Judgement begets judgement. Jain is critical of Burrough's content, but also of his writing style. Jain's own style of writing is redundant, makes claims about Burrough's writing without offering examples, and comes across in these oddly clipped declaritive statements that sound like a high school book report. But more to the point, well, what exactly is Jain's point? I get Burroughs for all the reasons I read literary non-fiction, as well as fiction: to hear another's story, to be entertained in the process, to glimpse another's world, mind, etc. Burroughs succeeds. Jain on the other hand is just annoying--there is ultimately no 'so what' to her carping, even if she were accurate. Because she stays on the level of opinion rather than of intellectual argument, she comes across as shrill, and leads me to questions 'who is this Jain, that I should respect her authority?'

The reason Burroughs is repeatedly compared to Sedaris is because they are both gay -- to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Sedaris is great, but I can never sit down and read one of his book of essays straight through. After awhile their lack of emotional insight coupled with his wise-ass take on life start to grate and I have to take a break.

I wasn't crazy about "Scissors" but "Dry" smacked of such honesty that I didn't even notice the style of writing. "Dry" brought me closer to my partner, and to understanding her alcoholism, her fight against it and her longtime recovery from it. "Dry" is, I understand, a popular book amongst recovering alcoholics; I will never forget that book and the deep understanding it gave me about my love and about other people and their struggles against addiction.

As for memoirs, and books of reportage in general -- is the dialogue ever accurate? Gay Talese says he never wrote down a thing people said to him when he did his interviews for "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold" because to stick a notebook in their face would disrupt the flow; meanwhile, movies that purport to be based on true stories, like "Monster" and "Shattered Glass," are fictional in the most disturbing -- and sneaky -- ways. I do agree Burroughs should have run that note at the front of Scissors and to neglect to do so was a mistake.

Thank God somebody finally said it. I have been thinking thoroughly unimpressed thoughts about Scissors ever since I fell for the Sedaris-comparing line on the jacket and took it to the beach. Then every time I saw it on the best-seller list I had to wonder if I was the crazy one. This book sucked. Amazing how somebody could turn a fascinating childhood into such a boring read. Fiction or not--who cares. I'm just glad I'm not the only one. Now, I've said it.

I will be the first to admit to having no pretensions to literacy. While I don't read Tom Clancy or Steven King, I'm not a connoisseur of arts and letters, either.

But I do know that reading both Sedaris and Burroughs touches the same nerves -- they're your fun, witty, sparkly, and occasionally deeply moving friends whose Sunday brunch conversations or late-nite confessional phone calls are among the high points of the week. And thank you, cossey_m, for beating me to the obvious and relevant point that they're both, duh, gay men. (Why the dance around that, which would doubtless annoy both writers, as well as at least two fans?)

Does it matter -- to anyone but the Turcottes, to whom it obvously matters a great deal -- whether it's all-fact, all-fiction, or, as one would reasonably expect anyway, somewhere in between? Wouldn't change a thing in my reactions to it...

But I do feel the need to say this in Burroughs' defense:

In the Newhouse New Service article linked to in the review, we find this passage, including two quotes from Burroughs' mother:

"Margaret Robison, who is not a party to the suit, declined to be interviewed, saying that she is unwilling to discuss the matter 'in a worldly way.' She lives in Shelburne Falls, where she said she is recovering from health problems as she continues to write.

Robison did submit a statement, saying, 'My poetry, prose and life are about my relationship with God, and I see the entire situation as a rich opportunity for growth, forgiveness and love for every single one of the beautiful people involved.' "

These quotes are spot-on consistent with the character of the mother as portrayed and quoted in "Scissors;" he's got her voice down perfectly. Should I therefore be eager to disbelieve anything else he's said?

It's curious that another best-selling story of recovery -- James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces" -- has also garnered accusations of being creative fiction rather than autobigraphy. In neither case does it matter a whit. As an addict in recovery, I can attest that both writers, even if they are writing novels in memoirs' clothing, have hit on Truth. Do the specific details really matter?

I doubt that Augusten Burroughs will ever recover from a review like that. Priya Jain is so hard core. I love it. She really gets to the heart of the matter, viz. the importance of truth to a certain sort of realism in writing. In particular, when you are describing the faults and strengths of other people you should try to be truthful and fair. It's one thing to have been disappointed from time to time when you were a kid and entirely different thing to have been raped repeatedly by grown men when you were a kid. You should not present people who disappointed you as if they somehow violated and abused you in disgusting ways.

The difference between David S. and Augusten B. is that in a David Sedaris book you know that he is just telling an elaborate joke, a joke that is made all the better by it's poignant narcissism and desperate grasping for approval from others. David Sedairs manages to show you your own flaws by playing up his own faults in the most ridiculous situations. On the other hand, when you read a book by Augusten Burrough's you feel like you have to cut him some slack for the overall crappiness of the writing because if he did in fact survive anything remotely like what he describes then the world truly does owe him not only sympathy but also a living.

If Augusten Burroughs is making it all up then it definitely does ruin his books because his books stand or fall on the sympathy a reader has for the narrator, who one presumes is a real person that lived through awful experiences. Also, in a David Sedaris book, he makes himself look bad in order to sustain a joke for many pages whereas Augusten Burroughs mainly tries to convince you that other people are bad to sustain your interest in his survival. David Sedaris is funny because he tells jokes about himself that illuminate otherwise unspeakable truths about what people are really like, e.g. vanity, envy, superficiality, etc. Augusten Burroughs seemed to be illuminating unspeakable truths about surviving a horrific childhood. If he didn't survive anything particularly weird, then he is just manipulating the reader and we have to ask whether or not his writing is all that great... I think Priya Jain answered that particular question fairly decisively.