Does it Matter That David Sedaris Lies?
April 2nd, 2007 by Cooper Levey-Baker in Books
After Alex Heard publicly prosecuted pop culture memoirist and storyteller David Sedaris for crimes against the truth in a recent issue of The New Republic [subscription required], commentators have weighed in on whether or not Sedaris’ offenses are as grave as those of, say, Oprah-boosted liar James Frey. J. Peder Zane shrugs at the affair, defending Sedaris by essentially declaring a special status for humorists: They aren’t bound by the same rules as other “nonfiction” authors (i.e. they can make shit up). Gawker concurs, offering a justification along the lines of, “We all knew it wasn’t true all along.” Sedaris himself weighed in during an interview, calling Heard “incompetent” and claiming he’s never hid the fact that he exaggerated in his stories. Heard fired back, claiming that Sedaris himself confirmed that he had outright fabricated several episodes, rather than simply exaggerating for comic effect. (For the record and in the mood for truthfulness, several of these links come courtesy Zane’s blog, here.) Why are so many journalists jumping to defend someone who sells bullshit as nonfiction?
The common denominator of all the justifications for Sedaris’ lies is that he writes comic narratives as opposed to dramatic or journalistic ones. What difference does that make? Why does being funny free from the normal strictures about what constitutes true and false? Comic exaggeration is one thing, but Sedaris invented whole episodes that never transpired. I can’t really go along with the defense that we all knew he was making stuff up all along, either, because my sense is that a large part of Sedaris’ appeal has been the OMG!-That-really-happened?!? factor. In short, if Sedaris wants to make shit up, he should sell it as fiction. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man was thinly veiled autobiography on James Joyce’s part, but it was still a novel. Sedaris’ actions reveal a terrible lack of integrity, both in himself, and in the host of pundits defending him just because he makes them laugh.
Hey, by the way Max, I’ve got an idea for a cover story: Did I ever tell you about the time I won an Olympic gold in luge?
Send to a friend:
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 am
I’m sorry, Coop, but I think that trying to force this type of writing into fiction/non-fiction is limiting to creative joy of Sedaris’ stuff. It’s not like he travels around talk shows pretending his faux history is real in order to sell books or influence people to fix their own lives. It’s tale-telling, old-timey brag, truth and fiction blended together for entertainment.
If it makes you feel better, slap a generic “based on a true story” label on it and call it a new genre - exaggerated memoir, or some such. Pigeonholing it into fiction would suck.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
You don’t think Sedaris has played up the “true story” aspect to sell more books?
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Follow-up: Why would labeling it fiction hurt the art?
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Because it is memoir. Just because he exaggerates or manufactures doesn’t remove Sedaris from the equation. It’s a story, essentially, about him, with some truth to it. Putting it in fiction takes away that OMG! That really happened?! moment and reduces the entertainment quality of the book. Is it reporting? No. But why does everything have to be a two-party system? It’s sorta fiction, sorta non-fiction. It’s essay and memoir. Stick it into a giant section of novels and it loses a lot of it’s character. The art doesn’t change, but our perception of it changes.
I’ve never seen him play up the truth of any of it in a serious way. He’s certainly not saying - “look what happened to me, it can change your life” a la Oprah addict guy.