Obama's "rookie mistakes" spread to CNN
SUMMARY: CNN's Bill Schneider asserted that Sen.
Barack Obama has made what "look like rookie mistakes" after airing
a clip of a journalist noting
that Obama's
memoir "has composite characters, made-up dialogue, and he switched names
of many of the characters in it. So, when you read it, you're not sure what's
true and what's not." However,
Obama acknowledged changes
he made when he wrote the book -- more than 10 years ago.
On the March 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider asserted that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has made what "look like rookie mistakes" after airing a clip of Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet noting that Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father (Crown, July 1995), "has composite characters, made-up dialogue, and he switched names of many of the characters in it. So, when you read it, you're not sure what's true and what's not." Schneider, however, failed to explain how this qualifies as a "rookie mistake," given that Obama acknowledged in the book's introduction -- penned more than 10 years ago -- that he created composite characters, presented dialogue that "is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me," and changed the names of most of the "characters ... for the sake of their privacy."
Schneider's use of the term "rookie mistakes" echoed the headline on a March 27 article by Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen: "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama." As Media Matters for America documented, Allen's article stretched what Allen characterized as "trivial" inconsistencies into a 1,200-word article that was promoted on the Drudge Report, apparently an hour before the article was published on The Politico's website.
From Schneider's report on the 4 p.m. ET hour of the March 28 edition of The Situation Room:
SCHNEIDER: When an anti-Hillary Clinton ad turned up on YouTube, Obama told Larry King --
OBAMA [video clip]: It's not something that we had anything to do with or were aware of, and, frankly, given what it looks like, we don't have the technical capacity to create something like that.
SCHNEIDER: But the ad was made by a political operative working for a firm hired by the Obama campaign. And the technical requirements were not all that great.
Then there's Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father.
SWEET: He has composite characters, made-up dialogue, and he switched names of many of the characters in it. So, when you read it, you're not sure what's true and what's not.
SCHNEIDER: These look like rookie mistakes. Could they become serious problems?
SWEET: If these incidents can be made into political attack ads -- again, it could be by groups for or against somebody, either in the -- either in the primary campaign or general -- then he's hurt.
SCHNEIDER: Right now, Obama is new, he's different, and he's got a strong anti-war record. So, people make allowances. Republicans may be a little jealous.
However, on Pages xvi-xvii of the introduction to Dreams (2006 paperback edition), Obama wrote:
Finally, there are the dangers inherent in any autobiographical work: the temptation to color events in ways favorable to the writer, the tendency to overestimate the interest one's experiences hold for others, selective lapses of memory. Such hazards are only magnified when the writer lacks the wisdom of age; the distance that can cure one of certain vanities. I can't say that I've avoided all, or any, of these hazards successfully. Although much of this book is based on contemporaneous journals or the oral histories of my family, the dialogue is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me. For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.
Well heck, you can't expect them to read the introduction, can you? They're journalists, not some kind of book-reading guys.
Hey... we read the AP Stylebook, what more do you want from us? We're not book critics and we don't do research! We just take whatever the fax machine feeds us and just put our name at the top.
I've watched Schneider for years and whenever I see his face appear, I'm reminded of the saying:
... "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
If you listen closely, you can the poor facts screaming in the background as Schneider stretches and twists them to his liking.
Does anyone else remember that every time Republicans would win big elections, Schnieder would refer to it as 'the great genius of the American people in their moderation,' or some other such cant?
But whenever Dems would win, he'd always chalk it up to 'unhappiness' issues or the like. He was doing this all through the 90's.
In this case, these people are either criminally dishonest, or criminally stupid. This mistake is a real embarrassment for Schnieder.
That's the problem with that dinosaur media- too many of them intellectual elites. books-shmooks.
I disagree with you Rusty. I think Sweet actually needed to read the intro in order to distort it for that interview. She actually managed to distrort all three specific aspects that Obama mentioned.
Good catch, Skiploader. She obviously did read the introduction. I guess she and Schneider just didn't understand the introduction.
Here's my autobiography - full of memory lapses, colored events favorable to me, inaccurate dialogue, chronologically challenged, and the names of characters and public figures are either composites or have been changed.
