One of the authors who was “unmasked” was totally unapologetic, and claimed that she had published her work as fiction (2). This fact raises the issue of trust. If Laura Albert was not a “literary faker” according to her, then why is she being presented in this fashion? It was true that she allowed a man to masquerade around claiming to be one of the book’s characters, but otherwise she did nothing wrong. She was a friend of an impersonator, not a literary faker.
Another issue raised in this article is the issue of community. The article is written in such a way that suggests that the concept of autobiography is very stable, and that the audience understands this. It is widely understood, however, at least in some circles, that a good amount of what is written in autobiographies is not necessarily perfectly recalled – sometimes, even recalled at all. This is because it is almost impossible to record whole conversations, exactly as they occurred, without the aid of a tape recorder, and a fast typing secretary.
What is interesting though, is the veneer of authenticity that is given to autobiographies, because they appear to capture some truth about a person’s experience. This happened to so-and-so, and it reflects on life, and it was written by so-and-so, therefore it is an autobiography. And yet, novels which are largely based on reality, but in which there are some minor alterations made, for whatever reason, are not classified in the same way. (There, the concept of “play” is different. The reader willfully suspends disbelief, even when not a lot of suspension is required.) Authors are often aware of the way classification affects their book sales and so may be tempted to use this knowledge to their advantage, as is recorded in the seven cases listed in this article. It is important to note, however, that most of the cases in this article involved a great deal of departure from “the truth.”
From the New York Times, March 14 2008
