not that I don't think you make some valid points about mind-control techniques and the like. You do. And it's an interesting perspective. I just think it's overstated. That's my take. Thanks for your posts.

For example, this is the type of stuff that isn't making sense to me. You said earlier in the thread: Okay, so you want federal intervention and regulation to prevent "cultic abuses." Then later, you say: So what is "criminal" and requires federal intervention? If I'm understanding you, you say: 1. covert psychosocial exploitative manipulative persuasion 2. destablization and "unfreezing" a person's true historical identity 3. cultic pseudo-self and pseudo identity Let me see if I get this. "Cultic abuse" as defined above should become a matter of concern to the criminal justice system. Therefore, it should be against the law, with criminal penalty, to affect change in the identity of another person. Tell me you're not serious. Once government begins to define "true historical identity" as opposed to a "pseudo identity" (punishable by law), what is to prevent government from becoming worse than the cult it is regulating?

jkboehme, You seem to have an interesting thesis, although I'll admit I'm having a hard time wading through your writings. While I'll agree that the default font on this board is a little on the small size, the font you're using is even more difficult for me to read, because the letters are all scrunched together. For whatever it's worth, I'd rather read a small font, with more spacing, than the larger font all crammed together. Might just be me, though. Anyway, on to your points. I'm a little curious how all these theories have translated into your own pre- and post-Way involvement. I'm paraphrasing here, and I'll admit that I didn't do much more than skim through some of your posts, but it left a few questions. Like, since you see such a strong parallel between totalitarian communist regimes, and the Way Tree, and also talk extensively about "learned helplessness" or "enforced dependency" (if that's what you call it; now I forget the wording), what, oh what, is the solution? I mean, the impression I'm getting is that you got involved in The Way in a random fashion, sort of like getting struck by lightening, caught in a crossfire, run over by a bus, or any other senseless and random act that might befall one of us. If that's the case, then it seems to me that it isn't the "enforced dependency" that is to blame, but the human condition. If being involved in The Way was utterly beyond my control, what IS within my control? If you're saying that The Way was fraudulent, that it misrepresented itself, that it used coercive techniques (though I'm not convinced it was necessarily universal or deliberate) then I agree with you. Totally. But if you're saying that I had no choice in the matter, that I didn't contribute to the process, that what I brought to The Way was only my own helplessness, stupidity, and dependency, then I disagree with you. Lessons sometimes come hard in life. And they cost us. It's unfortunate that sometimes "enlightenment" comes through hardship and loss, through one slow, painful realization after the other, until we finally recognize that we are on the wrong course, that the happiness we seek lies somewhere else, and that it is only through a long journey in the darkness that we are able to find the light. I guess I'm just not following you, jkboehme, though I'm trying. If all was evil and wrong and orchestrated madness, and we were helpless, utterly, truly hopelessly helpless to resist it, then what hope is there of ever finding a better place?

Too much reading for me, Mark, but this book, When Abortion Was a Crime, might have some of the answers you seek (if you can stand to wade through the bias). Here's one excerpt from the Epilogue. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft967nb5z5/

I'm not in college, so I don't have access to the databases you seek, but, even if I did, I'd probably go about it another way. My father and I were talking one time, and he mentioned how amazed he is that the maternal mortality rates have fallen so dramatically during his lifetime. He had three neighbors, friends of his, whose mothers died during pregnancy or childbirth. The only person I know (and I didn't even know her, she was the sister of a friend) who died during childbirth did so because she refused to have an abortion, even though she had contracted leukemia during pregnancy. If you want to know the answer to your question, instead of looking at case law (how can a dead woman bring legal action against her doctors anyway?), look at the maternal mortality rates. What is the trend in how many women have died during pregnancy because of uncontrolled high blood pressure? Uncontrolled diabetes? Leukemia? Organ failure? Or any other pregnancy-induced illness that could have been "cured" by an abortion? Are the rates falling? Why? Just better medical care, or is access to abortion also a factor? And somewhere in there, I would think it might be important to factor in the pre-Roe v Wade taboo against abortion under any circumstances.

What's a fugu reaction? Sounds truly awful. Glad you enjoyed your visit. Sure sounds like you fit a lot into a short period of time. I hope you post some photographs when you get home. Also, did you have time to shop for any more Shin Hanga prints from the Edo period?

