A Most Ridiculous Lawsuit

Back when watching Bill O'Reilly was still fun -- before he became a creepy, obsessive nativist -- I enjoyed a feature called "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." (He's become such a sour, humorless ideologue that this segment now falls flat.) Allow me to steal the concept for a moment. Today's most ridiculous item, hands-down, is the report that readers are suing James Frey -- the author of the (partly) invented rehab memoir A Million Little Pieces -- and his publisher, Random House, for "defrauding" them. Even sillier, Random House has reached a settlement with these whiny opportunists, and any reader who can show proof of purchase will receive a refund for the full retail price of the book ($23.95 for the hardcover, $14.95 for the paperback). The plaintiffs' lawyers who scored this one must be laughing their heads off and planning their next Ibiza vacation.

Talk about "frivolous lawsuits." Stunts like this give a bad name to class action suits that seek to redress genuine wrongs, like race or sex discrimination in the workplace, or pollution. The action against Random House also reflects an absurdly consumerist attitude toward reading: when the book -- or author -- isn't what you expected, demand your money back! Bob Woodward presents himself as a crusading muckraker -- can I get a refund for the book in which he acts as a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration? And how about all those novels and memoirs that are billed by publishers as "poignant" and "evocative" when they're actually tedious tripe? Can we send in our receipts for those, too?

A book is usually a layered, ambivalent and highly subjective experience; it's not like an iPod or a car, which either works or doesn't. Some disappointment -- even rage -- is inevitable in a well-read life. Serious, mature readers embrace and engage such reactions; they don't seek to punish anyone for them. Book buyers of America, get a grip.

Comments (32)

1. LIZA,

   "...the author of the (partly) invented rehab memoir A Million Little Pieces -- "

   "The action against Random House also reflects an absurdly consumerist attitude toward reading: when the book -- or author -- isn't what you expected, demand your money back!

   If you are paying for a memoir then you should get one...not a partial..

   Should the publisher label that this book is only partialy true or partially a memoir? Then you have to refund all the books written by politicians since Nero...

   You are an idiot through and through..

   ANOTHER WASTED SPACE

   Posted by john maasch at 09/07/2006 @ 7:19pm

2. If it's all wasted space, Johnny M., why are you wasting your time?

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/07/2006 @ 7:30pm

3. Once again, the liberal lunatics show their true colors! Liberals like Liza don't like accountability for any of their actions. Whether it's Frey, Jason Blair, Newsweek, Dan Rather etc. they feel entitled to write/print/report LIES and present them as fact. This is a common practice of liberal journalists worldwide and has been for a long time. I mean, if all liberal journalists were forced to be held accountable for printing lies, there would be a shortage of journalists and the Dem's would never ever have a chance at getting elected to office again. Therefore, it's more evident than ever, that liberals need to unite and defend the rights of journalists everywhere to print lies, claim that they are factual, and be protected from any consequences that might come from their dishonest/immoral actions! Ahhhh, the principles of liberalism!

   Posted by barry25 at 09/07/2006 @ 7:54pm

4. Case in point: many journalists printed lies in the last year like: Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame's name ( fact: Armitage leaked it, ask Fitzgerald...still waiting for correction/apology ). Dick Cheney leaked Plame's name, LIE ( Fact: Armitage leaked the name )

   Posted by barry25 at 09/07/2006 @ 7:57pm

5. MCHUREAUX,

   I always try to see what the fringe is doing...Liza, if you notice, writes short articles...I expect nothing from her and am never disappointed, never surprised.

   BTW, how do say your last last name..phoneticly?

   Posted by john maasch at 09/07/2006 @ 8:07pm

6. ANY lawsuit is only as stupid as the attorney who is willing to file it.

   Posted by DaveCross at 09/07/2006 @ 8:28pm

7. If you are paying for a memoir then you should get one...not a partial..

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/07/2006 @ 7:19pm

   Can we demand our money back that the Republican Party blew in Iraq?

   If I'm paying to rid Iraq of massive stockpiles of WMD then I should find massive stockpiles of WMD.

   Not just some irrelevant collection of old rusting shells

   Posted by Will C. at 09/07/2006 @ 9:17pm

8. Relax, Will...you're probably in the bottom 50% that doesn't pay any taxes anyway.

   Posted by Sliver at 09/07/2006 @ 9:36pm

9. Relax, Will...you're probably in the bottom 50% that doesn't pay any taxes anyway.

   Posted by SLIVER 09/07/2006 @ 9:36pm

   interesting... so the deductions on my pay check stub that say Federal income tax, Social security tax and Medicare tax aren't taxes.

   then what the heck are you hamsters bitching about all the time?

