In class last week we were talking about this photo, and the importance, if any, that it had within discussions on modern warfare.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmast...a_big_pic1.jpg
What came up was the theory that persisted that it had been faked by the photographer in order to purposely provoke a reaction from the viewer. Nothing new obviously, but the difference was it was produced as a
truthful document. This got me thinking about literary hoaxes and how important readers regard the authenticity of the author to be. the most obvious examples in recent years have been James Frey, J.T Leroy, Anthony Godby Johnson etc. What these stories all have in common is being published as autobiographical or semi-autobiographical. Loads of people reported that they felt 'cheated' when they discovered that the authors weren't who they said they were, but some said that the emotional heart of the books were still there. One person wrote on JT Leroys blog;
Quote:
|
It amazed me that so many people who are obviously intelligent haven't dug as deep as they claim they have. Whether or not you are a hoax, the pain expressed in your novels comes from somewhere very real in your past. There may be events that have been made up in order to amplify the overall points and situations you have personally gone through. Making fact and fiction one in itself and being able to express feelings you've had from your past fictitiously. Despite the wigs, sunglasses, masks and make up, this still makes your stories very real and personal no matter what know it all journalist has to say. If JT LeRoy in fact doesn't exist, the people behind the masks deserve all the credit in the world for using their own life experiences in a way that offer hope to so many people.
|
Do you see it that way? Does the reality behind a book influence your take on it, and if so by what degree?