Okay, I saw the documentary on the Discovery channel, so the facts are a little clearer now. The movie did much more to humanize both the targets and the assassins than the documentary did, but both ask the same (ancient) question: Do two wrongs make a right? If anyone has a relatively dependable crystal ball to let me know what the outcomes would be if Israel were more passive, I'm interested in knowing what it is. I'm inclined to think that Israel would be defeated, but both the movie and the documentary disagree. Didn't anyone else see this movie?

I haven't seen the movie, but I saw the musical about a year ago. My daughter wanted to go, so at the last minute I went to the theater for tickets, and all the good seats were sold-out. So I figured that as long as I was going to have bad seats, I might as well buy the cheapest. Big mistake. We ended up mid-balcony, on the far right of the theater, against a wall. That wouldn't have been so bad, but there were six seats between me and the aisle, which meant six people to climb over if, for any reason, I wanted to leave. For the first half of the show, I was so distracted by claustrophobia, I didn't even get the plot line. At the break, I scouted around for a couple of empty seats that weren't so closed in, and managed to follow the second half of the show, but without the first half, I was never really sure what was going on. What I remember of the play is the song, Seasons of Love, which still goes through my mind on occasion. My daughter loved the play. Said it was the best she's ever seen.

The reviews talked about how Important and Timely this movie is, so I decided to see it. And now I'm undecided. This movie is "inspired by a true story" (I think it's based on a novel, rather than an historical record) so my guess is that the parts that are "true" are the larger, obvious facts: Israeli athletes are taken hostage at the 1972 Olympics by a group of Palestinian gunmen (unintentionally aided by a group of loud, boisterous, doofus American athletes -- is this fact or fiction?), and ultimately killed in a bloody battle at the airport. In retaliation, Israeli intelligence organizes a "hit squad" to travel the world to assassinate the major thinkers behind the terror attack. (I forget my history, so I'm taking Spielberg's word for it.) I'm guessing that the part that is "inspired" is the day-to-day operations of the "hit squad" that travels the globe. It is comprised of five men with various talents, and specific tasks, meaning that one identifies the targets, another makes bombs, another cleans up the evidence afterwards, etc. If you like thrillers (I usually don't), the killings are graphic enough to hold your interest, and also make the central point of the movie, which is that violence begets violence, and when a cycle of retaliation is begun, there is no end in sight. In this movie, competing interests collide, especially those of various governments, represented by the Mossad, KGB, CIA, and PLO, who often have the same targets, and also target each other. Interestingly, the character who acts as a sort of kindly mafia boss (he is the one who juggles all the agencies and feeds the tips in exchange for money to these competing governments, meanwhile denigrating nationalism) is a disillusioned former fighter for the French resistance. His dilemma seems central to the movie's conflict, although it defies believability that someone so enmeshed in world intrigue, and who profits so much by it, would wrestle over the ethics of how far governments should go in compromising their values in order to defend and preserve their values. Anyway, from what I can gather, the reason this is "timely and important" is that this movie offers a commentary on Iraq and America's response to terrorism by using the futility of Israel's fight with the Palestinians as a guiding symbol.

George, evidently what she has is charisma, but I don't understand why her audience isn't put off by her self-absorbtion. I remember a long time ago, she had invited a guest that I wanted to hear, so I tuned in, but it really bugged me that they kept the cameras on Oprah practically the entire time the guest was talking. The interview was all about Oprah, not about the guest. Lightweight intellect? I don't know. She's surely shrewd, very shrewd, to manage (and keep) her empire, despite the inevitable opportunists and traitors she must be surrounded by. I know I sure don't have that kind of business sense. What irks me, though, is how her minor annoyances can make the national news. Like the time she went to an exclusive handbag store after hours when she wanted to purchase a last-minute birthday gift, and they wouldn't unlock the door for her. We were supposed to feel some sort of national outrage over it or something. I mean, really, does anyone care? They wouldn't have unlocked the door for me either, sister. I guess I just don't understand celebrity, and the feeling of entitlement it brings. Take a number like the rest of us. Don't give up on novels, though, especially if you're interested in history. It brings to life those endless recitations of fact, so you can understand the whys and wherefores of life, or at least someone else's take on it. You strike me as a Camus type, if anything. He's someone you might be able to relate to. Ron, now that I think of it, I did do a stint in Russian short stories at some point. Yeah, impressive, if dark and twisted, not in a Poe sense, but even more eerily, because it was all so believable. Solzhenitsyn is one of those names I hear referenced quite frequently, especially on NPR, but I've never read anything of his. Any recommendations?

