I swear to tell...

It is a very famous story. In his memoir, Life á la Henri, famed chef Henri Charpentier tells the story of how in 1896, when serving Edward, the Prince of Wales, dessert crepes, he accidentally caught the sauce on fire. The result was delicious. The Prince requested the name of the dish and Henri, knowing where his bread was buttered, replied "crepes á la Princesse." Edward, being a noble chap, literally, insisted that the dish be named after the lady at the table, a small girl named Suzette.

Wonderful story. You can just hear people go "awwwww...." when they read it. It has shown up in at least one edition of The Joy of Cooking. And it may be a complete load of merde de taureau.

According to the Larousse Gastronomique, the encyclopedia of things culinary, Charpentier was simply too young have achieved the status of head waiter waiting on the prince. Since the LG is written for an intelligent audience, what goes unsaid is that of course only the most senior of staff would have waited on the future king of England. The LG also points out that, although Charpentier claimed to have invented the dish in Monte Carlo, the same dish was being being written about in Paris a year or so later. I suppose it is possible that the dish could be reversed engineered and a Parisian establishment could have picked it up... or not.

But it is a wonderful story. It taps into what we like to believe about ourselves (mistakes provide spectacular opportunities), what we like to believe about the process of creation (it is a matter of luck and inspiration and not years of grinding work), and what we like to believe about our leaders (they are unfailingly courteous and understanding and noble). In some way, the LG seems like a bunch of elitist snobs. Who are they to be bringing logic and rationality into this discussion? They are annoying as all hell.

I know, because I'm annoyed. And I don't want to be. Surely, truth matters? Always?

And it does. I don't believe Henri's story anymore -- I think it's too doubtful. It may be true, but absent other evidence I am not going to simply take his word on it.

But there are others who might not feel that way

NEW YORK - James Frey and the publishing world can relax a little: Oprah isn’t angry.

For days, Frey has been intensely criticized — and defended — over allegations that his best-selling memoir of addiction, “A Million Little Pieces,” was far from the candid self-portrait that he, his publisher and Winfrey had claimed it to be.

But until she made a surprise call Wednesday night to CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Winfrey, who selected the book for her book club, had maintained a suspenseful silence.

Phoning in near the end of the show, on which Frey gave his first interview since the controversy broke earlier this week, she dismissed the affair as “much ado about nothing” and urged readers inspired by the book to “keep holding on.”

“What is relevant is that he was a drug addict ... and stepped out of that history to be the man he is today and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves,” Winfrey said, adding that she had wanted to hear Frey’s comments before speaking to him or saying anything in public.

Frey has been under close scrutiny since The Smoking Gun (www.thesmokinggun.com), an investigative Web site, posted a story last Sunday alleging the author had substantially fabricated his criminal record and other aspects of his past.

Publishers, writers and readers have had their say, but Winfrey’s is likely the defining opinion. Her selection last fall of “A Million Little Pieces” for her book club made the memoir a million-copy seller and Frey a hero among recovering addicts.
....

Frey has acknowledged to The Smoking Gun that he embellished parts of the book and he said so again Wednesday night, stating that alterations were common for memoirs and defending “the essential truth” of “A Million Little Pieces.”

“The book is about drug addiction and alcoholism,” he said. “The emotional truth is there.”

What matters is "the emotional truth"? Hey, my emotional truth is that I have a NYT best seller. Does that matter?

“What is relevant is that he was a drug addict ... and stepped out of that history to be the man he is today and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves,” not that he didn't learn to tell the truth somewhere in that process? Honey, he's still an addict, just addicted to different things. Like attention-seeking, maybe.

This is why we have a country where our leaders cannot be held accountable for a damned thing -- because truth does not count. "Emotional truth" -- you can translate to "security from terrorists" if you like -- trumps actual truth -- which translates nicely to "we are in a quagmire of a war" or "people's civil liberties are being eroded" or "loyal dissent is a concept that has been destroyed" or any one of a number of things.

Truth matters, and we are doomed until we as a nation act like it does.

Update: On her January 26 show, Oprah confronted Frey about the fabrications in his book. Winfrey told Frey, "It is difficult for me to talk to you because I really feel duped... I feel that you betrayed millions of readers." She said that she regretted earlier defending Frey, because "I left the impression that the truth is not important." Yes, Oprah, you did. Glad you corrected that.