I HOPE CHUCK UNDERSTANDS

[yogi]

Chucks book arrived at my door two days ago. I have read the first three chapters. Mybe its the homophobe in me, and my 'political correctness' sucks but I just cant read it anymore.

Reading about Chucks feelings as an older boy had to carry him outside for a fire drill, is just too uncomfortable of a read for me. It's hard to explain why, but it is.

He and John started the band that will always be a factor in my life. I will ALWAYS wish him the best in everything BUT..................................................................................................


I just cant read his story anymore.

[stabbim]

....nevermind.

[froy]

Chucks book arrived at my door two days ago. I have read the first three chapters. Mybe its the homophobe in me, and my 'political correctness' sucks but I just cant read it anymore.

Reading about Chucks feelings as an older boy had to carry him outside for a fire drill, is just too uncomfortable of a read for me. It's hard to explain why, but it is.

He and John started the band that will always be a factor in my life. I will ALWAYS wish him the best in everything BUT..................................................................................................


I just cant read his story anymore.

No offense to Chuck but he is living in the JY world thinking he is worthy of even writting the book,
He has no reason to tell his story,
Nobody cares about it,
Get your head on straight pal and get back with Dennis
We dont need your book.

[Abitaman]

Chucks book arrived at my door two days ago. I have read the first three chapters. Mybe its the homophobe in me, and my 'political correctness' sucks but I just cant read it anymore.

Reading about Chucks feelings as an older boy had to carry him outside for a fire drill, is just too uncomfortable of a read for me. It's hard to explain why, but it is.

He and John started the band that will always be a factor in my life. I will ALWAYS wish him the best in everything BUT..................................................................................................


I just cant read his story anymore.

No offense to Chuck but he is living in the JY world thinking he is worthy of even writting the book,
He has no reason to tell his story,
Nobody cares about it,
Get your head on straight pal and get back with Dennis
We dont need your book.

No...Chuck has a right to tell his story (it is a free country), but we have a rigt not to buy it, for whatever reason(s)....-ERIC

[froy]

Chucks book arrived at my door two days ago. I have read the first three chapters. Mybe its the homophobe in me, and my 'political correctness' sucks but I just cant read it anymore.

Reading about Chucks feelings as an older boy had to carry him outside for a fire drill, is just too uncomfortable of a read for me. It's hard to explain why, but it is.

He and John started the band that will always be a factor in my life. I will ALWAYS wish him the best in everything BUT..................................................................................................


I just cant read his story anymore.

No offense to Chuck but he is living in the JY world thinking he is worthy of even writting the book,
He has no reason to tell his story,
Nobody cares about it,
Get your head on straight pal and get back with Dennis
We dont need your book.

No...Chuck has a right to tell his story (it is a free country), but we have a rigt not to buy it, for whatever reason(s)....-ERIC

I said no reason
Not no right

[yogi]

I knew EXACTLY what I was purchasing.

But to see it in front of me in black & white, and then to read it, well... its just not for me.

You know what I kind of find funny??? I think Chuck would have loved & embraced Dennis's Kilroy concept. Besides being about sensorship was'nt the overall concept about the government stepping in and telling us how we were suppose to think and live. Mind control I believe was how Dennis put it.

I would TRULY think that where Chuck has been there & now this concept would have rang true to his heart.

[sega_102]

After reading the book I don't think Chuck is too fond of Dennis.

I can't believe you guys are so narrow minded that you can't read his book. The book means a lot to him and that's the reason he wrote it. He wrote it to support all the gay people that don't know what to do. He wrote it for the people who have contacted HIV. You know, if I had HIV and I read the book, it'd make me feel a lot better about my future.

To base a book on the first three chapters is stupid. I don't know what kind of place you grew up in, I don't even know when, but if I had the same outlook on life as you, I'd probably be depressed.

[yogi]

I am NOT depressed in the least. I purchased Chucks book. I knew what the main theme was going to be about, but after reading the LITTLE I have read it's just to uncomfortable of a read for me.

Lable me what you want. I have EVERY right to feel the way I do.

