>True Humor
>Last night, Hubs was at the grocery when a man came up and put his hand on Hubs’ shoulder.
“Still suffering from depression?” he asked. Hubs snorted.
“Did you really believe a word of that?” he replied. The man laughed.
The man was talking about the Suburban Turmoil column I wrote for this week’s Nashville Scene. And in all the time I’ve been recounting anecdotes about our family life, this column marked the first time that Hubs remembered things a bit, ahem, differently.
He now claims that he never believed that men could suffer from postpartum depression. I’m quite positive that he did- the conversation we had about it months ago gave me the idea for the column in the first place. And while I first thought it would make for a funny story, it wasn’t so funny weeks later when we had a newborn in the house and he was getting irritated with me far more than usual. That’s when it crossed my mind that the man actually had postpartum depression- and that the joke was on me.
But I’m not writing about this to try and defend myself- Hubs and I have good-naturedly agreed to disagree on the sequence of events. I’m writing about it because this incident came on the tail of my reading of an article in Slate, asking whether humorists are justified in embellishing their “non-fiction” stories to make them more readable. The article cites a story from The New Republic claiming that David Sedaris took “broad and routine liberties in pursuit of laughs.” Honestly, the revelation doesn’t surprise me; although David Sedaris is my favorite comedic writer, I’ve often wondered how some of his recollections could possibly be true. But where should I draw the line?
It’s a much bigger question now that my real name is on this blog; there’s always a chance that anyone I’ve written about will read it at some point and recognize themselves. I keep that in mind as I’m writing. It’s a holdover from my days as a reporter, a running inner dialogue that plays out in my mind as I write, in which I’m defending myself to, say, a Green Hills MOMS Club member.
“Bitch,” the assisted blond in capris shouts in my figurative face. “I never said that!”
“The hell you did!” I murmur as I type. “Do the words ‘nipple shield’ ring any bells?”
The difference between my writing now and my reporting back in my TV days is that I get to leave out the not-so-entertaining parts. I might have been at a mostly dull event that had three really hilarious occurrences. The hilarity obviously, is all that makes it into the retelling. On the occasions that I make something up entirely, I make it so over the top that it should be obvious that it was embellished. And for the poor soul who actually believed I was serious when, for instance, I said that God appeared to me in a vision while I was inner tubing with my parents on the Chattahoochee River, well, I’m quick to let her know that it was a joke.
My sketchiest embellishment is to occasionally give words to a look someone gives me. Think about it. You’re at the store when you and another woman reach for the same item. The woman gives you a glance that says, “Can I have this?” You smile and let go. It’s much easier to write later that the woman actually said, “Can I have this?” and you said “Of course.” I didn’t realize until I began writing how often our looks and glances pass for conversation.
The exception to all this is when I’m writing about something controversial, like baby beauty pageants. That’s when I stick with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I might have a funny take on it, but that’s one instance when I don’t want anyone questioning my accuracy for the sake of a laugh.
But as far as my day-to-day family life goes, I call it like I see it and frankly, if you asked each of my family members to give their account of an event, you’d probably get five very different versions. So Hubs, sorry but this shizzle is my story and I’m sticking to it.
What about you? Do you embellish your written anecdotes in the same way that you might if you were telling them at a cocktail party? Where do you draw the line? Where should I?
>In a recent post I wrote that I dreamed I was having “Hot Monkey Sex with Johnny Depp.” Truth be told, I don’t remember what I was dreaming. But wouldn’t any healthy woman in her 30s WANT to be dreaming that? Lololol. Plus it added to the story.
>to the post above- heck YES!
>I remember a conversation about this in an English class in college. The professor had all of us read out the first paragraph of our essays, and everyone was supposed to give suggestions. (I look back on this as lazy teaching.) One girl was writing about her best friend from way back, and mentioned a time they broke a vase in her house. I suggested that she phrase it something like, “I still have the scar from the time…” She was totally caught up over the fact that she didn’t have a scar from the incident, and couldn’t see how this might be more vivid, more interesting to read, anything like that. Anyway, clearly I think that embellishment is not only acceptable, but often necessary. It’s part of editing–remove the dull bits, spice up the adequate bits, and let the astounding truths alone. (Could you have made up the exact Green Hills MOM insanity? I know I couldn’t imagine some of the mommy stuff I’ve heard.) As far as drawing the line, that’s a judgement call you have to make every time. Some people have good judgement, and I think you do. James Frey has bad judgment.