Ron, I'm surprised. I'm not sure why, though, but I am. I'm not familiar with Russian literature. The only Russian novel I (almost) made it through was The Russian Debutante's Handbook, except it's set in New York City, and the writer is American (a Russian immigrant), but it's supposedly written in the tradition of Russian literature, which means it's long. Too long. I don't remember if I liked it or not -- it was sort of raw and seedy, that much I remember -- but I do remember that I didn't finish it. I wonder how Oprah got so popular.

I like the idea of Oprah's Books, maybe because I like to read. But, years ago, when she first started her book club, I read one of her books and was disappointed (The Deep End of the Ocean). Maybe it was just me, but I thought it was a little too contrived. Hard to explain. I tried again (The Rapture of Canaan) and mostly enjoyed that book, maybe because I could relate to the protagonist's struggle with an abusive religious group, but I thought the use of medieval torture techniques in a contemporary (it was contemporary, right? -- now I forget the setting) Christian fundamentalist group was a bit over-the-top. I mean, despite what the Church of Fire and Brimstone and God's Almighty Baptizing Wind teaches, isn't it still illegal in most states to drown your congregants for disobedience? I couldn't figure out how they got away with their systematic torture, and the question distracted me from the point of the story. I tried again (The Book of Ruth) and that story was such a downer that it put me off to her reading list altogether. After that, I leaned more toward the Booker Prize winners rather than anything Oprah recommended (although I don't often get around to reading those, either). I didn't (deliberately) read any more of her novels, but in reading through her list (from the website), I've read more of them than I thought. And other than those first few I mentioned, I enjoyed the others, especially The Pilot's Wife, Open House, and While I Was Gone. I've read a couple of the classics she recommends, but that was only because I had to, like One Hundred Years of Solitude, and The Sound and the Fury. And a few others are sitting by my bedside -- assorted Christmas gifts from over too many years -- which are either neglected or half-read. Someday, when I have the time . . . Most of the rest on the list, I've never heard of. I must have missed all the commotion while I was posting at GreaseSpot. So, anyway, have you been affected by the "Oprah Effect" when it comes to books? Do you purposely pick up a book based on her recommendation? Also, do any men read Oprah's Books, or is this just a girl thing? Here is her list: 1996 The Book of Ruth by Jane Hamilton The Deep End of the Ocean by Jacquelyn Mitchard Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison 1997 The Treasure Hunt by Bill Cosby The Meanest Thing To Say by Bill Cosby The Best Way To Play by Bill Cosby Ellen Foster by Kaye Gibbons A Virtuous Woman by Kaye Gibbons A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines Songs In Ordinary Time by Mary McGarry Morris The Heart of a Woman by Maya Angelou The Rapture of Canaan by Sheri Reynolds Stones from the River by Ursula Hegi She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb 1998 What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day by Pearl Cleage Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts Midwives by Chris Bohjalian Black and Blue by Anna Quindlen Breath, Eyes, Memory by Edwidge Danticat I Know This Much Is True by Wally Lamb Paradise by Toni Morrison Here on Earth by Alice Hoffman 1999 A Map of the World by Jane Hamilton Vinegar Hill by A. Manette Ansay River, Cross My Heart by Breena Clarke Mother of Pearl by Melinda Haynes Tara Road by Maeve Binchy White Oleander by Janet Fitch The Pilot's Wife by Anita Shreve Jewel by Bret Lott The Reader by Bernhard Schlink 2000 Drowning Ruth by Christina Schwarz House of Sand and Fog by Andre Dubus III Open House by Elizabeth Berg The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison While I Was Gone by Sue Miller Back Roads by Tawni O'Dell Daughter of Fortune by Isabel Allende Gap Creek by Robert Morgan 2001 Cane River by Lalita Tademy The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry Stolen Lives: Twenty Years in a Desert Jail by Malika Oufkir We Were The Mulvaneys by Joyce Carol Oates Icy Sparks by Gwyn Hyman Rubio 2002 Fall on Your Knees by Ann-Marie MacDonald Sula by Toni Morrison 2003 Cry, The Beloved Country by Alan Paton East of Eden by John Steinbeck 2004 Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez 2005 As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner Light in August by William Faulkner The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner A Million Little Pieces by James Frey

