Talk:James Frey

External link

Honestly, the external link is so poorly done it's not funny. It's worse than linking to pitchfork reviews for music pages. blah blah blah I'll try and balance this out in the future.--24.69.27.190 07:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Smoking Gun

Hah, someone added The Smoking Gun article at the same exact time I was.

Who gives a crap if the lying publisher says "We stand in support of our author"--which is what the actual quote was? Wikipedia doesn't need to print that. Obviously the publisher has a plain financial interest in lying, never mind how their own credibility is toast. Besides, it doesn't mean anything with respect to the truth of the memoir. "Stand[ing] in support of our author" doesn't mean they're vouching for his honesty in AMLP, which is what this section is about. They'd be crazy to, after TSG's piece. I've read it, and it's devastating.

Goodbye, Mr. Frey, you lying fraud. I don't think Brad Pitt will be accepting the honor of playing you in a movie any time soon.

Lying shit, he is, and talentless, I really like this lemma in wikipedia though.

I am very saddened by this turn of events. I am a writer who is actually working on my own memoir, and I was so moved and so fascinated by both of his works. I was literally moved to tears twice during "My Friend Leonard. I was such a big fan of his work. I sincerely hope that somehow these allegations can be disproven, although I suspect that they probably have something to them. -- JAY... 1/12/06

Retort: I find it telling that a confessed Frey fan can't spell the words "embellishments" or "disappointing." How appropriate that the fans of an illiterate moron ... are illiterate morons.

It's sad that the public is more concerned about a lying nobody author than a lying President. - from someone that knows what's important

^^^Thank you for posting that, that is exactly what I was thinking. Oprah, CNN, Smoking Gun, and all the other sources reporting on this should stop giving this (admitted) liar publicity, and focus on the REAL issues at hand. 71.33.140.76 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Category Removed

I removed this from the Hoax category as right now it would be way too contreversial for inclusion in said category, for one James Frey has gone on record saying the only about 18 of about 300 pages were in dispute, secondly like it or no this is this guys life we're talking about and fom what I gather it's mostly true. Those are the reasons I feel it should not be included in the "Hoaxes" category.Deathawk 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Death-awk: Fine, I agree. I was the one who added him to that category in the first place.

The "18 pages argument/less than 5%" argument is ludicrous, unless you consider a memoir to be written in some sort of mathematical formula where each page contains a proportional amount of 'truth'. Take into consideration the repeated refrain and theme of the book: I am an Alcoholic and a Drug Addict and a Criminal. It's been fairly well established that he is not a criminal (or is that Criminal?) so using my own arbitrary arithmetic, 33% of the book has been proven to be false.

You think it is too controversial to be call this a hoax? The only provable portions of the book have been disproven. He tried (succeeded?) to have the records expunged. Now, why would someone who has provided minute details of his every vice and crime, feel thratened by the existence of his 'criminal' records in the public realm??

Additionally, his purported jailtime and criminal charges are central to many other dramatic events in the book: His judge and mobster buddies pulling strings to have his felony count's reduced. His crack whore girlfriend killing herself 12 hours before his 3 month stretch in chokey ends.

This my learned brothers and sisters is not 'embellishment' it's straightout LYING--~~CS~~

While I agree that the book isn't really a "hoax" so much as a fraud, I think anyone that claims that the book retains a great deal of validity because it is "mostly true" has simply not come to terms with being defrauded. I'm glad to see that Oprah has.

As CS notes in his response, the things that are beyond mere embellishment (lies) are those things that Frey claims were pivotal times in his life. If they didn't happen, then anything purported to be a result of them must be regarded as highly suspect. Bsrbennett 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

People need to consider the possibility that the entire book is 100% fiction. I do not believe that Frey was ever in rehab. Nor do I believe he ever met the DSM-IVtr criteria for dependence on any drug. What is the evidence that Frey was ever in rehab? I am a professional addiction counselor(and one that believes 12 step programs are good for some and not for others, so I had hoped that Frey's book would offer something positive for people who can't work with 12 step)and nothing in the book rings true. The depiction of the rehab process is not true to life and is much more like college. For example, there is not one single group therapy session depicted.I would bet money that he never went to rehab or if he did was there as long as he was in jail.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Frey"

What about the group scene from when he was in the "Family Program"? M. Frederick 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been awhile since I last looked at this site. No one ever produced(or cared enough to adduce one single piece of actual evidence that Frey was in rehab. He certainly wouldn't do it, although if you were him wouldn't you want to put something out there? Well, why would you when you've made millions from a work of fiction that you lied about on Oprah. How much money would he have made without those lies on Oprah.