I support Chuck. I wish him the ABSOLUTE best. I will skip forward to his section about the breakup of the band(if there is one) and how it affected John. I will also try to find the sections about John and the way he(Chuck) dealt with his death. By reading the first few chapters I can tell how much he loved his brother, and what a GREAT guy John was. But what I cant keep reading about is his(Chucks) gayness. In my opinion he has EVERY right to live that lifestyle, because that is who he is.

I also have EVERY right to feel the way I do.

Styx has been a major part of my life for 30 years. I purchased this book because of my love for the band. The entire band, past and present.

If Freddy Mercury had written the same type of book before his passing I would NEVER purchase it.

Again, I wish Chuck ONLY the best. I just cant read about his lifestyle anymore.

Am I depressed???? Hell NO!!!!!!!!!

[Zan]

....nevermind.

Pretty much.

OK, maybe not *quite* as much as you (remember you're the smart one). I'll keep it brief (and deliberately avoid...that stuff) Um, Froy? If there was one person on earth who had NO ROOM to say anyone had no reason to put his thoughts into words, or that someone suffered from an over-developed sense of self-importance, it's you. lol

[froy]

....nevermind.

Froy? If there was one person on earth who had NO ROOM to say anyone had no reason to put his thoughts into words, or that someone suffered from an over-developed sense of self-importance, it's you. lol[/color][/b]

Putting Im gay into words is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Not much of a story there
Yogi was right
Bad read.

[Zan]

...if you ask me.

Yeah. No one has.

[StyxCollector]

Look, I'm not gay and have nothing against anyone who is. I've been around gay people. They didn't make me gay. I respect yogi's opinion, and it's his choice not to read more. However, substitute gay for straight. Insert cancer for HIV and AIDS. Would it make it more palatable? I personally think Chuck did a courageous thing by writing the book. It's Chuck's story. Not the Styx story. If someone who is living with HIV or AIDS gets comfort knowing that someone struggling with the horror that it is can keep going, good for him. I don't think Chuck is worried Yogi can't finish the book. Part of the story is also his struggle to admit he was gay in a mostly heterosexual profession. Another big part is his relationship with John. It's sad the way it's told and it ended up.

[Grotelul]

Chucks book arrived at my door two days ago. I have read the first three chapters. Mybe its the homophobe in me, and my 'political correctness' sucks but I just cant read it anymore.

Reading about Chucks feelings as an older boy had to carry him outside for a fire drill, is just too uncomfortable of a read for me. It's hard to explain why, but it is.

He and John started the band that will always be a factor in my life. I will ALWAYS wish him the best in everything BUT..................................................................................................


I just cant read his story anymore.

I can see your point but after reading a few things here and there before actually buying it I knew what to expect. I skipped over much until seeing something interesting. The style of this book is much the same as most who write with a ghost writer. It comes off like someone else telling the story and adding a little here or taking away a little there...always makes for less of a read. Many times I would read a line and it would come off to me as something the person/writer heard or read instead of first hand knowledge. This has much to do with the ghost writer. I wish Chuck would have written this himself. Would it be a similar read? Yeah..most likely. We already have Sterlings book, which in my opinion will probably go down as the Styx book to read as it will be closer to reality than anything these others will ever put out.

[StyxCollector]

To be fair, some of Chuck's stuff about Styx is a tad inaccurate in some places in the book, and doesn't go into detail in others. Sterling's book is about as close to the truth as it gets since it coordinates events through more than one source. I know Sterling was very careful about that - if people wouldn't go on record or he couldn't corroborate stories, as far as I know, it didn't make the book.

I liked Chuck's book - but I wasn't expecting the story of Styx. I expected what I got - Styx was a player, but not the motivator, for the book./

[Zan]

To be fair, some of Chuck's stuff about Styx is a tad inaccurate in some places in the book, and doesn't go into detail in others. Sterling's book is about as close to the truth as it gets since it coordinates events through more than one source. I know Sterling was very careful about that - if people wouldn't go on record or he couldn't corroborate stories, as far as I know, it didn't make the book.