Schneider's wrong, this isn't a rookie mistake about one's memoirs.......it's fiction.
To me it does raise serious issues about Obamas truthfulness however I wish we would see more MSM questions raised about Guiliani and his flipflops, McCain and his , Romney and his etc.
Name one autobiography that couldn't use that in the introduction. That's the nature of these things.
At least Obama isn't on TV claiming that something isn't in the book when he's having the exact words pointed out to him directly under his nose.
Any autobiography that has that many disclaimers isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It should then be sold in the fiction bin.
on the other hand, you have guys like o'reilly who told a completely wrong story of their upbringing. he claimed that you didn't come from any lower on the economic scale than he did. that would assume, i guess, that the lowest end of the economic scale included things like regular family vacations in florida and private school.
What about that crapfest of a book that was written about Hillary Clinton, that rarely contianed anything factual in it, other than Hillary's name.
Nice double standard here... Republicans and conservatives complain that Scooter shouldn't be held responsible for not remembering all his conversations that he had with journalists and staffers, but Obama paraphrases and it's evil or a work of fiction.
This is an autobiography, that "crapfest" about HC was not.
So autobiographies and biographies need to have separate standards?
If you find me an unauthorized autobiography............
Done.
I would have totally stolen that title from you, by the way, if someone hadn't already stolen it...
I have the unauthorized autobiography of Dan Quayle, as it happens.
So he should have just pretended it was a completely accurate and factual chronicle with absolutely none of the mistakes of memory or subjective experience that everyone makes when they retell their personal stories? Maybe he could just have it ghost written and not mention that either.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Questions for Tommy:
How does it feel to support a party, president, and political movement that has run our country into a hole financially, militarily, and morrally?
How does it feel to support a party that may not see control of either House in the Congress, the Presidency, or any significant power in our government for many decades to come?
How does it feel to know every low blow, all the embarassing comparisons, conflations, and fantacies that were your rationalizations since '04 were completely proven wrong by the '06 election making the '04 election the last good memory for the Republicans for decades to come?
How does it feel to know you support the Fascists that distorted Democracy in America to consolidate power and was busted by all Americans that they thought were cowardly fools?
How does it feel to be Republican and never trusted again for what may be nearly a century to come?
Was the Neo-Con movement worth the damage to the nation, to the world, and to our collective honor for their lust for power?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well an autobiography should try to be as accurate as possible. At least when dealing with "characters" both public or private. Composite characters in an autobiography? Mmmmm...not done too often I would imagine--IF at all. Public Events should also be presented as they actually transpired. Private moments could be handled a bit more discreetly, but still should not veer too far from reality.
Dialogue? Well who the heck remembers each & every thing they, their family, friends or collegues ever uttered? Or the exact wording of any conversation?
So I'll give Obama a pass on the dialogue. The rest is questionable, no matter his disclaimer. Seriously who would make up composite charactors for a written autobiography?
Maybe later for the movie ;-)
Jeter I agree.
I never read his first book(although I am currently reading Audacity), but if he added something fictional, then well he should admit it. I am still pondering why the MSM is talking so much about this whole book thing anyways, I mean it isn't life changing or anything...
P.S.: I was wondering if you or any other poster new any media watchdog group websites(other than this one obviously). I am currently doing a paper on media bias and I have the following potential sources:
1. Media Matters for America
2. Media Research Council
3. News Hounds
4. News Busters
5. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
6. Fox Attacks
I am hoping to find more "non-partisan' groups but am having some problems. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily is a good one.
Also, Obama did admit what he did, in the introduction. That may not be good enough to satisfy everybody but he apparently wasn't trying to hide anything.
THX Rusty
Oh I didn't know he admitted it, thanks for the heads up.
"he should admit it". i think he did, per the introduction.
you posted first rusty. but perhaps the further comment should be read the story and not just the thread.
The best non-partisan site is CJR - Columbia Journalism Review
Actually, composite characters (individuals) do happen a lot more often in biographies and in movies or television mini-series based upon an autobiography.
The use of composites is the only part that struck me odd at first. However, I believe it depends on how and why it's done. I can see compression being a legitimate reason, as long as it's not used to completely fabricate an experience.