Digi: As far as the attention on Frey, I think what it might accomplish is to open up a debate about what is "truth," or, maybe less ambitious, what are the boundaries for "truth" in the literary realm? When fact conflicts with theme, and you're writing non-fiction, where do you draw the line, and what do you owe your readers? It may or may not have implications outside of the book-publishing world, depending on how we've collectively defined honesty, and how much we value it. On one of those news blurbs, it was reported that Oprah's next book selection is Elie Wiesel's narrative Night. If you haven't read it, I think you'll really enjoy this one. As far as the novel versus memoir debate goes, I don't know that it will add to that, except that it's another book which used to be a novel but is now a memoir. After reading it years ago, I went to hear him speak. About all I remember of it is that he is very, very soft-spoken, and has enough of an accent to make him difficult to understand. I can't fault him for his goals, though. Lofty, for sure, but who can fault someone whose purpose for living is to eradicate violence and hatred in all of its many forms? At any rate, this might be a book club selection worth reading, if you haven't read it already. I'll look for that documentary.

Did you get through it without crying? Congratulations to you and your family.

George, For whatever it's worth, I've always thought of you as intelligent and witty and interested in life, if occasionally given to pessimism. You're no Quasimodo; far from it. I don't understand why you see yourself that way. Lately, your posts have been hard for me to read, if only because I don't like seeing you this unhappy. I don't have any real insight into why some marriages survive seismic explosions, while others collapse under the weight of a feather, or why some are lucky enough to find what is for the rest of us that elusive "soul mate," with whom they enjoy effortless and everlasting compatibility, while for the rest of us, marriage is a work in progress, with unpredictable results. Anyway, I hope you find the resolutions you're looking for. In the meantime, go easy on yourself, George. We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love a changed person. -- William Somerset Maugham, writer (1874-1965)

Belle, I'm not sure if it's a "steep decline in morals" (though maybe it is) or just a more competitive literary environment. For a book to get attention, it has to stand out somehow. Listening to yet another interview (I'm surprised this story is so big), his publisher was saying that fiction is more difficult to sell. The market right now is evidently more toward memoir, and she felt it had enough of the elements of a memoir to be sold as one. I don't know. Is it a question of morals? Maybe with this guy (Frey) it is because it sounds like he's a bit of a opportunist, and a lying one at that, yet there was no way he could have foreseen the amount of interest his book would garner, especially since it was his first one published. I don't know if it's more the responsibility of the writer or the publisher to categorize the work into one genre or another. After listening to the interview, I had the impression that it was the publisher who thought there would be a better market for the book if it was sold as non-fiction. Do those ten people you spoke with now feel betrayed? Or is there a message in the book that transcends the facts of his life?