   Posted by Will C. at 09/07/2006 @ 9:45pm

10. How about a class action suit against a video game company that insults Hugo Chavez and the Wal-mart that sold it to me??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2006 @ 10:23pm

11. How about a class action suit against a video game company that insults Hugo Chavez and the Wal-mart that sold it to me??!?!?

    Posted by MASK 09/07/2006 @ 10:23pm

    What makes you think you have any class?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/07/2006 @ 10:49pm

12. The rest of the thread was the usual rhetoric, but this

    Posted by WILL C. 09/07/2006 @ 10:49pm

    was very funny.

    Posted by New Dawn at 09/07/2006 @ 11:57pm

13. .."interesting... so the deductions on my pay check stub that say Federal income tax, Social security tax and Medicare tax aren't taxes..."

    No Will, they are your "investments" per your favorite President Clinton. Enjoy.

    Top 50% pay 96.54% Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%

    Bottom 50% pay almost no taxes, so it would follow suit that those who pay taxes will probably benefit from tax cuts.

    I have no idea where you are on the tax scale..but it sounds like you are in the lower 50% since you don't complain about income taxes... you only complain about those who complain about their tax bill.

    I believe if you make $40,000 a year one pays no income taxes.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 12:50am

14. No Will, they are your "investments" per your favorite President Clinton. Enjoy.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/08/2006 @ 12:50am

    Actually they are the investments I make per the congress of United States (I'd probably take this moment to remind you that the president can't levy taxes... but it would be lost on you)

    And I do enjoy living in the country that my taxes helped buy.

    :)

    I believe if you make $40,000 a year one pays no income taxes.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/08/2006 @ 12:50am

    then you are an idiot. I've paid income taxes on every check I've ever earned. Whe I file my tax return it not on tells me how much I paid

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 08:52am

15. I believe if you make $40,000 a year one pays no income taxes.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/08/2006 @ 12:50am

    Then you are an idiot. I've paid income taxes on every check I've ever earned. When I file my tax return it not only tells me how much I paid, but I usualy still owe a few bucks.

    you people really have to pull your head out of your ass

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 08:56am

16. I agree completely with Liza! Just because a publisher advertised a work of fiction as a factual autobiography doesn't mean people who buy it have a right to complain. After all, why should Random House be any different than the news media?

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/08/2006 @ 09:04am

17. Maybe you need to get a new accountant. You don't need to remind me of who is enpowered with taxing...it is your buddy Billy who labels the taking of your money "investments" as if you are some sort of customer and have a choice. But then, maybe you are a "customer" since you have bpought into the tax sceem hook,line,and sinker..a good little mindless lib..marching along hating big bad earners...who pay for your "investments" at a higher rate so you can have them.. It fools, fools who buy into the investment crap....but then again, you are first in line to celebrate. again...enjoy your "investments"..

    And if you make $ 40,000 and are still paying income tax(not the fica, medicare, and other "investments")..YOU are an idiot or have an idiot for an accountant....

    Enjoy your investtemts...you deserve them...

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 09:46am

18. " but I usualy still owe a few bucks.

    you people really have to pull your head out of your ass

    Sounds like you are over paid.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 09:47am

19. The lawsuit was silly because you can walk into any bookstore and return the book if you have proof of purchase.

    Posted by kempsternyc at 09/08/2006 @ 2:06pm

20. If any of you conservatives - John, Barry, Rio, etc. - are in favor of Tort Reform, than you should agree with Liza that this was a frivolous lawsuit. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Heck, even if you oppose tort reform, as I do, you should be able to recognize a frivolous lawsuit when you see one.

    John, when I was making $18,000-$27,000 per year, I always paid not just the payroll taxes but my income tax, as well. Some of us don't own cars or homes and don't have dependents, so we can't claim much in the way of deductions.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/08/2006 @ 4:21pm

21. B25: Umm, I don't know how to break this to you pal, but between Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy et al lying us into an atrocious mistake of a war in Iraq and with Faux News still on the tube, I wouldn't be casting rocks from in your big glass house re: lies.

    Posted by The Goods at 09/08/2006 @ 5:11pm

22. And if you make $ 40,000 and are still paying income tax(not the fica, medicare, and other "investments")..YOU are an idiot or have an idiot for an accountant....