An example that comes to mind is attributing the wisdom passed on by teachers/professors/coaches into one super-teacher. In that case, the wisdom is the important subject, not necessarily the identities of each of the contributors.
Very true. I've worked in the publishing industry, and Obama's memoir is no different from most memoirs. The compositing of characters is a common practice, and one of the reasons for doing it--as Obama has claimed--is to protect someone's identity, or to avoid litigation from someone who wouldn't wish to appear in the book. This is really minor stuff. Many well-known biographies are extensively fictionalized to a degree far greater than Obama's. The word "autobiography" isn't some legally binding contract with the public. Memoirists aren't sworn under oath.
Shhh! Your pesky facts are spoiling the Obama bash-fest.
Thanks for the info, Clams. I was curious as to just how common this was.
From Proust and Celine to James Frey and Elizabeth Wurtzel, authors have been fictionalizing their memoirs for as long as they've been writing them. It's funny to me when people are shocked by this, or in the case of Obama, when they attempt to scandalize it. I once spoke to a well-respected film director and asked him about some of the scathing things that an actor had written about him in a memoir, and he said that they he had actually helped the actor invent scandalous stories and imaginary feuds to include in the autobiography.
I will never understand why the posters on this site allow Tommy to continually derail threads on the board! His comment here in a perfect case in point. Not only is it an obviously inflammatory distortion of what Obama wrote in his introduction, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the article, which shows that the "rookie mistakes" meme, like so many other repeated mindlessly in the past by the mainstream media, may be starting to take hold. Does anybody have to be reminded of how these seemingly "trivial" and innocuous themes, often echoing and feeding into RNC talking points, helped to undermine the Gore and Kerry candidacies by creating highly misleading, and many times downright false, images of both men. If we care about this country and want to get it out of the hands of these repugnant thugs that have control of it, we can't allow this to happen again! So for pity's sake, MMFA posters, focus! (And stop playing into the hands of "Tommy" the shill!)
Tommy, I ass.u.me that you apply that same caustic tone and impeccable standard to all the Repugnant drivel that permeates the media, that you evidence in confronting each MMFA thread deriding that drivel? Then, why do I never encounter your indelible imprint in the wider Corporate Media comments sections?
Well, when some of that "Repugnant" drivel surfaces here, and I feel compelled to comment - then you won't have to ass.u.me anymore, now will you?
But . . . But . . . But yours is such a memorable style, that if I had already encountered it in the "real" world, surely I would have recognized it? And surely you could not withhold comment on at least some of the presentations of that Corporate Media? How have I missed you, out there?
<>Softball questions as we marched to war... Bush leauge error.
Could somebody at MM give the posting machine a good smack.It seems to be stuck.
I think " rookie mistakes" means those sort of distortions of fact should be saved for when you're actually president, when they can really be useful.
Besides, as a sportswriter, "rookie mistakes" is used to describe an action that is often duplicated by... well... rookies. Used in this reference, it gives some sort of indication that all politicians make this mistake, or at least a majority of them.
"Could somebody at MM give the posting machine a good smack. It seems to be stuck." - Hunningtonbeachlefty
By "posting machine", are you by any chance referring to Tommy, HBL?
"Composite characters in an autobiography? Mmmmm...not done too often I would imagine--IF at all."
Jeter - How do you know this? Just curious.
I would be willing to wager that more autobiographies are subject to these issues then people would like to believe. Some of you are going to criticize him for the disclaimer in the forward while I think many people would appreciate the candor and honesty. No one can remember all of the major events or conversations in their life with crystal clear detail. To pretend otherwise is just foolish, human memory even work like that.
Jeter or Tommy - I would like you to think back to a conversation that you had with someone last year and put it down verbatim and then ask the person that you spoke with to do the same thing (assuming they even remember) Let me know how they compare.
Then ass.u.me that the conversation plays an eerie light on the character of that other party, and that you could count on cold-shoulder treatment at future family gatherings for portraying it as you recall it: are you more likely to change the names of some characters, to proceed with your recollection; create some even less identifiable composite source for the opposing comment, in order to capture the essence of the recalled exchange; or omit an incident which you feel contributed greatly to forming the character of the being you have become?