As far as the group you mention above that, I guess, is a "group" but it is a group that you would have made up if you had watched "clean and sober" a couple of times. Real groups are nothing like that. If you'd ever been in one, or run one(and I've run hundreds and hundreds of them and listened to other people do them etc.)you would know what I'm talking about. It just doesn't ring true. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tearful Winfrey

I removed "A tearful" from the sentence that quotes Oprah as having felt duped. I watched the episode, and describing her as tearful isn't factual, but probably the viewer's interpretation of how she felt. Bsrbennett 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I considered removing the 'tearful' part of that sentence as well. Good call, Bsr. Cazart! 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

- I believe the reference to tearful is due to a Yahoo News article, which described Oprah as "sometimes angry, sometimes tearful" when she confronted Frey. You can check the link to the article here. [1] Bear77 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The original text read in the article included both angry and tearful. I removed angry since that's a clear interpretation by the author. Tearful is an observable state. However, I have no problem with its removal. -- MisterHand 05:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error

Look, people are getting something wrong about his book. Lilly didn't commit suicide and he didn't spend his three months in jail in "A Million Little Pieces". All of this happen in the follow-up, "My Friend Leonard". People are asusming that all of this happens in AMLP which is misleading. How he goes through the ordeal is in the sequel. Cueball 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But even though he didn't do the jail time in the chronology of A Million Little Pieces, there's mention of it happening. And Lily's suicide is revealed in the epilogue of the book. My Friend Leonard just fleshes it out. That said, I absolutely agree that there have been instances of confusion about this throughout the article. Cazart! 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When reading the book, not for 1 second did i think it could be a lie, its so deep and moving. If its found to be fake or exagerated thats just sad. Im sure millions of people have changed and respected this man due to this story. If its fake he's let them down and is a sad case.

If "millions of people" changed due to his book, do you think they're all going to change back now that it's been shown to false?M. Frederick 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness??? (and other dubious additions)

I think that the whole discussion of truthiness seems out of place. The statement above seems to be a good example of truthiness. The response of the supporters of Frey who say it doesn't matter that it is true seem to be addicted to truthiness. But the book itself and the underlying controversy do not seem to be representative of the word truthy, as discussed by Cobert. It seems as if whoever added that is a fan of the Cobert Report or something. I suggest in future versions of the page that this reference be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.177.177 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, along with the reference in the intro to charges of plagiarism. That accusation is seriously reaching and hasn't even been touched in the mainstream media. Whoever reverted that addition a few weeks ago had the right idea, but the author has since put it back up. The only article I can find documenting Frey's supposed plagiarism is dubious at best. I doubt anybody pushing the rumour has even read Eddie Little. Anyhow, until he is confirmed to be a plagiarist, it doesn't belong in the opening of the article. Maybe bury it in 'controversy'. Cazart! 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

People need to consider the possibility that the entire book is 100% fiction. I do not believe that Frey was ever in rehab. Nor do I believe he ever met the DSM-IVtr criteria for dependence on any drug. What is the evidence that Frey was ever in rehab? I am a professional addiction counselor(and one that believes 12 step programs are good for some and not for others, so I had hoped that Frey's book would offer something positive for people who can't work with 12 step)and nothing in the book rings true. The depiction of the rehab process is not true to life and is much more like college. For example, there is not one single group therapy session depicted.I would bet money that he never went to rehab or if he did was there as long as he was in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.155.167 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am author of the above comment. I have yet to see anyone produce one piece of evidence that Frey was in rehab. Frey is still on the best seller list with My Fried Leonard, which is quite likely 100% fiction. I find that the most infuriating comment Frey made was when he said that "the emotional truth" of recovery was in his book. Imagine if someone claimed to have climbed mount everest naked and then wrote a book about it. At first people took him at his word. And then some people raised doubts. At first the author hemmed and hawed and then reluctanly admitted that he had in fact worn clothes. But then after more questions were raised he admitted that he hadn't in fact been to the top of Everest at all, but claimed, indignantly, that this was a "memoir" and that there is controversy about truth in memoirs. And what is most important, he argued, is that the emotional truth of climbing Everest naked is there. Now here's the problem: that makes the book a novel. Oh well! Thomas

