Aline Countess of Romanones Message Board
Roseanne H posts on 4/22/2011 12:43:30 PM
It is so pathetic that MarkM cannot seem to get a grip, to use his words, as he continues to twist the comments of others to boost his low self esteem. He criticizes people incessantly, even those who have tried to politely reason with him, and then he quotes the bible. How hypocritical and sad. He writes that he wishes to QUOTE stimulate a little intelligent discussion here END QUOTE, insinuating that the previous discussions are not intelligent, and that he QUOTE will ignore all the attempts to shout over me or bully me out END QUOTE, when it is he who has bullied people, as I stated in my post of April 14. It is quite apparent that MarkM has joined this board to wreak troll havoc, and when we object to the name calling and insults, he ignores his offenses by suggesting that we QUOTE get back to more interesting discussion topics END QUOTE. Robert Huddleston, who, as I have noted before, has the same modus operandi as MarkM, refers to our comments as a QUOTE childish cat fight END QUOTE. I think that Huddleston and MarkM should start a message board of their own.
MarkM posts on 4/22/2011 11:42:38 AM
Thanks Robert, appreciate it. Oh, and Anita, thanks for the suggestion of Enigma, I did see it in the theatre when it came out, but your mentioning it here reminds me that it's worth another viewing.
Robert Huddleston posts on 4/22/2011 11:02:29 AM
Mark: Here are three excellent books dealing with the issue.
FICTIONS IN AUTOBIOGRAPHY: STUDIES IN THE ART OF SELF-INVENTION by John Eakin
MEMOIR: A HISTORY by Ben Yagoda
And my fovorite EMPIRE OF ILLUSION: THE END OF LITERACY AND THE TRIUMPH OF SPECTACLE by Chris Hedges
MarkM posts on 4/22/2011 9:29:43 AM
Well, Anita, your explanation doesn't quite make sense in light of the context, but whatever. Back to more interesting discussion topics, what are your thoughts on what I talked about before, with Frey, and the issue of public and publishing world expectations about the fidelity of memoirs to fact, versus attitudes expressed here about it being okay that Romanones embellished since the core of her stories is true?
Anita posts on 4/21/2011 10:56:33 PM
To Mark M.: Please read that post correctly,as I said, "Avanti" which only means in Italian:Move forward. I DID NOT tell you to go away.
Therefore, let's move forward, discuss books, and enjoy it. If you did not see the movie "Enigma" you might enjoy it. I did.
MarkM posts on 4/21/2011 7:29:43 PM
Thanks, Robert, I'm going to try to do my part, stimulate a little intelligent discussion here, and ignore all the attempts to shout over me or bully me out. True at First Light is another great example, better than mine, actually, I wish I had thought of it. Hadn't heard of the Three Cups of Tea case, I'll have to look that up. Your project sounds very interesting, definitely something I would read.
Robert Huddleston posts on 4/21/2011 3:49:56 PM
Well, nor! This childish cat fight appears to morph into a serious ddbate. Yes, the proper course is fiction based on fact. Hemingway published True at First Light as a Fictional Memoir. And his famous telling of life in Paris in the 1920 was published with the note, you can read this as fact or fiction. My library has one shelved in each category.
The Frey case is well-known but will be nudged out by Three Cups of Tea. And several other memoirs were exposed as good reads but untrue: The Cradle of the Deep, by Joan Cowell; Dont' Ever Tell, by Kahy O'Berine and Angel At The Fence by Herman Rosenblat.
I am researching a book dealing with fictionalized memoirs, induced, of course by Aline's memoirs
MarkM posts on 4/21/2011 10:43:59 AM
Anita and Angela, you told me I am entitled to my opinion, and entitled to share it here. Does Trial1c's comment just below mine indicate that this is true? Who is the one being rude here? At any rate, I will ignore the rudeness and not return it in kind.