If you can't remember certain dialogues from the past when writing your autobiography, and you're right, who can? - then you leave out the quotes and summarize them in general, being clear and upfront in the original text of your book stating they are based on your best memory.
It just seems a little weird that 11 years later you offer such a disclaimer about their inaccuracy, among many others in the book, all when you're readying a run at the WH.........it's called getting your ducks in a row and diffusing any criticism that may come your way.
"11 years later"? no, he did it then. you can like or not like the fact that's what he did, but you're the one that's being dishonest by saying he's only saying it now.
You need to get your "ducks in a row" before you post. Your claim that he only offered the disclaimer 11 years later is just flat out false.
It's not clear whether the disclaimers discussed in this interview are from the revised version, or in the original version......considering they are sourced from the paperback edition.
If anyone "trustworthy" can confirm their existence in the original published version in 1995, I will apologize if I stated that part of my post incorrectly.
Wait a sec! IF someone can prove what you wrote is false, THEN you will admit you stated something as a fact, in a way meant to smear someone else, when in fact you had no idea what you were talking about? yep, Tommy is definitely a Republican. No need to "know" anything, just spout whatever crap you want, and demand someone else clean it up if called on it....
I love how it's always up to everybody else to disprove the lies you tell. You admit you don't know what you're talking about, and then you have nerve to demand that we prove you're wrong.
And of course you are wrong. The "disclaimer" comes toward the end of the introduction as it was originall published in 1995. The 2004 reprint carried a second introduction, but there were no additional notes made about accuracy.
And by the way, even if your completely uninformed stab at the "facts" had been true, 2004 minus 1995 does not equal 11.
2006 paperback introduction minus the 1995 original edition is 11 years........and I specifically asked the confirmation come from a trustworthy source.
Sorry Pal, considering your sketchy history for lies that suit your agenda, that ain't you.
I notice that you only respond when you, in your own little mind, then you can score apoint, or put someone else down. The fact remains that YOU stated something as a fact, when it wasn't. That is the textbook definition of a lie. Then you turn around and admit you are full of crap, but insist that someone else prove it anyway. Karl would be so proud....
Wrong again. There's a 1995 introduction and there's an additional 2004 introduction.
Read it again, "However, on Pages xvi-xvii of the introduction to Dreams (2006 paperback edition), Obama wrote;"
If you can, go ahead and look up the word "trustworthy" in the dictionary, perhaps that concept is so foreign to you and why your continued feeble attempts here are falling flat.
That's not correct. The reprint was issued in August of 2004. The new prefea is even titled "Preface to 2004 Edition." The book is right in front of me, and the publishing history is easily found online. And you do realize, don't you, that you've already been proven wrong about the introduction, and now you're only trying to prove that you were right about your math? Wrong on all counts.
This is the last time - it's right here in black and white, 2006.....can't you see it? If it's a misprint here, then take it up with the moderators.
I copied it verbatim, if you can't see it, I can't help you. Go home.
Holy crap, this is insane. Yes, the Media Matters article is mistaken and so are you. The reprint came out in 2004. You blatantly lied and now you're desperately clinging on to anything that might let you save face. Too late. And even if Media Matters had been right about the 2006 date--which they clearly aren't--that would mean that the only thing you would have been right about was that 2006 minus 1995 equals 11. You are pathetic.
But Clams, don't you understand that it's simply impossible that something originally written and published in 2004 could be reprinted in 2006? Why, you couldn't do that without some kind of time machine!
You get so upset whey you're cornered........tsk, tsk......better work on that anger. MMFA got it wrong, but I am lying? That's rich, even for you. You still haven't disproven my original point, you got hung up on 9 years vs 11 years and focused on that because you had nothing else.
But I will move on because even this minor embarassment of yours is tough to witness anymore.
Have a wonderful Friday.....
"You get so upset whey you're cornered..."
Don't you hate people like that? Next thing you know he'll be making comments about how your mother raised you.
If you didn't know anything about the original introduction, you shouldn't have stated it as fact. You were wrong. But St. Tommy, the patron saint of personal responsibility, won't own up to it.
