An Artist's Responsibility

With the latest furor over memoir subterfuge (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-author4mar04,0,3476910.story), my friends are squabbling about what impact a book has on a reader, and whether that impact is dependent on its veractiy, or purported veracity.

As a happy reader myself, I think first we should encourage the publishers to nail down a definitive niche description of what exactly a "memoir" is. If it were an autobiography, wouldn't it get called that? To me, a memoir insinuates a bit of fictionalization from the get-go ... that's why it isn't called an "autobiography." But if those pesky publishers would be a little more clear about what gets called a memoir and what doesn't, then perhaps the masses would keep their feathers under control a bit more.

But here's another thing I can't wrap my head around -- why does a story's "truth" impact certain readers so much? I don't think I'm any more or less swayed by whether I think the story "really happened" or not. I mean, if I want to read nonfiction, I'll read the biography of John Adams. I'm not going to go for A Million Little Pieces. I read to be transported, to be entertained, to learn. If I am edified, that's largely my own doing, by allowing the writer to affect me in that way, whether the author intended that influence or not.

As a writer myself, I have to say, I'm responsible for entertaining you. For communicating to you a plot, a message, a memorable character, but I'm not (NOT) responsible for how you, the reader, reacts to what I write. If you put a lot of stock in my story, good for you. And if you hate it or find it totally implausible? Good for you, too. It's up to you, Dear Reader.