In the interest of keeping the kind of lively discussion going that you, Angela, say you welcome, I had some thoughts on the standard defense of Romanones, that she may have embellished here and there, but the core of her story is true, so it is alright to publish it as a nonfiction memoir.
In 2006, author James Frey’s best-selling memoir “A Million Little Pieces” became the center of controversy and scrutiny, even to the point of Oprah Winfrey herself, who had formerly lauded his book, excoriating him in person on her show. Winfrey also took Frey’s publisher to task for classifying the book as a memoir without doing any fact-checking.
“A Million Little Pieces” purported to recount Frey’s life of crime and drug addiction before cleaning up and becoming a writer. The accuracy of the memoir had not been seriously questioned until after Winfrey lauded Frey’s book, when The Smoking Gun website revealed the results of a six-week investigation which found major portions of Frey’s life story were mostly fictionalized. Frey’s claims of jail time, doing at least an 87 day stretch, for instance, were completely untrue: “The closest Frey has ever come to a jail cell was the few unshackled hours he once spent in a small Ohio police headquarters waiting for a buddy to post $733 cash bond,” The Smoking Gun reported.
The fallout of Frey’s deception was that his publisher, Random House, has placed disclaimers in subsequent printings of the book, Peguin imprint Riverhead pulled out of a seven-figure, two-book deal with Frey, and Frey’s literary agent dropped him.
So at the heart of it, Frey's memoir was true, he was an addict who had a messed up life and got in trouble with the law, just like at the heart of it, Romanone's memoirs are true, she worked for the OSS, was maybe involved in a little intrigue. In Frey's case, he simply embellished how much trouble he actually got involved with, just to make it a good, readable story, while Romanones embellished her activities to make it a good, readable story. So why is it that Frey earned the derision of the public and the publishing community for his embellishment, but, according to you all, Romanone's embellishments are perfectly fine?
That leads me to another question -if Frey and Romanones wanted to create embellished versions of their lives, why did they publish them as memoirs? Why didn't they publish them a semiautobiographical fiction? There is an entire genre out there, guys like Vonnegut and Kerouac, who did just that. Could it be that Frey and Romanones thought that their embellishments would sell better if they were marketed as being true? Isn't that just a tad deceptive? It seems, at least in Frey's case, that the public and publishing community thinks so.
Any thoughts on this?
Triall1c posts on 4/20/2011 10:21:46 PM
AND! I will say it again Mark M.
BUTT OUT of here!
MarkM posts on 4/20/2011 7:19:23 PM
Angela and Anita, thank you at last for some fair-minded comments and for at last acknowledging that I am entitled to my skepticism and to post it here.
Anita, you told me to Avanti after the only thing I had done was post the West source, I had not attacked or insulted anyone here. That was a very rude comment, so I find your umbrage at what you see as my attacks to be hypocritical, since you instigated the rudeness. As the Bible says “why do you point out the splinter in your brother’s eye and not notice the plank in yours?”
My simple posting of the West source had also caused RoseanneH to accuse me of being someone else and making it my life’s work to discredit Romanones. Her comments were also very rude and uncalled for. And yet, all I did was tell her to get a grip, which I think was justified considering the outlandish leaps to judgement of such scurrilous accusations. I also asked her a rhetorical question about why it is so important to her to defend the Countess. Hardly a vicious attack. Then, I posted a couple other sources. Again, not rude to do so, not an attack, yet this caused people to tell me to butt out, go elsewhere, and tell me that no one here cares what I think (although Huddleston seemed to), all extremely rude things to say, and not justified by anything I had said at that point.
So yes, after being treated so rudely by several of you, I returned fire with fire, which I am sorry for, because I do know better to return the rudeness of others with my own.
Again, thank you both for acknowledging my entitlement to my skepticism and my right to post it here, even though several people here tried to tell me otherwise initially.
Happy Easter, everyone.
Click Here for Messages:
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
181 - 190
191 - 200
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.