    Enjoy your investtemts...you deserve them...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/08/2006 @ 09:46am

    maasch

    contiueing to repeat that peopel who make under forty a year don;t pay income taxes doesn;t change the fact that people who make under forty a year pay income taxes.

    and this is why i suggested you remove your head from your ass.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 11:18pm

23. and I did enjoy riding on the interstate highway this afternoon

    it's a great investment in our country

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 11:19pm

24. Actually, Will, you are the idiot.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/08/2006 @ 5:50pm

    I'll say it again

    I've paid income taxes every year I've worked. What exactly is it about that statement that you don't understand shithead?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 11:26pm

25. are you hamsters truely this clueless?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 11:27pm

26. You are calling me a shithead when you are, in fact, confused about how taxes work.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/09/2006 @ 07:39am

    my federal income taxes that I pay out of each check go to the federal goevernment and are spent as they are collected. They are not held in escrow. They are not held in a trust. They are spent

    it'a actually kind of funny that you say that the first ten grand isn't taxed when it's really taxed at 10% of the amount over $0 from $0 to $7750.

    $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550 between $7550 and $30,650

    $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650 between $30,650 and $74,200

    of course that's estimated... but I'm still paying it.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/09/2006 @ 10:59pm

27. I know this because it had an economic impact on me. Given the paltry dribble of income taxes you pay the feds, I doubt it is worth your time to know anything about it.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/09/2006 @ 08:02am

    I know I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to my love for my country.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/09/2006 @ 11:00pm

28. You're so wrong. There's no logic in your claim and, if anything, it sounds exactly like something Mr. Loofah would say.

    The theory is that the publisher either knew or should have known that the book was fiction, and many of the claims were lies. The author obviously knew he was lying. The two of them together conspired to defraud the public by promoting the book as an absolutely truthful, amazing, astonishing account of one young man's struggles with addiction and road to sobriety. Or however they would have marketed it. They told these lies because they figured it would sell more books that way - which it did. They lied, the public relied on those lies in paying millions of dollars to the publisher and to the author. And now you say "So what?" Gives new strength to the concept of caveat emptor. Not only should the buyer beware but also, even if the seller lies, cheats, and steals, too bad for the buyer. Sounds more like a flim-flam law of business than anything else.

    So your first problem is your entire analysis that this was no big deal. To an individual purchaser of the book, the price itself is not likely to cause significant financial problems. But you need to focus on the other end of the transaction. Both the author and the publisher made millions of dollars selling lies to the public. How could anyone say that is OK, and there should be no legal consequences to their deliberate fraud???

    The second problem with your analysis is that you seem to think that an attorney will not take a case of let's say exploding toaster ovens with serious personal injury because this lawsuit was filed. In other words there is some connection here - the consumers of the world must elect to only have one lawsuit, so if a suit is filed over a book fraud, then millions of people who were murdered by some defective pharmaceuticals will be barred from the courtroom. There is simply no connection between the two, so that part of your analysis is also flawed.

    Finally, Frey reminds me of so many hucksters making a buck off of alcohol and drug addiction in this country. You've got authors writing books saying they used to have a problem with drugs and alcohol; but they (started eating broccoli, or some such nonsense) and now they are fine. This is a huge business. It's called the "recovery" industry. Probably rivals the diet industry for money to be made. Lots of people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, and are desperately looking for help. And those people have family members, and they are desperately looking for help. So to allow authors like Frey to sell lies to such a vulnerable segment of the public is particularly heinous. I have not read his book, and will not, but I understand that he trashes a place called Hazledon (Hazleton?) in Minnesota, which is a highly respected alcohol/drug rehab place. In other words, this facility is helping people to get clean. Yet Frey decides to sell books and make money by trying to claim that these people are bad people - they pulled his teeth without novicaine, or some such nonsense. By doing this, Frey has damaged the reputation of what I understand is a really good treatment facility only for the purpose of making a buck. How despicable is that? And you think he should get away with it?

    The right-wing neocon criminal approach to drug problems is the lie that addicts should just tough it out, just say no, and other such nonsensical phrases combined with tough prison sentences, lots of money for new prison construction, prison guards, a radical increase in the prison population, and absolutely no help or solutions whatsoever for the problems of addiction. Guess what? It doesn't work. Our country spends millions, builds more and more prisons, sends military all over the world supposedly to eradicate drugs (I think the U.S. government is probably the biggest dealer) and you and I pay for the whole thing, and it goes on and on and does nothing. People who are addicts need help from people who have studied addiction, learned about its physical and mental components, and learned how best to treat it. In-patient treatment facilities for possibly long periods of time may be required to get and keep people off of drugs.

