David Sedaris May Sometimes Exaggerate For Effect - Gawker
I can grasp the hubub over A Million Little Pieces and this chick, to a degree. Although I haven’t read either one’s work (and probably never will, LIARS!), I doubt either volume features a 20-page forward attempting to convince the reader that every word is the non-embellished truth. But I really don’t know, to be honest. And it’s not the point.
But when Gawker goes after David Sedaris, who is basically a comedian, and I don’t think makes any real pretense that what he’s saying is completely (or even remotely) true, what hope is there for anyone who wants to write anything another human would want to read, given that if we are to “write what we know”, we would only write a series of facts so mundane as to literally and instantly vaporize the reader[1]?
Is the assumption that writing about family/work life implies strict adherence to the truth, and that there shouldn’t be fiction that has vague roots in a “typical” and some might say “boring” everyday situations? If so, I missed that day of… whatever class I didn’t take that would have discussed this topic.
If so, the potential global pool of potential authors would be reduced to Noam Chomsky, and him… only maybe. I’m reading Hegemony or Survival right now, and who else has ever heard of this so-called “Cuban Missle Crisis”? You’re not Tom Clancy, Noam — stick to the facts.
What, you say? Gawker is a highly ironic, metrosexually-oriented “news” site, primarily focused on the discussion of people (like, ehr, David Sedaris) that most of non-metrosexual America has never heard of? And that this exaggerated “outing” of Sedaris’s lies is, itself, meant to be ironic? I might, like Alanis Morrissette, have a problem with the whole irony concept.
[1] There, I exaggerated. Did it kill you?