""It just seems a little weird that 11 years later you offer such a disclaimer about their inaccuracy, among many others in the book, all when you're readying a run at the WH"
It's pretty pathetic that you continue to act like your on some moral high ground on this issue when you refuse to address the giant pile of crap you posted.
"You still haven't disproven my original point..."
Actually he did, unless you're accusing Clams of lying about having the book right in front of him.
Well of course that's what Tommy is saying:"and I specifically asked the confirmation come from a trustworthy source...Sorry Pal, considering your sketchy history for lies that suit your agenda, that ain't you."
Sure, Tommy doesn't have the stones to actually try to back those accusations up, but that's the nature of the "respectable poster" so many here claim him to be.
He'll now post some more baseless crap about how I'm not "trustworthy," so he can just ignore the fact that he was proven wrong. So just to head that off at the pass, and to prove that I actually do have a copy of the 2004 reprint of Dreams from My Father (because we all know how difficult it is to believe that somebody would actually have a copy of the book), here are a couple random excerpts:
Top of page 142: "I thought a moment. 'Hog butcher to the world,' I said finally."
Top of page 340: "Auma found the memories too painful. But only a few days later, Auma and I came home to find a car waiting for us outside the apartment."
So either I made up those quotes or I do in fact have a copy of the 2004 paperback reprint with both a new "Preface to the 2004 Edition" as well as the original 1995 Introduction, which contains the excerpt from the article above (pages xvi - xvii).
That seems credible to me, Clams.
The reasonable conclusion, absent further evidence, is that Tommy is being pointlessly belligerent because he was proven wrong.
Look, in order to settle this ridiculous tiff, or whatever it is......First off, I don't deny you have a copy of the book, satisfied? But if you read the entire thread above it is unclear whether his disclaimers were included in the 1995 original version, admittedly as it does state above - however, then right before the exact introduction below, it specifically references the paperback, 2006 edition - which does make it unclear? - why not reference the 1995 version there?
I said if I was wrong, I would apologize for that incorrectness in my post, then you went off about it being 9 yrs. or 11 yrs......that is not the issue. If he made the disclaimers in the 1995 edition, then my statements about it being for political reasons now are irrelevant, and I apologize. I still maintain it is a weak autobiography with all those disclaimers, but that is another issue.
Being that both dates are referenced in this thread, 1995 and 2006, that was where the confusion was, for me. Insults aside, if you say the original version, 1995, contained all the disclaimers referenced in this interview, then I retract that from my post and I apologize.
Very nice and reasonable apology, IMO.
I never thought you would actually apologize or admit that you were wrong.
I'm very impressed.
Well thanks for finally admitting that you were wrong. And, no, the issue was never 2006 vs. 2004--that was merely an aside meant to point out that even your math was wrong. I agree we can blame your confusion about that on MMFA, but I will point out that right at the top of the page MMFA did write, "Obama acknowledged changes he made when he wrote the book -- more than 10 years ago." So while they screwed up the date of the reprint, that only excuses your math, and not your baseless, and plainly false assertion that Obama had waited 11 years to issue the "disclaimer." Nor does it explain away your invented motivations for Obama in writing that passage.
And no, this wasn't a "tiff." It was you saying something demonstrably false about Obama, and when called on it, you called me a liar instead of immediately retracting your statement and apologizing. You made it personal, so I'll still wait for the apology for calling me a liar.
"I still maintain it is a weak autobiography with all those disclaimers, but that is another issue."
Unbelievable. In the process of admitting that you were wrong, you've also admitted that you haven't read the book, but you're going to go on record as saying that it's a "weak autobiography." Even while apologizing, you still manage to throw out a completely baseless and uninformed opinion about a book that you've never even read. You have no credibility on this issue and unless you just want to slam the jacket design, you are in no position to judge the book on any level. Read it, and then get back to us.
You have my apology for the date reference, and that's all you're going to get. If you don't have the class to accept that apology, that's your business.
As for my apology for calling you a liar in the past, my statements on that part of your character stand - there will be no apology.
Have a nice weekend.
And since you can't come up with a single instance of my alleged dishonesty, then it is crystal clear that you are the liar. And you repeat that lie so easily again and again, without ever once coming up with a scratch of evidence to back it up. Meanwhile your catalog of dishonesty just grows and grows.