I liked Chuck's book - but I wasn't expecting the story of Styx. I expected what I got - Styx was a player, but not the motivator, for the book./

The difference between the 2 books is that one is, for all intents & purposes, a somewhat sensationalized documentary, and the other is an autobiography about someone's life. When you say one is more based in reality than the other, you are completely missing the point.

[StyxCollector]

The difference between the 2 books is that one is, for all intents & purposes, a sensationalized/tabloidesque documentary, and the other is an autobiography about someone's life. When you say one is more based in reality than the other, you are completely missing the point.

Reality is relative. Chuck's book is 100% his perspective and his reality. I would expect one from DDY, JY, or TS to be similar - they would all have their sense of their own reality. And I'm sure some events would differ slightly. But is one more wrong than the others? (hypothetical question by the way)

Sterling cuts it down the middle and isn't an autbiography and does its best not to shade the story one way or the other (as evidenced by some saying it's either pro-DDY or anti-DDY). Sensationalized to me is more BTM.

Chuck's book has stuff Sterling's never would - like the whole John thing in that detail. I learned a thing or two about the behind the scenes there that I didn't know.

[Zan]

The difference between the 2 books is that one is, for all intents & purposes, a sensationalized/tabloidesque documentary, and the other is an autobiography about someone's life. When you say one is more based in reality than the other, you are completely missing the point.

Reality is relative. Chuck's book is 100% his perspective and his reality. I would expect one from DDY, JY, or TS to be similar - they would all have their sense of their own reality. And I'm sure some events would differ slightly. But is one more wrong than the others? (hypothetical question by the way)

Sterling cuts it down the middle and isn't an autbiography and does its best not to shade the story one way or the other (as evidenced by some saying it's either pro-DDY or anti-DDY). Sensationalized to me is more BTM.

Chuck's book has stuff Sterling's never would - like the whole John thing in that detail. I learned a thing or two about the behind the scenes there that I didn't know.

Like I said, missed the point. Chuck's book was not meant to be compared to Sterling's in any way, as it was about HIS personal life, which happened to only be affected by events that occurred with and about Styx, nothing more. Why does it keep coming back to petty differences in "facts" about the band, and how can you say with certainty that the "facts" weren't slanted by the ones giving the interviews - or, as you put it, merely stating the facts through their own sense of reality? So Chuck may have a few insignificant facts messed up, like inadvertantly saying 1974 when he means 1972, for example. Or not mentioning what caused the hiatus after 1991 - just saying "Styx took a break." Who cares. it was not relevant to the story Chuck is trying to tell. Not remotely. If you're looking for dirt on the band itself, read Sterling's book. If you want insight into Chuck's life, read Chuck's.

I am not slamming Sterling. I appreciate that he made an effort not to paint a picture for one side or the other and to stay objective. I'm just saying that if I'm really interested in finding "truth," I'd look to the source, not "someone who talked to a source," if that makes any sense. Naturally, a book written by Dennis or JY would have different facts in it, and they would definitely be based on their own experiences and points of view, but in the case of THIS book (Chuck's), it is not meant to be a tell-all about the history of Styx. (I realize you know this, yet, we keep discussing why Sterling's is a more "truer" reflection of the band ad nauseum). However, I STILL think that Chuck has insight to things that happened that Sterling never will. Sterling learned his facts by listening. Chuck learned them by living them.

And Yogi, all I can say is that I feel bad for you. I feel bad that merely reading about one guy's discovery of who he is makes you so uncomfortable to the point that you not only had to stop reading but that had to share it with a bunch of people on the Internet in the hopes it will somehow validate some irrational fear you have. I feel bad that as a result, you will miss out on some pretty insightful, moving, and inspiring things in the book. But most of all, I feel bad that even in 2007, just hearing the slightest bit of "difference" sets some people so uneasy that they can't think objectively. I feel bad about this because it only serves to remind Chuck that coming out all those years ago WOULD HAVE caused the repercussions he so feared, and that is the saddest of all.