It's not like other author's haven't lied: Take for instance the education of little tree, Between a Rock and A hard Place and a Child Called It. I don't see why those books don't get slammed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huge anon edit reverted today

I doubt if that whitewasher will be back. The huge blanking was not cool, but I thought the top two paragraphs were actually very good. Maybe they can be added back/incorporated?

James Christopher Frey (born September 12, 1969 in Cleveland, Ohio USA) is an American writer. He graduated from Denison University and also attended The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His first memoir, A Million Little Pieces, was published by Nan Talese/Doubleday/Random House in spring 2003. Its follow up, My Friend Leonard (also a memoir) was published by Riverhead in summer 2005. Both books became bestsellers. Frey, along with his wife and daughter, currently resides in NYC.

Frey started writing A Million Little Pieces in the spring of 1996. This memoir of Frey's experiences during his treatment at the alcohol and drug addiction treatment facility, Hazelden, was published by Doubleday in April, 2003. Amazon.com editors selected A Million Little Pieces as their favorite book of 2003. In September, 2005, Oprah Winfrey chose A Million Little Pieces for her monthly bookclub. A Million Little Pieces became a bestseller, remaining on the New York Times best seller list for 44 weeks, selling in excess of 4.5 million copies.

I'm not suggesting taking out any of the stuff that the other editor removed, but I think these two paragraphs are neutral, informative and could add to the article. --Anchoress 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole piece is almost laughably negative and seriously biased. No decent or reputable newspaper or magazine in America would print anything like it. That things like this exist and are perpetuated are why Wikkipedia is losing so much credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.2.7 (talk • contribs)

Revisions

This article in incredibly unbalanced and biased. It's ironic, as it was with Frey himself, that people to whom truth and balance seem so important are willing to write pieces that are clearly designed to attack and debase and do nothing more. also, many of the sources and links do not work or are invalid. It's needs a major reworking.

I think balance can be achieved by adding more details about just how critically acclaimed he was prior to confessing that crucial details of the book were fabricated. I added for example the fact that the New Yorker (which is known to be quite picky when it comes to literature) praised the book for its electrifying description of his experience. But we now that his experience was partly fabricated so it's impossible to avoid the controversy (it's what he's best known for and encylopedia's focus on the notable) however more details need to be added about just how well regarded Frey's book originally was in literary circles. 64.230.51.101 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the removal of negative information about James Frey. If a figure is notable for information perceived to be negative (such as fabrication of a memoir and plagiarism), it is biased to display that information. The controversy surrounding Frey is notable. In fact, a google search for "James Frey controversy" produces about one-seventh as many hits as a search for "James Frey." The fabrication and plagiarism controversy created popular media attention for Frey that dwarfed his previous acclaim. Thus, the controversy should be mentioned in the initial paragraph. The scandal progression shold be discussed in detail in the article. The pro-Frey edits are troubling because they largely deleted the other side of the story. We were left with mitigate statements by Frey and his supporters. The details about what he fabricated and substantiation of his deception were largely removed. The evidence was good information. Without it, a mere "he said, she said" situation is created rather than an informed exploration of the situation. If editors disliked the inclusion of certain information, I think they should have reworked the language rather than removing factual information. No one explain why they had a problem with the source, factual, notable information that happens to reflect poorly on Frey. It was simply removed in great bulk, without a supporting reasoning on the Talk page, which was requested by other editors. For some public figures, a neutral article will include information that places them in ill-repute. Absent a specific showing about the faultiness or non-notability of specific facts, I don't think they should be systematically purged like they have been. --JamesAM 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, one seventh of the article should then be about the controversy. There is clearly more than that in it's current form. And the plagirism charges were made in a paper in Russia that prides itself on being able to publish without regard for US libel and defamation laws. Not a single other legitimate news source reprinted it. If Wikki is to consdiderd legitimate source of information, it should be presented as such.