What about "Oh, the Places You'll Go" by Dr. Seuss? It's a graduation favorite, although I don't know if you'll get the right amount of resonance with that squeaky twang of yours. Seriously, what is it you want to capture? A general message? Or something more personal from you to her? Oh, the Places You'll Go! by Dr. Seuss Congratulations! Today is your day. You're off to Great Places! You're off and away! You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the guy who'll decide where to go. You'll look up and down streets. Look 'em over with care. About some you will say, "I don't choose to go there." With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not-so-good street. And you may not find any you'll want to go down. In that case, of course, you'll head straight out of town. It's opener there in the wide open air. Out there things can happen and frequently do to people as brainy and footsy as you. And when things start to happen, don't worry. Don't stew. Just go right along. You'll start happening too. OH! THE PLACES YOU'LL GO! You'll be on your way up! You'll be seeing great sights! You'll join the high fliers who soar to high heights. You won't lag behind, because you'll have the speed. You'll pass the whole gang and you'll soon take the lead. Wherever you fly, you'll be the best of the best. Wherever you go, you will top all the rest. Except when you don't Because, sometimes, you won't. I'm sorry to say so but, sadly, it's true and Hang-ups can happen to you. You can get all hung up in a prickle-ly perch. And your gang will fly on. You'll be left in a Lurch. You'll come down from the Lurch with an unpleasant bump. And the chances are, then, that you'll be in a Slump. And when you're in a Slump, you're not in for much fun. Un-slumping yourself is not easily done. You will come to a place where the streets are not marked. Some windows are lighted. But mostly they're darked. A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin! Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in? How much can you lose? How much can you win? And IF you go in, should you turn left or right... or right-and-three-quarters? Or, maybe, not quite? Or go around back and sneak in from behind? Simple it's not, I'm afraid you will find, for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind. You can get so confused that you'll start in to race down long wiggled roads at a break-necking pace and grind on for miles across weirdish wild space, headed, I fear, toward a most useless place. The Waiting Place... ...for people just waiting. Waiting for a train to go or a bus to come, or a plane to go or the mail to come, or the rain to go or the phone to ring, or the snow to snow or waiting around for a Yes or a No or waiting for their hair to grow. Everyone is just waiting. Waiting for the fish to bite or waiting for wind to fly a kite or waiting around for Friday night or waiting, perhaps, for their Uncle Jake or a pot to boil, or a Better Break or a string of pearls, or a pair of pants or a wig with curls, or Another Chance. Everyone is just waiting. NO! That's not for you! Somehow you'll escape all that waiting and staying. You'll find the bright places where Boom Bands are playing. With banner flip-flapping, once more you'll ride high! Ready for anything under the sky. Ready because you're that kind of a guy! Oh, the places you'll go! There is fun to be done! There are points to be scored. there are games to be won. And the magical things you can do with that ball will make you the winning-est winner of all. Fame! You'll be famous as famous can be, with the whole wide world watching you win on TV. Except when they don't. Because, sometimes, they won't. I'm afraid that some times you'll play lonely games too. Games you can't win 'cause you'll play against you. All Alone! Whether you like it or not, Alone will be something you'll be quite a lot. And when you're alone, there's a very good chance you'll meet things that scare you right out of your pants. There are some, down the road between hither and yon, that can scare you so much you won't want to go on. But on you will go though the weather be foul On you will go though your enemies prowl On you will go though the Hakken-Kraks howl Onward up many a frightening creek, though your arms may get sore and your sneakers may leak. On and on you will hike and I know you'll hike far and face up to your problems whatever they are. You'll get mixed up, of course, as you already know. You'll get mixed up with many strange birds as you go. So be sure when you step. Step with care and great tact and remember that Life's a Great Balancing Act. Just never forget to be dexterous and deft. And never mix up your right foot with your left. And will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.) KID, YOU'LL MOVE MOUNTAINS! So... be your name Buxbaum or Bixby or Bray or Mordecai Ali Van Allen O'Shea, you're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting. So...get on your way! http://www.mit.edu/people/adorai/seuss/seussboy.html

Digi, Did I post on that thread? I'm sure I would have if I had seen it. And, yes, I know what you mean about not always feeling up to jumping into the fray. Has it been five years? I had a friend who was diagnosed with cancer shortly before my sister was. They both withdrew, which made it hard on the rest of us. I was never sure what to say, or whether to say anything at all. With my friend, I kept thinking that she would get in touch with me when she was ready, but she died before that happened. With my sister, once she recovered, she was back to being open and communicative. I can completely relate, in that I tend to turn inward when I'm under pressure, too -- it's how I process things. But, even so, it's not easy to watch someone close to you go through a major illness, especially when you're at a loss as far as what to do or say. Anyway, like I said, I'm glad you're well and back with us. diazbro, from what I'm hearing and reading about this, I'm inclined to agree with you. Frey wrote a novel, and it should be marketed as such. I mean, this is beyond embellishment. It's complete fabrication. Spending three hours uneventful hours at the police station while waiting for a friend to pick him up is a far cry from being behind bars shackled to Porkchop for three months while reading him Chaucer. I heard a re-run of a radio interview today with the producer of a documentary about Grizzly bears, called Grizzly Man. Have you seen it? I haven't. Sounded interesting, though. Evidently it got great reviews, and it's about a couple who were killed by grizzlies after spending over a decade with them in the Alaska wilderness, and devoting themselves to their preservation. Anyway, the producer himself said that he fabricated much of it. He used authentic video footage that the couple had shot before their deaths, but, from what he said, he took great liberties with the information. He said his goal was to tell the "ecstatic truth" of the story, rather than the factual one, so he disregarded fact in pursuit of this "truth." I wonder what makes it a documentary then. Anyway, in Frey's case, if the "essential" or "ecstatic" or whatever kind of truth he is illustrating is that an addict can be lifted out of his addiction and his criminality through rehab, but the author himself hasn't taken that journey, or at least not in the way he has depicted it, then, yes, I think there is some misrepresentation going on. On the other hand, I can relate to the appeal of "creative non-fiction" -- using elements of fiction to illustrate a point. In that way, a writer can use the weather, the plot, the scenery, the sequence of events to make his point with a lot more style than just a factual recounting. Unfortunately, if you're writing non-fiction, sometimes the weather, the plot, the scenery, and the events don't cooperate with the theme of your story, so I can fully understand altering a few things to make for a more riveting read.