>If I didn’t embellish, the posts about penises wouldn’t be nearly as funny.Seriously, I use the cocktail party recap strategy. But we really did eat the barnacles!
>I would say, yes I do embellish. I really don’t say the F word half as much as I do in print.
>It’s the embellishments that make the reading spicy! Really, if it weren’t just a little bit juicy, if you weren’t allowed that “poetic license,” I don’t think reading would be HALF as fun as it is. That’s like taking the ice cream out of a banana split…all you’re left with is a shitty banana w/brown spots!
>I de-bellish!! I am much more abrasive in real life. So if I didn’t tone down some of my posts it would the “F” word every-other-word. I say do as you wish. It’s still free speech.
>I always discuss this issue with my students, and the inevitable conclusion that we come to every semester is that it is okay to embellish as long as you are faithful to the spirit of the event. See Patricia Hampl’s essay “Memory and Imagination.” (Assigning reading in a blog comment…God I’m such a TEACHER!)
>If I quote my children, then I’m quoting them exactly. They’re just so funny that no embellishment is necessary. Actually now that I think about it, if I quote anyone, I’m putting it verbatim. I’m lucky enough to live with some pretty humorous people!
>First off, I think daddy post partum depression is most often due to withdrawal. It’s a well-known, scientifically-proven fact that lack of sex makes men cranky. Even after being allowed to resume, they know there is someone else competing for your attention and affection. And it pisses them off just a little.Second of all, I don’t embellish. I just have my own alternate reality. I write it pretty much the way it happened or the way I see it in my brain. I couldn’t make some of this stuff (my life) up. I haven’t written some of it because a) it comes out much flatter in the retelling and b) if I could manage to tell it just as it happened, I don’t know if people would believe it.
>If people want to read only facts, they’d be reading and gobbling up court transcriptions non-stop. They wouldn’t be reading fiction books, blogs, commentary sections of newspapers, commentary articles, etc. — all nonstop and practically faster than they can even be published! And while I’m at it – places like My Space wouldn’t have a market! Just my thoughts. It actually never occurs to me to think what part of something I’m reading is real vs what part is made-up. I just naturally assume a good large part of it is made-up, or at the very least simple opinion-and not straight-cut fact.
>I love what tracysan said- You want to be true to the spirit of the event. I think that’s the essence of most of what I write. If it’s not word-for-word verbatim, it could be. For some of my columns, I’ve transcribed exact quotes and I HATE doing that- It’s so limiting because you’re pulling things from a larger conversation and to me, they never sound quite right. But if I recreate my memory of a portion of conversation, the flow is much better and I actually think it’s truer to the feel of the event than some verbatim quote that I try to work into the column…
>I think embellishment, repackaging, whatever you want to call it, is the essence of storytelling. Tracysan’s comment is excellent. I come from a line of Irish raconteurs who could never resist making a good story better. But my husband hates embellishment with a passion and if I try it in his hearing he will interrupt to correct me if he thinks I am exaggerating anything. Iron ring, Alpha male thing plus his mother’s idea of strict truth. I am not sure whether his world is better than mine or not, but it sure isn’t as much fun.
>I’m all for embellishing, unless the person writing is reporting news. In which case, I think the public has a right to know the FACTS and not the skewed opinions of the writer. I also feel strongly that the writer has a responsibility to seek out correct technical information about the story he’s sharing and present the information objectively without using emotionally charged arguments to support his own agenda. Ha ha, good luck with that, I know. But as for blogs, stories, and works of fiction, embellish away. ~Monica
>I think this is your blog and you have the right to tell the story how you see fit. Perception is 9/10 of it anyway, it’s how you see the event that matters, not if it actually happened that way or not. And you are a damn good story teller, so I say carry on, sister, carry on. If Hubs wants us to know HIS reality then he should start his own blog, damnit. 🙂 We are hear to read about your life and your perceptions because you are a damn fine writer and make me laugh my ass off all the time. Or sometimes make me go, what in the HELL? Like w/the Anna Nicole post, that really blew my mind. But, that’s why I read your blog every chance I get. Because I like your take on life.
