D'Juhn Keep on 30/12/2007 at 12:35
You have a book and in that book is a blurb on the back and an about the author on the inner cover.
Those two descriptions are EXACTLY THE SAME
So there it is: writers who write a book that is basically their autobiography, written as fiction. Not using more than a bare minimum or creativity or inspiration they recount their own experiences through a different name. I've just read The Devil Wears Prada which is pretty free with admitting that it does this, down to the "character" in the book, in a rather meta way, actually writing magazine articles about being a fashion assistant. I'm not saying this automatialy makes bad books but why can there be nothing in it that hasn't actually happened! The "character" is Jewish, the author's name Lauren Weisberger. I can't imagine that she didn't actually have an alcoholic friend and a teacher boyfriend because it seems so supremely unlikely that she'd be able to add things that didn't fucking HAPPEN.
The antithesis of this, for me, is a book called Trinity by Leon Uris. He's writted a few books involving law and the establishment and ramifications of the Israel and Jews in general. However, Trinity is a book spanning 100 years all about Ireland around the time of the Potato Famine. Apart from being an awesome book it shows how much effort went into painstakingly researching it. The difference between that and simply recounting your own experiences is huge.
I know that an author can hardly not put his or her own experiences in their books and that their own life may make a good story, especially improved with fictionalisation but that is my pet, somewhat irrational, hate: authors that just tell a story that IS their life.
Thoughts on my hate and your own hates, please :D
D'Arcy on 30/12/2007 at 14:44
You must really hate autobiographies then ;)
My pet hates mostly involve elevators and how people use them :p
Tocky on 30/12/2007 at 15:16
Mine is people who use to for too and then for than.
But what the hell are you reading The Devil Wears Prada for? Not enough hammers laying about to smack yourself with?
D'Arcy on 30/12/2007 at 15:52
Quote Posted by Tocky
Mine is people who use to for too and then for than.
Since you're on the subject, I'd add people who use 'your' for 'you're', write 'wierd' instead of 'weird', and always misspell 'definitely' (most usual form used seems to be 'definately').
Stitch on 30/12/2007 at 16:17
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
So there it is: writers who write a book that is basically their autobiography, written as fiction. Not using more than a bare minimum or creativity or inspiration they recount their own experiences through a different name.
Is it bad writing (lack of creativity, inspiration) or simply autobiographies dressed up as fiction that piss you off?
fett on 30/12/2007 at 16:29
I swear to god D'Juhn, I read your post three times and still don't understand what you're trying to say. Either it's early, or you're drunk.
Tocky on 30/12/2007 at 18:08
Quote Posted by D'Arcy
and always misspell 'definitely' (most usual form used seems to be 'definately').
Oh crap. I can almost definately say I've done that before. How do you feel about people who use laying for lying? I've never been clear on that one. I know it has something to do with active and inactive.
Perhaps D'Juhn is really angry that the people with interesting lives don't seem to write enough and what we get is books about people in the fashion industry. I can't wait until the next Brittany Spears biography myself. I'm knotting my noose as I type.
D'Juhn Keep on 30/12/2007 at 19:48
Quote Posted by Stitch
Is it bad writing (lack of creativity, inspiration) or simply autobiographies dressed up as fiction that piss you off?
It's not really bad writing as the book may not be bad. The Devil Wears Prada (yes, chick book, I read it at my girlfriend's over christmas, shut up) was alright but yeah, dressed up autobiographies is the thing.
Is anyone with fett in not understanding my post or has he had too much 5 day old eggnog?
Malygris on 30/12/2007 at 20:32
I think he's just thrown by the fact that you seem to be taking it so seriously.
demagogue on 30/12/2007 at 20:33
Your pet peeve is one of the trendiest styles these days ... Devil Wears Prada, Everything is Illuminated, Persepolis, The Kite Runner, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Syriana, Charlie Wilson's War, A Civil Action... (You also have novels that are written in memoir style, like Memoirs of a Geisha, or memoirs that are embellished like novels, like Million Little Pieces.)
It's a laundry list of some of the biggest books in the last few years, the kind that are breaking records and getting made into "blockbuster" movies (by book->movie standards). It's like you're irked about the entire scene.
I suppose the story is supposed to be that, esp since 9/11, et al, escapism has really been losing ground ... also part of the rise of "reality", e.g., in t.v. People want to think the books they read have some relevance to the real world, and it adds a bite when you think the events actually happened. But I think the public is so steeped in escapist literature that they can't quite rave for flat-out autobiographies. So you get this hybrid. (And even when they are escapist, it has to be an authentic classic like Lord of the Rings or Narnia, nothing after the 1950s).
I don't mind the trend because too much escapism feels flat to me, and this style is a check to that. But I admit there's something suspect about authors who just want to write about themselves for 400 pages. You can't trust they're being entirely honest with you or are not holding something back, like a reader expects from an author. Even if it's been heavily fictionalized, it's a feeling you can't completely shake.