Something along these lines? Poem: "First Lesson," by Philip Booth from Lifelines: Selected Poems 1950-1999 (Viking). First Lesson Lie back, daughter, let your head be tipped back in the cup of my hand. Gently, and I will hold you. Spread your arms wide, lie out on the stream and look high at the gulls. A dead- man's-float is face down. You will dive and swim soon enough where this tidewater ebbs to the sea. Daughter, believe me, when you tire on the long thrash to your island, lie up, and survive. As you float now, where I held you and let go, remember when fear cramps your heart what I told you: lie gently and wide to the light-year stars, lie back, and the sea will hold you. http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2002/02/25/

Digi, I didn't know you had had cancer. I'm sorry to hear it. I remember that after you stopped posting, many were asking about you, but I don't recall anyone posting about your health. I hope things are going well for you now. I can't imagine what you've been through. I had to have a biopsy about a year ago (which turned out fine), but I kept postponing it (for months) until I felt I was ready to accept the results, whatever they were. It was a journey I didn't want to take. I'm glad you made it to the other side. Yeah, I caught Frey's interview with Larry King tonight, and he said pretty much what I expected him to say -- that the theme of his book is what is true, and the "facts" are there to support the theme (this used to be called "fiction," although, in fairness, it's really only a matter of degree). Funny, but he compared himself to Faulkner and Hemingway and Kerouac, who all wrote memoirs with embellished facts. Except they all sold theirs as novels, and, even so, I doubt his is as brilliant. But I could be wrong. To listen to the testimonials, he's written a recovery bible for addicts, and many are finding their way through his story. IMO, the only way this will turn into a debate that reverses the current literary trends is if the readers get angry enough to object loudly. I don't know that they will, if the story makes them feel good.

diazbro, I read the entire article with interest (and amusement). I haven't read the book, not being much of a fan of Oprah's book selections, but I've seen it on the bookstore shelves, and even read the dust jacket. Didn't interest me, but I would guess that Frey has more than a few defenders, since he seems to be writing in a genre called "creative non-fiction," (here's a definition for it) which has (almost) become mainstream. Creative non-fiction is now taught side-by-side with poetry and fiction (and even journalism) in most creative writing courses, although it's not yet been clearly defined. I did a quick google search, and I can see that even instructors are struggling with how to define it, even as they teach it. One site offers a definition for it, but when it gives the guidelines for how to write creative non-fiction, what it is describing is historical fiction, a different genre. No one really knows what it is, but many are writing in that genre. It used to be that you'd read a disclaimer ("based on a true story") if you read a book that hovered somewhere between fact and fiction, but not so much anymore. I don't know if you know or remember or even followed the controversy over Reagan's biography, when his official biographer created a character who was woven throughout the book, even recounting word-for-word conversations that Reagan supposedly had with his phantom friend over a period of decades. Also, Frank McCourt was questioned about his autobiography after recounting in vivid (and moving) detail his life as a toddler, a time of life most of us can't remember, and it's dubious that he remembered it, but his memoir (novel?) earned him millions, and he's still pumping out sequels. The trend now is to move away from a factual recounting into a "truthful" one, meaning that if the protagonist is believable, and the events believable, it is close enough to true to pass as non-fiction. Since Frey's "memoir" was rejected 17 times as a novel, I would guess that he isn't as skilled as a fiction writer as he is as a journalist, but his life was too boring to garner much interest, so he embellished it. Anymore, it seems that as long as your writing is loosely based on fact, and captures some larger "truth," it's still considered non-fiction. That's the trend these days. I hope you post updates on this story. I'm a little curious how it will turn out. My guess is that Oprah's guests will defend it as a legitimate literary form. I'm curious, where do you draw the line between fact and fiction? When you think about it, it isn't so easy to define.

Krys, Some of those pictures are amazing, even though I'm not entirely sure what I was watching. I'd like to see that again on an Omnimax screen, with a voice-over guiding me through it. Do they change the video often enough to make an addiction worthwhile? Bluzeman, Take heart. If they manage to get internet addiction listed as a mental disorder, you'll be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, so your employer (if you have one) won't be able to fire you for all the time and effort it takes to post those links on the Nostalgia thread. In fact, you'll be compensated through your health insurance. And dmiller, an empty refrigerator is probably to your advantage, since you don't have to clean it as often, but put on a fresh shirt every once in awhile, will ya? Don't want to draw flies to the place. Ala, you're a brave soul. I haven't taken the test yet. I'm afraid of what I might find out about myself.