Memoir Writing and Ethics - Essex County

In the NPR interview, Frank Stasio talks of the news that the memoir, "A Million Little Pieces" by James Fry, was not 100% fact, and that much of it was fabricated, borrowed and expanded upon.  After interviewing a few folks, the prime argument is that when reading a book that claims to be a memoir, the reader believes it (as well they should) to be true, whereas, when a book is labeled as Non Fiction, the reader just takes it for what it is, and rolls with it.  I can get behind this, and perhaps if I were reading a memoir which I had close emotional attachment to (like some may with "A Million Little Pieces") I may feel more strongly about finding what that what I believed was true, was in fact, a lie, or someone else's story to tell.  If anything, I would no longer trust the author of the book, and if the writing was good, I'd probably still read his or her work, but wouldn't believe that things were true even if the author said so.

Jeff Lemire's, Essex County, is a fantastic story with characters who weave together to create a whole "family tree" so to speak.  Often, I found myself sort of saying, "Ahhhh..." as one character's life made way for another character's life, and I was intrigued by all of it; the story telling was phenomenal and kept my attention.  I felt sad for many of the characters, and those who I felt okay about, I had moments where I felt sad for them too.  This isn't a bad thing at all, the characters were just relatable and easy to empathize with.  Would I be super bummed out if I learned that Lemire borrowed this story and made things up?  Not at all, the writing and the illustrations are so good that I'd just think, "well, that guy makes up some fascinating stuff."

Again, if I was reading a memoir about an adopted kid from Central America, and learned that the author made it all up, maybe I'd be a hint upset, but it would only be fleeting and then I'd be okay with it.  I guess I don't feel like I know published authors well enough to get offended by their mistakes, and lies.  When I open a book, I read it for the story, if it's true, great; if not, that's great too.

Black Friday, A Child's Perspective

As an American, I have only thought of Black Friday as the day after Thanksgiving, when people stand in lines for HOURS to spend bucket loads of money on things that they may not necessarily need.  After reading Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi, my idea of "Black Friday" has markedly changed.  In Iran, "Black Friday" refers to the events that occurred on September 8, 1978 in Jaleh Square in Tehran, Iran.  On this day, thousands of people showed up to protest the Shah's regime, and on this day, the military opened fire against the protesters, killing and wounding several people.  This day is marked as extremely important in the Iranian Revolution as it marks the "point of no return," and in this moment, the people realized that there was no "hope for compromise" between the people and the Shah's regime.

In Persepolis, this event is told from a child's perspective.  This is important because it is honest and yet innocent.  Satrapi attends this protest with her maid, unbeknownst to her parents.  (They leave to protest when Satrapi's parents leave the house.)  Both Satrapi and her maid are yelled at and punished by Satrapi's mother, and it is mentioned that this was indeed a bad day to protest because it was "Black Friday."  The BBC paints a different, more journalistic picture of this day; photos are shown which are unforgettably gruesome, and it's enough to incite the viewer to protest the Shah.  As it happens, the shooting not only came from the military, but from inside the crowd as well.  Satriapi illustrates this day, and the BBC provides the viewer with photographs and news coverage (the number of dead reported varies from one media outlet to the next.)

Sources: 

Satrapi, Marjane. Persepolis. New York, NY: Pantheon, 2003. 39. Print.

"Black Friday (1978)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1978)>.

Copyright / Copyleft

As an artist, I believe that copyright laws, which protect the property of the artist, are very important and I believe that they should be respected.  I think that artists who create work that they are proud of and post on the Internet as their own work, should get full credit for the art and it's not right that they may run the risk of someone taking something they did and creating a mediocre version of an original.  This isn't to say that all reproductions and reworkings of original art is mediocre; artists such as Andy Warhol, and Shepard Fairey have run into legal troubles for utilizing imagery that was not originally their own. Perhaps it's not fair to say, only good artists may reproduce work, but I guess this is the only way I can imagine agreeing with breaking copyright laws - if the work is as good as or better than the original.   

This being said, I am a fan of communities where the artists AGREE to share their work for reproduction, and to be altered in any way.  Actor, Joseph Gordon-Levitt hit the nail on the head with his website, hitrecord.org.  Hit Record allows artists, illustrators, writers, animators, basically creators from all walks of life, to take art, music, video, etc and work together to create.  This is the right way to approach sharing original works; and what's also great about this network of creators, is that if a creation of any sorts leads to monetary compensation, all the artists are paid for their contribution. 

In short, I believe that copyright laws should be followed, and that art may only be reproduced with the permission of the original artist. Copyleft is cool for programs and software, and I can get behind that; but sometimes I'm more inclined to get behind software that costs money, that came from a trusted source.