[StyxCollector]

Like I said, missed the point. Chuck's book was not meant to be compared to Sterling's in any way, as it was about HIS personal life, which happened to only be affected by events that occurred with and about Styx, nothing more.

Er, we're saying the same thing. I've made that point here and in other threads. The focus of Chuck's book isn't Styx, but due to the nature of the beast, they'll inevitably be compared in one way or another.

But what did disappoint me - and yes, you could say so what if you want - is that in the proofing stage someone didn't catch those mistakes. I was fine with the way he handled Styx and the amount of content in the book. I wanted to hear what Chuck had to say, not the Styx story starring Chuck Panozzo. But some of the factual mistakes were easily cleared up IMHO

Also, I think "truth" changes over time even if you're a central player. Memories may fade. Your feelings change (more mellow or more harsh) ... par for the course.

[Zan]

Also, I think "truth" changes over time even if you're a central player. Memories may fade. Your feelings change (more mellow or more harsh) ... par for the course.

Yes they do. Hence why I only put so much faith in the interviewees as well.

[StyxCollector]

Yes they do. Hence why I only put so much faith in the interviewees as well.

Let's also not forget spin. Everyone's got an agenda

[Zan]

Yes they do. Hence why I only put so much faith in the interviewees as well.

Let's also not forget spin. Everyone's got an agenda

And a selective memory.

[yogi]

Zan,

Please dont feel sorry for me. Save your pity for the people that are affected to the causes that are dear to you.

You need to change your name to 'The Enlightened One'.


I am doing just fine.

[stabbim]

You need to change your name to 'The Enlightened One'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defensive

[sega_102]

Hey yogi,

I didn't mean to say you didn't have a right to read or not read the book. I just wasn't in a good mood that night.

The thing I got mad about was the person who said Chuck had no right to write the book. That really made me mad. People can write what they wish. It's a free country.

Sorry, didn't mean to attack you.

[Zan]

I am doing just fine.

Of course. That's why you started this thread, isn't it?

[yogi]

Ms. Enlightened One I started this Assembly Line for the same reason I started others.

The topic was Styx related, and I had an opinion.

I am sorry Fidel that our opinions on the subject clash some.

My kids cant get me to watch Animal Plannet when they are showing snakes. It's uncomfortable for me. They feel soooo sory for me on this subject. Daddy cant watch snakes. Poor Poor dad.

I do remember reading about a law somewhere that states if you go to a movie you MUST sit and watch the entire show. If you leave early you will be labeled depressed and people will shower pity on you. Also, you may never reveal your reason for leaving that movie, espicially with people that share a similar intrest with you.

This law may soon cover written word and books.

[Zan]

Here's how it works, Mr. Phobophobe: You post a topic on the board and people add to it. When the "opinion" posted (which, btw, wasn't exactly an *opinion*, per se, but more of a confession/admission of your inability to process something for reasons you cannot explain to...Chuck in some generalized way [hence the name of the thread]), as if he a) needed to know, b) wanted to know, c) cares, d) would think anything other than, How sad that people are still too uncomfortable in their own skin that my own experience would make them feel so awkward at reading it.) is controversial in nature, people will often post their opinions on the subject, and often, they will be different or contrasting in manner. It's very simple. (I can explain this to you because I am enlightened, as you pointed out - perhaps some of it may rub off on you, but I'm not holding out for a miracle, so relax)

In the case of THIS particular topic, and the manner in which it was brought up, I felt nothing but total awkwardness and pity (you could say it was "cringe-worthy") for you as well as for any gay person who might be struggling with their own feelings that might read your "opinion," not that they should care (but if we've learned anything from history, it's that most people DO care). It's one of those things where it's sometimes better to just not say anything. You know, like saying "Gosh, you give me the creeps! I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND!" Or "I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, but I just can't look at your teeth, they are so disgusting." Maybe the person you're talking to will understand (tho, I can't see how, honestly), but what about the person who merely overhears what you say - the person who also has bad teeth or a less than regular personality? How might it make them feel?