No, that one-seventh argument isn't a consequence of my logic. First of all, my search includes pages that use the words "James" and "Frey" anywhere, so it's going to have a hits not about the author. So the ratio of pages with the word "controversy" and a reference to the author "James Frey" is probably even higher. Second, "controversy" is just one way to refer to the situation. There would be other hits using words like scandal, fabrication, lie, etc. The point is that it's a huge part (probably the biggest part) of Frey's fame. And there is no Wikipedia principle barring informationa from non-U.S. sources. The removal of information that may reflect poorly on Frey was so broad, it even remove things that he or his publishers had admitted. The removal of adverse facts was so systematic that it made the article read like only isolated voices claimed fabrication, when the opposite was actually true; on many points, eventually only Frey (or sometimes not even Frey) still claimed such aspects of his memoirs were true. And in fact, Frey's publishers basically conceded that Smoking Gun was correct. --JamesAM 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frey had two books on the bestsellers list before the controversy, and two after the after controversy. He was published in 29 languages, and the only the US publisher deemed it necessary to include new discliamers. How can you substantiate statements like - He had access to his family's fortune? How do you know what his family had and what he had access to? It seems like you're out to slam him and most likely work for the smoking gun? The article is laughably biased and wouldn't be publisheable in any newspaper in the country.

Why not try to stick to the substantiated facts?

There are constant revisions to the James Frey page and I think we need to reach a "happy medium" with these edits. The page is seriously biased and has reached the point that it reads like a cheap tabloid. As a user of Wikipedia, I think this compromises the integrity of the site as a whole.

There was a segment about Wikipedia on CBS's "Sunday Morning" show this past week (Dec. 10, 2006). It was evident from this segment that there are serious problems with the content of many Wikipedia pages and the editing process is up to anyone that wants to add their comments, factual or not. Below are a couple of comments from the show:

"Steven Colbert bestowed his critique. "I'm going to log on to Wikipedia here and I am going to change it," he said on one of his shows. "You see, any user can change any entry. And if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true."

"Because most anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, mistakes can and do happen. Altschul searched herself on Wikipedia. Her name was spelled right, but her birthday was wrong. Much more serious errors have been found. "

"Quality control troubled Wikipedia co-founder Sanger. He quit and went on to help create Digital Universe where experts control content. Recently he has announced a new venture called Citizendium that will mirror Wikipedia but will also include expert oversight."'

Why not put the substantiated facts on the page and let readers go to the links, research the controversy and reach their own opinion? There was an edit this morning that contains factual information re Freys biography and career categories. I agree with this edit...the controversy should be kept in the proper category (Controversy).

Like it or not, "A Million Little Pieces" remains on the best sellers list; give the guy credit for writing two great books!

Russmom 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts regarding the fabrication and the ensuing controversy are substantiated. You'll see that the relevant sections have proper support through footnotes and links. That's how it should be. The removal didn't target unsubstantiated info; a lot of substantiation info was removed. Rather, it target information that reflected poorly on Frey. The removal of "negative" facts was so broad that it even removed the description of Leonard as a mobster and Frey self-description as a former addict and criminal - both pieces of info were in the article before the controversy broke.

I feel the removal of content since early November may mislead readers. For example, it may give the impression that the publishers have continued to oppose Frey's critics. In fact, their very own statement back in February acknowledged that they find The Smoking Gun's account of Frey's past persuasive. Further, the removals stripped the article of descriptions of fabrications. Why shouldn't the article described the fabrications and alleged fabrications? It's important and informative to present concrete information and not keep things amorphous.

I think the "tabloid" feel is due to the subject matter rather than the writing. I think the mostly pristinely neutral description of an event of this nature will sound seedy. Efforts can be made to keep the tone appropriate without removing facts.

