JT (or rather, Laura Albert) had a WOMAN (her sister-in-law) impersonate a man impersonating a woman - very "Victor/Victoria," lol!
I actually liked JT Leroy's books, and one of the things that I tried to discuss at the time the hoax was revealed was whether the fact that she ended up being a 40ish year old middle-class white woman, rather than a sexually/physically abused, HIV-positive, former child hustler, MtF transgender person in his mid-20s, invalidated or diminished the books "he" wrote.
In other words, did the glowing reivew the NYTimes book critic gave the supposedly autobiographical "Sarah" suddenly become invalid when the gender and background of the writer proved to be a big fat lie? While those who knew JT knew it was supposed to be based on "his" life, it WAS a novel - a work of fiction. While those behind the scenes knew it was supposedly written by this child hustler with no formal education, it wasn't as if the reader picked up a book that described itself as an autobiography or a memoir. (Unlike James Frey, who was vilified because he embellished his experiences and presented them as true fact). The writers who helped JT get published (Dennis Cooper, Suzie Bright) are very bitter about the whole thing, and I understand they fell used and manipulated and lied to, but does that suddenly make the books they once praised suddenly turn into shit? Or were the books crap already, and they were giving them praise because they were written by someone so profoundly challenged and lacking in formal education - you know, kind of like a different grading scale a teacher might use for a remedial reading class for mentally challenged students? And if that's their excuse, then weren't those glowing reviews they wrote sort of dishonest, as they neglected to mention that the writing was not good in and of itself, but only when viewed in the context of the background and circumstances of the author?
no subject
I actually liked JT Leroy's books, and one of the things that I tried to discuss at the time the hoax was revealed was whether the fact that she ended up being a 40ish year old middle-class white woman, rather than a sexually/physically abused, HIV-positive, former child hustler, MtF transgender person in his mid-20s, invalidated or diminished the books "he" wrote.
In other words, did the glowing reivew the NYTimes book critic gave the supposedly autobiographical "Sarah" suddenly become invalid when the gender and background of the writer proved to be a big fat lie? While those who knew JT knew it was supposed to be based on "his" life, it WAS a novel - a work of fiction. While those behind the scenes knew it was supposedly written by this child hustler with no formal education, it wasn't as if the reader picked up a book that described itself as an autobiography or a memoir. (Unlike James Frey, who was vilified because he embellished his experiences and presented them as true fact). The writers who helped JT get published (Dennis Cooper, Suzie Bright) are very bitter about the whole thing, and I understand they fell used and manipulated and lied to, but does that suddenly make the books they once praised suddenly turn into shit? Or were the books crap already, and they were giving them praise because they were written by someone so profoundly challenged and lacking in formal education - you know, kind of like a different grading scale a teacher might use for a remedial reading class for mentally challenged students? And if that's their excuse, then weren't those glowing reviews they wrote sort of dishonest, as they neglected to mention that the writing was not good in and of itself, but only when viewed in the context of the background and circumstances of the author?