    Bill O'Reilly, the right-wing, and now people like Frey, suggest that addicts should just "get tough," and get off drugs. Or, what was Frey's suggestion? Did he say that he got "honest," and that's how he got clean?? Yeah, him and O'Reilly, both honest guys.

    So as far as I'm concerned, there is a special place in hell for people who prey on the weak, the desperate, the pathetic, the helpless, and Frey and his publisher have done just that. I only wish that it was possible to take back every penny ever paid by anyone to Frey and to the publisher, and force both of them to do community service working in some local jail's drunk tank.

    Posted by NABNYC at 09/10/2006 @ 1:20pm

29. You're forgetting your personal exemption ($3,200), any exepmtions for children or spouse ($3,200 each), and deductions, like the standard ($5,000 single; $10,000 married; $7,300 head of household) if you don't itemize. So you, Will C, do not pay any tax on the first $8,200 to $16,400 depending on your family situation. (There are also deductions for being blind, but it doesn't count for people like you who are wilfully blind.)

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/10/2006 @ 3:21pm

    See now you're just stuck in semantics. Some of my income may be exempt from taxation. But first, last, middle is just terms used to make it easy for the week minded in our society to understand a concept. The taxes I pay out of each check, on the first and the fifteenth, from day one of our fiscal year, go into the federal coffers and are spent.

    That is indisputable.

    If at the end of the year I file a return and get a refund, that refund comes from the tax dollars I have already paid. But like said, I generally owe a little more at the end of each year.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 4:57pm

30. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/10/2006 @ 3:28pm

    because you're here

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 4:58pm

31. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/10/2006 @ 3:28pm

    "Hey will, rather than lecture me on the intricacies of paying taxes, maybe you should lecture Bill Clinton on porking fat interns."

    Ok. Ignoring for a minute, the irrelevance of a presidents sex life. And ignoring the dubious trait, of judging people on their appearance,(one of the strangest aspects, in this age of TV, regarding electability)...

    I propose a new rule: Anyone trashing clinton for "porking fat interns.", should have to post a picture of their current "femme de jour". Personally I am sick of the judgementalness on him, by folks with really ugly wives and girlfriends.

    Do your ideas suck, cause your girl is ugly?

    "Maybe you should lecture Katrina VH on what it's like to be a elitest, trust-fund socialite."

    Not being one himself, I don't see how he could. But I guess that wouldn't stop you.

    "Maybe you should lecture Michael Moore on what it's like to be an idiot."

    Now, that sounds like a task, that'd be right up your alley.

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2006 @ 5:22pm

32. The people who demand "the truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth need to all go work in a courtroom somewhere where they can feel justified as they dole out everyone's punishment for the day. They are the moral equivalent of the communist neighborhood committee's whip. They are patently absurd and live in some kind of stupid little black and white world of Hansel and Gretel with their mean little values and trails of breadcumbs nowhere. They wouldn't recognize the truth if they ate it. They throw around words like "liberal" as easily as they spit. They feel "ripped off." Good. Their ignorance and need to punish (if it wasn't books it would be something else) should be exploited until they hurt. The price of books should go way, way up. Let them read cake. A memoir reflects one person's perspective. I don't accept their version of the truth and won't have it crammed down my mouth as I am force-fed their moral drivel. Their moral police need for retribution is far more exploitive than any writer who dares wander off the moral page. In the debate over james Frey, it's never, ever mentioned that the man might have some insight into the dynamics of addiction. But no. It's easier to dismiss him than to examine his ideas. These people who see truth as this petty way to claim some kind of abstract authority they don't really have deserve to swallow what they get. Their own ideas contribute nothing but the hot air emitted by a moral shredding machine. Oprah made so much money from this contrived idiocy, her fans and advocates for "the truth" can now feel free to claim vindication. You've been had and your awareness is limited to the light and the darkness. You jump from one world into the other. You deny context because you can't simplify it to fit your extraordinary need to control, punish, and extract the squeeze of shunning and the moral retribution of the psychic village in your black dress. Poor babies. You've been ripped off. And not by the writer of a memoir.

    Posted by Tim Barrus at 09/12/2006 @ 09:13am