The controversy was huge. Numbers bear that out. It broke in early January 2006. In a LexisNexis news search for "James Frey" for all of 2005 (365 days) turns up 550 hits. A search from 1/1/06 to 2/15/06 (a brief 36 day period including most of the scandal period turns up a whopping 1885 hits.

Although I'd prefer to discuss this article, I'll briefly reply to the criticism of Wikipedia. Of course, it's nature opens it up to problems, but that's why the community puts in all the work it does. I take Wikipedia very seriously. People worked hard from January to November the edit article. You'll notice that most of them were registered users; this lends some accountable. Since November (with less attention being paid to the article), this content has been removed - mostly by unregistered users. I think the process was working well for the article before the purge of information. --JamesAM 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you took Wikki seriously you wouldn't allow it publish blatant slam pieces with unsubstantiated facts. That is precisely the problem people have with Wikki. You put a massive revert up with bad links, bad information and a tone that is clearly biased. The article was edited tio make a reasonable piece. There is clearly an agenda here. Where is the information about the pre-controversy success, and the post controversy success (if you look the book is at #27 on the NYT list). You never addressed issues such as - Frey had access to his family's fortune - or the fact that many of the links are to a publication that prides itself on libel. Wikki will die, or become irrelevant because of editors like you.

Please, sign your posts, and remember the WP Policies of assume good faith and no personal attacks. Anchoress 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The revert restored information that was stripped with no justification. Someone can say it's all lies, but I think the substantiated, well-sourced product of many editors over many months shouldn't be significantly stripped without justification on the specific points that are being removed. The article has information about his pre-scandal success. Why should the scandal be purged. Personally, I have no quarrel with removing the family fortune reference. That just came back as part of the revert. I don't your skepticism about The eXile justify the massive removal of information, because the eXile wasn't a source for any of information (check the citations), it was merely among the links in the links section. The deletions had nothing to do with the eXile. Furthermore, I don't think some joke about libel and a suit by Pavel Bure make the eXile less credible than Frey, who has admitted that he lied about many things in his books. And yet the pro-Frey contained misleading information by suggesting that he was upfront about the degree that he altered his life story, suggesting that the publisher support his take on events, stripping the article of nearly all the specifics of what he fabricated, etc. --JamesAM 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What Materials Should Be Included?

I think the James Frey article should be consistent with other articles regarding famous people in Wikipedia in terms of what information is included, how much is included, and where within the article it is placed.

In my edits (except the initial revert), I have tried to keep appropriate information that was added to the article by those editors who removed massive amounts of information that may be unflattering to Frey. I have kept additions about the success of his books, their accolades, Frey's schooling, his residence, and his family. By the same token, I think editors should respect the notable, substantiated information about the scandal which they have repeatedly deleted. Within the article, this information is in fact more substantiated that the additions by "pro-Frey" editors. The criticisms and evidence for fabrication are sourced. In contrast, information such as Frey's schooling, where he lives, and Amazon.com editor ratings are unsourced. In spite of that, I'm assuming those are good faith, factual additions.

Frey's intial claim to fame is that he wrote a best-selling memoir and a follow-up book. The fabrication scandal is extremely notable. First of all, it generated much more publicity regarding Frey than he had previously received. Second, it is inextricably linked to his previous claim to fame. It bears directly on the heart of the "memoirs." Are they memoirs or are they fiction or are they a mixed of both? Any accurate description of the books (even a brief one) should include the fabrication. So because the scandal is arguably a bigger source of fame than the initial success and because the scandal is inextricable part of any discussion of the books themselves, it should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.

The major details of the fabrication (admitted, proven, and alleged) ought to be mentioned. Wikipedia should inform people. People shouldn't finish reading the article having no idea what all the hullabaloo was about. So things like exaggeration of criminal record, questions surrounding Lilly's death/existence, supposed fabrication of involvement with the train crash victims ought to be included. Every minor detail need not be included, but the major issues of the fabrication should.