It's not that I think you or anyone shouldn't have an opinion on the matter, it's just that I think most people who are uncomfortable with the subject matter would either not a) buy the book in the first place, or b) at least keep it to themselves or those close to them rather than announcing it to the world IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, inviting - WELCOMING EVEN - opinions like those of Froy to jump in and turn it into a playground of ignorant remarks. There was no good that could have come of it, and *I* think, being the enlightened one that I am, if you would have thought about it for more than a fleeting second, you might have realized that. But maybe I'm wrong.

Ironically, there are some breakthough HIV treatments being done with...snake venom. You did wrap that up nicely, I'll give you that. LOL

-Zanatolah

[stabbim]

My kids cant get me to watch Animal Plannet when they are showing snakes. It's uncomfortable for me.

Oh, c'mon...is nobody gonna take the bait?

[Rockwriter]

To be fair, some of Chuck's stuff about Styx is a tad inaccurate in some places in the book, and doesn't go into detail in others. Sterling's book is about as close to the truth as it gets since it coordinates events through more than one source. I know Sterling was very careful about that - if people wouldn't go on record or he couldn't corroborate stories, as far as I know, it didn't make the book.

I liked Chuck's book - but I wasn't expecting the story of Styx. I expected what I got - Styx was a player, but not the motivator, for the book./

My litmus test was basically, first off, is it relevant to the career and/or music of Styx? Which is why there was very little, almost nothing about people's sex lives, for instance. My other litmus test was, do I have this on the record in multiple sources? In some cases I left out some really cool interesting stuff because I just did not have it on the record in enough multiple sources.

I liked Chuck's book a lot. I knew people would compare them, that's only natural; but I personally view them as complementary, rather than competing, volumes.

Thanks, I hope all is well.


Sterling

[Rockwriter]

To be fair, some of Chuck's stuff about Styx is a tad inaccurate in some places in the book, and doesn't go into detail in others. Sterling's book is about as close to the truth as it gets since it coordinates events through more than one source. I know Sterling was very careful about that - if people wouldn't go on record or he couldn't corroborate stories, as far as I know, it didn't make the book.

I liked Chuck's book - but I wasn't expecting the story of Styx. I expected what I got - Styx was a player, but not the motivator, for the book./

The difference between the 2 books is that one is, for all intents & purposes, a somewhat sensationalized documentary, and the other is an autobiography about someone's life. When you say one is more based in reality than the other, you are completely missing the point.

I agree that comparing the two books is like comparing apples and roast beef sandwiches, LOL. Biographies and autobiographies are two different genres. One third person, one first person. One from multiple points of view, one from a single point of view. Neither is "right" or "wrong". I noted a couple of small factual errors in Chuck's book . . . small things like "Lady" being re-recorded for GH 2, when it was the first Greatest Hits. Derek Sutton's name was spelled as Derrick. Small things. On the other hand, people have pointed out several small things in MY book as well; for instance I spelled the name of DJ Dick Biondi as Dick Beyonde. I spelled Zoetrope Studios as Zootrope. Small things, and EVERY book ever published has them. No big deal. When I was twelve a found a typo in 'The Fellowship of the Ring' by JRR Tolkien and wrote to Ballantine Books about it, LOL. (They changed it, too, though I'm sure I'm not the only person who pointed it out.)

However, I sincerely take exception to characterizing my book as "a somewhat sensationalized documentary". I don't think I sensationalized anything; in fact, I think I avoided an awful lot of juicy sensationalism that would have been valid, in the name of telling a straightforward story. Have you actually READ my book? If you have, and that's your opinion based on actual information, then we will agree to disagree. If not, perhaps you should read it. From what I had on the record, I could have written a much darker and juicier story. I wrote a story about a great band, one that has a history of personal and musical differences, but one that also has a history of rising above the limitations of the people involved to keep on creating great music. I think it's essentially a positive take on the band, in the end.

That said, I still really liked Chuck's book. It's a great story. It's inevitable that people will compare my book and his no matter what, and that's fine by me. Some will like his, some will like mine, some will like both, and some may like neither, and you know what? That's the choice of the paying audience and you live with that when you choose to put your work out for public consumption. So be it.

I hope all is well.



Sterling