If Anarchy is next, I am part of the problem

Gah. That last post was so over the top self-important and self-absorbed, I thought I'd try something a little different.

What is your opinion of the James Frey brou-ha ha?

I have not read the book, and I have not even followed the news reports very closely, so I'm not really qualified to make an opinion, but having said that, my opinion is pretty blase. I just can't seem to care that much of his memoir is exaggerated.

If I read a book, and I like it--if it speaks to me, or entertains me, or inspires me, or teaches me, then that's good enough. I don't care if it is absolutely true, unless I'm reading some sort of history book, or biography. Even then, unless I'm writing a report, or have some other reason for needing absolute facts, if I'm interested and entertained, who cares? I've always considered the memoir to be almost fiction anyway: it's not as if the author can remember exactly how the conversations went, 10 years ago, after all.

But apparently I am in the minority with this view. Apparently it is more evidence of our failing society that a person can write an untruthful memoir and people won't care. The truth is all that matters, people, even in entertainment. (Oh, wait, but not in TV mini-series. Or movie biographies.) Apparently if you read a memoir that speaks to you, the same version in a novel will not do the same.

I am now asking for honest opinions. Why does it matter so much that some of his memoir is exaggerated? Aren't all memoirs exaggerated to some extent? Or is his book entirely fabricated? (From what I read, only a few parts were.) Does the book mean more to you if it is a memoir then if it is a novel? And if so, why?

Should I be publicly flogged and berated for this lack of integrity?