Pop culture references are regularly included in Wikipedia articles about people. I don't think things like the South Park episode should be removed unless they are non-notable/very, very minor. --JamesAM 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is good, persuasive and logical, but then you revert to an unbalanced piece with huge amounts of unsubstantiated information and bad links and sources, which undercuts the substance of the argument. Ther should be some middle ground that is reachable. - Greyman

The information is substantiation. The links are substantiation. None of the editors who have made these massive deletions have provided any evidence whatsoever contradicted this. You haven't either, so your edits are contrary to those principles. If a specific link is dead, the answer is to remove that link. The purged information doesn't have the problems that you ascribed to them. What the purged information has in common is that it is all info that substantiates the fabrication allegations. I have been worked for a middle ground. As I've noted, I've made efforts to include the information (such as Frey's schooling) that was added by the deleting editors. My position hasn't been undercut whatsoever. I've restored the information, which is the right thing to do. You should improve things, not delete them. --

JamesAM 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable, please!

JamesAM, in my opinion, your edits so biased against Frey that it makes me wonder why you have such a "burr under your saddle" over his page. When I looked at your contributions to Wikipedia, all of your pages pertain to cartoon characters/artists, with one exception; a baseball player. On December 10, you hit the Frey page and haven't let up since. Why? I'm really curious as to your motive.

The controversy is all documented in The Smoking Gun article/link and viewers of the page can go there and read it. There are also many other links referenced on the page that anyone can read in order to satisfy their curiosity. To substantiate the Amazon information on Frey's books, all you have to do is go to Amazon.com and it's right there for you to verify. No one knows who Lilly was; I'm sure James wanted to protect her identity, as well he should.

Frey's education should not be in the "Career" section but rather in the intro of the page. I've deleted the duplicate entry under the career section.

We all do our best when it comes to keeping Wiki pages as factual as possible. You seem to like the drama associated with James Frey's books far more than his success as an author. His books sold very well before he was on Oprah and prior to The Smoking Gun investigation. I agree that the information brought to the fore front by those two "institutions" should be linked to the page, but not to the point of sounding like cheap tabloid gossip. JamesAM, I think you're better than that...prove it to all of us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.227.247 (talk • contribs)

I think it's important that any edits I make are judged on their merits rather than whether you like me or dislike me. The Wikipedia community finds that important principle; hence, the official Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks notes, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." There's no restriction that people who edit articles about comic books can't edit articles on memoirists/novelists. Also, your statement about my contributions is incorrect.

The vast majority of information that I've added in my edits has been information that was in the article prior to early November, when the massive removal of unflattering information began. I agree that Wikipedia articles should factual. Both Frey's book sales and that he fabricated parts of his memoirs are facts. Just because something is "positive" doesn't make it more factual that a negative.

The standards for inclusion should be things like notability, veracity, and informativeness. Wikipedia gather information together. People shouldn't leave this page ignorant of the facts and dependent on the links to get any information. If we left out any information that readers could obtain elsewhere, the articles would only have links and no text.

Whether there was a Lilly and, if so, how she died, were notable matters. Readers should get both side of it. Further, I think you misunderstand the nature of Stephen Levitt's search regarding Lilly's death. He didn't search for people named Lilly. He searched a database of deaths for any that matched the supposed circumstances of her death (both the hanging story and the revised wrist slitting story). He said he didn't find any death based on age, sex, location, etc. that seemed to match Lilly.

The fabrication scandal is a huge party of Frey's fame. As you can see above, I present an objective metric of news regarding "James Frey" (a LexisNexis search) to show that more than 3 times as many stories on him were done during the month and half that started 2006 (the scandal on Jan. 8, 2006) than in the whole year before the scandal. Thus, there is substantial to back up the statement that Frey is much more notable for the fabrication scandal than for his memoirs considered independent of that. --JamesAM 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; whatever Frey's success prior to the controversy, the discovery and publication of his apparent deceptions, along with the media frenzy that resulted (fueled by the parallel stories first of JT Leroy, then Nasdijj, then, later, Kaavya Viswanathan), will remain a defining moment of his career even were he to go on and author many further critical and popular successes. To omit prominent, thorough (NPOV, sourced) discussion of the matter is disingenuous at best and POV-pushing at worst. Robertissimo 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a Memoir