"You have my apology for the date reference, and that's all you're going to get."
So now you're trying to make it about the date reference again? You really are too much. You were wrong about everything. You spouted blatant falsehoods about Obama issuing a belated disclaimer for political reasons and now you're still trying to ignore that that was what this was about. If you'll notice above, I did accept your apology for that, but now it appears that you're trying to back out of that apology by making it about the MMFA error again. Weak. Really weak.
It's remarkable, isn't it? Tommy stated that there was an 11-year discrepancy between the original book and the clarification. When it's pointed out he's wrong, he acts like a jackass and calls you a liar. When it's beyond obvious how ridiculous he looks, he gives a partial apology for what's really beyond dispute, but tries to suggest that you were creating a distraction with all that math.
I think it's great that he apologized, and I was surprised, but that says more about Tommy's usual behavior than the quality (or sincerity, obviously) of the apology. This is how bad it's gotten, where that apology comes off as a noble act to some. Bush isn't the master of low expectations, Tommy is.
It's a start for Tommy. What would be nice is if he didn't put himself in so many positions where he should apologize in the first place, but you just have to say, "baby steps".
And I should at this point that I honestly don't understand where Tommy gets the nerve to call me a liar over and over again. I can't even remember when it started, but I think he just says it reflexively now with the hope that somehow it will stick, even though he's repeatedly failed to come up with any justification for it at all. Faced with facts or logic, he just cries, "Liar!" and then declares victory. It's beyond absurd at this point.
Wow, your outright dishonesty is even shocking me now. I can't believe you're going on with this lie. Let me make it simple...again. The excerpt in the article above is from pages xvi to xvii of the original 1995 edition. Got that? You have no idea what you're talking about, and your claim that Obama only provided that "disclaimer" "11 years later" was completely wrong in every way. You can't blame it on MMFA for getting the publication date wrong, and you certainly can't deflect it back on me with the preposterous claim that I'm the one whose backed into a corner.
But please, keep on posting your feeble attempts to save face, because the entertainment value here is priceless.
Tommy
It's hard to respect someone when they refuse to admit when they're wrong.
I'm getting embarrased watching you make a fool of yourself, but for some strange reason I just can't stop.
And once again, we'll all patiently await and see if you can come up with a single instance when I've told a lie.
That's what I thought.
MHK,
You wrote: Jeter or Tommy - I would like you to think back to a conversation that you had with someone last year and put it down verbatim and then ask the person that you spoke with to do the same thing (assuming they even remember) Let me know how they compare.
Apparently you didn't read my post?
I wrote quite clearly: "Dialogue? Well who the heck remembers each & every thing they, their family, friends or colleagues ever uttered? Or the exact wording of any conversation? So I'll give Obama a pass on the dialogue."
Now as to your question about Composite Characters. I really do doubt it's done too often if at all. Can I source that? No, but any autobiography should at least attempt to present the real characters rather than morphing them. I'm simply thinking most do. If not, then at least for me the "true life story" is a bit artificial. Of course when adapting a written autobiography or biography to TV or movies then it's a common practice to use composite characters.
Hope that clears things up. And please try not to misrepresent what I write here. Thanks.
J sorry for lumping you in with a certain other person. Your correct about the dialog portion. It wasn't my intetion to misrep you.
Thank you for clearing my name MHK ;-)
I appreciate the apology. I have a hard enough time accounting for what I do write here, I just don't need the extra work.
From what I'm reading here apparently using composite characters is not all that uncommon.
I'm surprised, and a bit disappointed :-/
Yes Jetter it happens (composite characters) more than it should really. But unfortunately we live in a world of law suits and the use of direct quotes as politcial/social attacks (I write something you said in my autobiography, you run for office and someone uses what I wrote against you.)
Also it happens by mistake too, like remembering exact conversations. Think of it like this,
Reality: Your with a group of friends, one person screams "look out" and the other grabs your arm and pushes you out of the path of a speeding car. Which one screamed? Even they don't know for sure (they were all thinking about doing the same things, but due to the moment don't really remember 100%)
Writing the book: Only one of those friends is alive by this point and he can't remember. But Ron who becomes the "hero" later in the story, seems like the most likely one, since it was the "sort of thing Ron would do." Therefore composite character!
