Isn't "fabricating writer" the definition of novelist? Couldn't the fakers you mentioned just have called their books novels instead of memoirs and avoided the whole truth/fabrication issue? What a simple solution! Does calling a book a memoir necessarily position it to sell more copies? I, for one, read Frey's book and enjoyed it, even though I knew he had embellished the truth. Just considered it a good novel rather than a memoir.

think it depends on the book and why you wanted to read it in the first place. I have A Million Little Pieces and will still read it at some point. I find the subject of alcohol and drug abuse and their treatment interesting for personal reasons. Because of this I am willing to forgive some stretching of the truth as others have said that it still offers some insight.

I had Angel at the Fence on my wishlist but really have no desire to read it anymore. To me, this kind of fabrication takes advantage of a horrible event in history and I don't have much sympathy for that kind of exploitation.

I hadn't thought about it till you mentioned it, but now that you do I suppose I do indeed have a blacklist of sorts. I read A Million Little Pieces before it was revealed that Frey wasn't exactly honest about it. I felt cheated when I found out. The thing is, Frey's book would have been just as good marketed as fiction. I probably would have read it and enjoyed it. But as a result of his deception, I have refused to read his follow up book and wonder how many others have bypassed it as well.

In Rosenblat's case, I can't help but think that his story could have been marketed under historical fiction and been quite successful. Sad, isn't it?

I won't be reading any of those books or authors...why bother? As it is, I now feel suspicious anytime I read a memoir.

There are just too many books for me to think that taking the time to read something that someone lied about is the best use of my reading time. I am open to reading many different things, but it's a huge turn-off with so much scandal surrounding it.

I'd like to say that I would be forgiving enough to read more of their work - we all make bad decisions at some point...but I don't think I would. Perhaps years later, after the author had more than shown they changed their ways. To write a book, publish and publicize it as fact in order to make money, in my opinion, shows a big breakdown in a person's moral fiber. I have no desire to support corruption of any form. It's lying and it's cheating; they've betrayed their audience and preyed upon their emotions.

If it was well written, enjoyable, and interesting, why not read it? We read books for many different reasons but rarely will a lie found later ruin the enjoyment you had while reading it. I've read many books many might consider unworthy of publishing yet they turn out fascinating and fun reads.

There is a book coming out early next year that I was fortunate enough to receive pre-print that is abrasive and racist (by most standards unacceptably so) yet I found it incredibility enjoyable. Never cross a book off your list, it could always surprise you.

I think there is a huge difference between fake and embellished. In a memoir, there is going to be embellishment. I know that I have favorite stories that I always tell my friends and families that have grown and mutated over the years to the point where they are somewhat different from what actually happened. Every once in a while, someone will call me out on it. This is natural, human, and I wouldn't expect anything less. In fact, I would rather memoir writers embellish a little, because otherwise their books would not be as interesting. I have written papers on two very different memoirs - Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt and Memorias: Confieso que he vivido (I confess that I have lived) by Pablo Neruda. The two are very different, but both admit to embellishing somewhere. Frank McCourt's brother has come out and said that he doesn't remember his childhood to be quite so dreary and he doesn't remember many of the things that Frank McCourt wrote about. Neruda's memoirs are very poetic and often lend themselves toward the fantastic. This has turned into a very long post to answer a simple question, haha. I don't blacklist authors, but deception/faking are very different from embellishing. I guess it's a fine line, but it's the intention that counts. Can we know the intention? I guess that's for another thread, haha.

Edit: Just read up on this Rosenblat character. If what they say is true, and the entire story that the memoir is based on is fabricated, than yes. I would blacklist this author. But it seems to me he is the ultimate extreme.

I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said, but I'll chip in my $.02 anyways. I do agree with Leslie that some "embellishment" will always be an inevitability when people recount their memories. Think of any anglers you may know - has that striped bass they caught that one summer gone from 1 foot to 3 in a matter of years? If authors such as Neruda and McCourt state up front that they are using embellishment and exaggeration as devices in their stories, then they are admitting that they, too, are human, and therefore fellow victims of the subjectivity and pratfalls of memory. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Dave Eggers and A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius in this thread, which is considered a memoir. The characters are often aware of the fact that they are in a book, and he'll outright admit that he changes details of stories simply to add interest or to discuss what he'd rather see happen. Is he lying, or merely being postmodern? In all the aforementioned cases, I think they ought to be granted a pass. They are using reality as a springboard for creativity and imagination moreso than trying to pull the wool over readers' eyes with outright deception.

Frey, Rosenblat, and Seltzer, however, appear to bypass mere exaggeration in favor of explicit lies. If they felt the need to write fiction, why did they bother marketing it as nonfiction? That's what confounds me more than anything else. I suppose that readers in general find nonfiction stories of triumph and tragedy more compelling than their ficticious counterparts, but I wonder how these authors expected to not get caught up in their own lies when they decided to go for deception rather than writing a novel. If an author like Frey gets enough press, surely someone would come forward and call him out. How could they not be afraid of something like that happening? Honesty is so much easier than lying, too! You don't have to constantly double-check yourself, look over your shoulder, or keep track of what was told to whom. My respect for authors who feel the need to entirely fabricate a life story is nonexistant - how many amazing true stories were rejected by the publisher before the falsehoods were greenlit?