Three times in the opening paragraph it describes his books as "memoirs." As we all know they are actually fiction, continuing to describe them as memoirs makes no sense. Does anyone object to changing "memoir" to "novel"? Trcrev 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No objection. I would argue that something can be a novel if it is written in the form of a novel. Truth or otherwise has little to do with it (in my opinion). Of course, if an account is true it may be a memoir AS WELL. 129.12.200.49 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that 'novel' is an appropriate description; fictionalised memoir or creative non-fiction would be more accurate, IMO. Anchoress 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Memoir

Both of Frey's books are still classified as memoirs in every media outlet out there and I think it would be a mistake to classify them as novels. It has not been, and probably will never be, proven that the books are works of fiction. I think we should leave it as it now stands and let readers make their own decision based on the material presented on the page itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russmom (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Oprah's Nation

What does the James Frey fiasco say about us, the American people? We count on icons like Oprah to tell us something's worth reading; then we're outraged when something like the Frey scandal breaks out, and Oprah has to make a public appearance and be "sometimes tearful, sometimes angry" so that her book club's stamp of approval doesn't lose its value. Here's a thought: what if we looked for good books on our own instead of relying on Oprah's sticker as the end-all and be-all? M. Frederick 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The part that gets annoys me a bit, that at times people portray his crime was lying to Oprah. Lying to Oprah?!? How about decieving millions of his readers, fabricating about serious situations? I agree with you that, Oprah isn't the hear all end all when it comes to literature. ESPECIALLY modern literature. Maya Levy 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Best-selling"

I cut the final two lines about how his book was a best-seller in 2005 and 2006 despite the controversy because of the "quality of the writing." It was non-factual commentary, and since he wasn't widely exposed until 2006, the earlier sales figure aren't relevant. The lines sounded like a defensive statement from a Frey supporter, not a neutral description. 68.81.114.143 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Imposter?!

I don't get this category. Yeah, he made up some stuff, but he didn't assume someone else's identity. So why? He was a drunk who got sober. That's as much truth as I need. Sevenlies 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute of Neutrality

Does this article fairly represent all manners in a neutral point of view? My opinion is that it does not.

I stumbled on this page looking for more information about the controversy of James Frey's book: A Million Little Pieces. Instead, all I received was a biased, self-serving point of view. The only conclusion a reasonable person could reach after reading this article is it was not written from a neutral point of view. All Wikipedia articles and encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral view point. That means it must fairly represent the views taking into account all significant conflicts that have been published by reliable sources.

There are a couple of reasons this article fails to follow one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. First, there is not one separate header which indicates that there even is a controversy. How can this be when Mr. Frey has been in the national spotlight after admitting on national television that his work was not based entirely on a non-fictional viewpoint? Second, the view point expressed in the article is clearly one-sided. From the time I read the background information on Frey (“Amazon.com editors selected A Million Little Pieces as their favorite book in 2003”) until the content under the category of “A Million Little Pieces” (“Evashevski says … he’s a very talented writer and suspects we haven’t heard the last of James Frey”) I begin to wonder who the hell is making this up.

Are the publishers of Frey constantly working on this article? Crazed fans of Frey? Frey himself? I demand to know. PyrosRider (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think the article represents a neutral point of view either. If you look back at the past versions of the page under the history as well as the Talk page, you'll see that past versions dealt with the Controversy effectively. Back when the controversy was fresh, there were editing dispute over whether to keep well-sourced verified material (including admissions by Frey himself) about falsehoods in the supposed memoirs and the controversy surrounding them. The well-sourced material stayed in leaving an accurate balanced account. After a while I stopped keeping up with the page. Apparently, pro-Frey editors have taken the opportunity to scrub the page of information that might show him in a negative. It seems they deleted lots of text without making the case for the massive on the Talk page. That should not have been done and it should be restored. I plan to do so. --JamesAM (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the link to the Smoking Gun article. Anyone defending this creep who hasn't read this enlightening exegesis . . . I recommend it. 76.27.212.74 (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)