In fact I've found a few cases (and I'm sure there are more) were individuals wishing to write about a person of note (years/decades/centuries) after thier deaths. In most cases they glance at the autobiography (if there is one) and put it aside while they do their real research.
One of my favorite statements (paraphrased):
"People's perceptions of reality shape that reality."
If I were to write an account of my childhood summers spent with extended family, I doubt I would introduce all several dozen (no exageration) first cousins. I definitely wouldn't be able to attribute every remark or action to the correct cousin. So I'd probably make several composites instead.
Why would I do that instead of doing as Tommy suggests, i.e., describing the events and people in vague terms? Considering how that would probably read, why would I make the dull even more boring? (Actually, I'm a believer that even the trivial can be made interesting. E.g., consider Garrison Keillor's story telling.)
Christian,
Tough call. When does using composites or reconstructing some events begin crossing the line from NON-fiction to Fiction?
I don't think I could write an accurate autobiography and my life isn't all that exciting.
Maybe THAT'S the problem? ;-)
Tough call. When does using composites or reconstructing some events begin crossing the line from NON-fiction to Fiction?
I agree...tough call. It's subjective. To me, it depends on:
I.e., if the fictionalized portions allow the author to make a point that would not be possible based on the actual facts, then I would easily consider the entire anecdote to be fiction. That's as close as I can come to defining the difference.
I thought of a sort of funny example from my own life that makes the point that sometimes "who you know" is a painful disadvantage, contrary to the old maxim. However, I'm out of time right now... :D
On the issue of Composite Characters.
Cleared the issue up?
The manner in which your giving this information make it seem like your an authroity on this topic, yet you haven't presented any facts or credentials.
Can you just say I don't know or I'm not certain?
Jeter
just to clarify - I'm not trying to be a jerk in this post. I'm really curious about this issue and I figured you were in the "know" about this issue...
I think it would be nice to write one in the manner that your suggesting. I just wonder how realistic that is for a number of the reasons outlined in other posts (legal being one of them)
MHK Please read my post@
jeter2 / Thursday March 29, 2007 05:16:45 PM EST
Scroll up.
i can give a perfect example of where the mainstream media ignored the background of a person to present an image that was not true. it was about this guy who was a partying drunk until the age of 40, ran three businesses into the ground, was a hard right ideologue presented as a moderate centrist, who displayed the intellect of a walnut...... i know you're stumped, but think hard.
Well sure they missed all that, but look at all they got right. The guy loved the baby Jesus and was compassionate, and you could drink unalcoholic beer with him and he would cook you a burger on his grill, he was an expert rancher or at least had a ranch or something really cowboy like, he might a cut trees down or something like George Washington did. I mean how much more do cictizens need to know.
This, of course has spread to Fox, also. Today they did a smear job on Barack Obama saying that 'some say' he's made a lot of mistakes. For the story:
http://tinyurl.com/yuf8yd
It's contagious and will be especially beat upon by Fox and Politico.
We should be clear that anyone writing an autobiography or memoir, If they don't or can't obtain releases from people they are writing about they must change the names and identifying information or the publishers wont' publish it. It is not fair to the people involved that their information is spread all over the place. Most publishers realize it is always the interpertation of the author. So if you think your ex is a creep and you write about them that way well they may think otherwise and boy oh boy that slander is a messy thing in court. So I don't think Obama lied or created fiction he did what any self respecting author did he changed the information to protect others and then let you know up front he did. Geez snap out of it.
If biographers created a book that did not have composite characters, had exact dialogue, had exact events, did not summarize events, and did not focus only on defining events, the book would be a tome that no one would ever read or even be able to lift. Even historical books collapse certain events in order to focus on certain aspects of a historical record.
A biography is not a court deposition. Duh. It of course should not include significant or substantive inaccuracies, but what are the significant or substantive inaccuracies? Changing names to protect the privacy of individuals doesn’t count.
Is the media again acting just like “those who know no shame” who tried to smear Gore as someone who misinformed about himself?