>My mother recently asked my while my childhood had been so awful.I had to explain the exaggerating on the internet thing, which didn’t help a lot.Basically I don’t talk about other people’s personal stuff, and my REALLY personal stuff, which a lot of people find funny considering everything I DO talk about.Unless I say that I am being one hundred percent serious, it’s safe to assume I am embelleshing or exagggerating in order to seem funnier than I actually am.
>I assume that nothing personal I read on the internet is true. I don’t know you from a hole in the wall so does it really matter what you tell us? I read your blog because you are a good writer and you are funny. Keep that up and I’m happy regardless of the validity.
>I think it’s obvious how you write. I don’t mean “bad” obvious or “too obvious”. I’m just saying, I “get it” and your writing is great and very funny.I don’t blog to “write” or be “writerly”, so no.But when I took writing classes, sure, I took the truth and added and embellished to make a good story and I did it very well, too. Most people didn’t get that; if they had to write about a certain topic, they wrote down the verbatim truth, word for word. It’s just not as interesting.
>You ALWAYS get to tell it the way that is the funniest. If need be, you can explain later, but odds are you’ll never have to. Embellish, embellish. (But please make sure it’s funny!)
>Some jerk wrote a whole article about David Sedaris exagerating in his books. He’s a humorist. He’s supposed to exagerate. So are you. And you should.
>This is great discussion. I was really amused by the flack surrounding Sedaris. It’s not like he writes books about the war in Iraq or welfare reform. Who really cares whether or not he was an elf at Macy’s one Christmas. It makes people laugh and does nothing to hurt anyone as long as his family is okay with his poking fun and if they’re not, that’s his battle to wage.Those who take humorists literally seem to be be missing something important – like intelligence.I’m sure your Hubs is a big boy, able to handle your artistic interpretations as is mine. Once this trust is established you free to do your thang!
>As a reader, I generally want to be in on the joke. If it’s not clear whether the blog post/column is intended to be over the top or factual, I feel a bit left out of the joke. After reading your blog for a while, I can see the embellishment, and although I find that very entertaining, I’m not necessarily inclined to become involved in a dialogue, at least not the way I would if I were responding to a strictly factual blog. Perhaps this is because I realize I may be responding sincerely to something that was fabricated. I also think there are humorous blogs that stay completely factual (the difference between saying, “I said,” vs. “I wanted to say,” if that makes sense). This is in no way a criticism of your blog. Yours is one of the humorous blogs I read every day, and I always look forward to your posts. 🙂
>That’s interesting, Beck. If it sounds at all true on this blog, I’d say that it is. However, I’ve always loved the idea of magical realism, and although I’m not sure that what I write would technically fall in that vein, I definitely head in that direction sometimes. Again, though, I think I make it incredibly obvious.
>I don’t think it’s always obvious, FWIW. For instance, in the Ansley post, you said something like “There was no way I was calling Bitch back” (paraphrasing), but you later said in a comment that you weren’t offended. That’s the kind of thing that distances me as a reader sometimes (not just talking about your blog). If I were to comment about something and then you were to respond, saying you’d made that part up…well, an accumulation of exchanges like that would kind of put me off. That said, I do get the humor of columnists who exaggerate or fabricate for effect (I know this makes me seem older than I am, but Dave Barry and Erma Bombeck come to mind), but they don’t necessarily inspire a dialogue. Of course, maybe you don’t want a dialogue — just an audience. Nothing wrong with that. ;^)
>What the.. Bitch was a term of endearment! Hasn’t anyone ever called you Bitch before and meant it with great affection and fondness?!