I HOPE CHUCK UNDERSTANDS

[Rockwriter]

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.

Also true, but let me ask you this: If Chuck had not written his book, and instead I had been able to land an interview with him for my book, would he not have said most of the same things? And if he did, and I quoted him in his own words (which is what I did with everyone), would it have been any more or less vaild because of whose name appeared on the cover?

Just a thought.


Sterling

[yogi]

Sterling,

Zan does not need to read your book. Afterall, she is 'The Enlightend One'.

[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.

Also true, but let me ask you this: If Chuck had not written his book, and instead I had been able to land an interview with him for my book, would he not have said most of the same things? And if he did, and I quoted him in his own words (which is what I did with everyone), would it have been any more or less vaild because of whose name appeared on the cover?

Just a thought.

That is a good question, I'll try to answer as best I can. Of course I always take first-hand players at their word a little more seriously than someone who got their information second or third-hand. So if quotes were made directly, I guess they might hold as much water, no matter where they ended up in print. However, I think quotes can be misused, misdirected, or lead in some ways, depending on the slant of the reporter or editor (BTM is a perfect example of this). I'm not saying you did have a slant, I'm not saying you didn't. I'm saying it's always a possibility. There's also the possibility that the writer sometimes has to fill-in-the-blanks in places where there are holes in the plot - make their own conclusions about small details, or the like. I also think that no matter how much someone tries to be 100% unbiased, there are always issues or stories or SOMETHING that will arise which will affect how the writer feels about something or someone. Again, maybe you did, maybe you didn't (I realize you did your best not to & I respect that), but the thing is, I don't know, and neither would anyone. They just have to take it at face value because that's all they have to go by, and everything is subjective.

Now, in the case of Chuck's book, we are dealing with one guy's personal memory, which, by his own admission, wasn't always the clearest. However, I still consider his to be more "factual" in nature merely because he wrote it himself about himself and his experience.

Truthfully, I believe your book has some real gems of pertinent information, and I have no doubt a lot of it was indeed factual. I'm just not sure I can be convinced yours is more "accurate" than Chuck's for 2 reasons: 1. you are not a first-hand player, and 2. The two books are not remotely the same. Savvy?

[Zan]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

[Rockwriter]

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.

Also true, but let me ask you this: If Chuck had not written his book, and instead I had been able to land an interview with him for my book, would he not have said most of the same things? And if he did, and I quoted him in his own words (which is what I did with everyone), would it have been any more or less vaild because of whose name appeared on the cover?

Just a thought.

That is a good question, I'll try to answer as best I can. Of course I always take first-hand players at their word a little more seriously than someone who got their information second or third-hand. So if quotes were made directly, I guess they might hold as much water, no matter where they ended up in print. However, I think quotes can be misused, misdirected, or lead in some ways, depending on the slant of the reporter or editor (BTM is a perfect example of this). I'm not saying you did have a slant, I'm not saying you didn't. I'm saying it's always a possibility. There's also the possibility that the writer sometimes has to fill-in-the-blanks in places where there are holes in the plot - make their own conclusions about small details, or the like. I also think that no matter how much someone tries to be 100% unbiased, there are always issues or stories or SOMETHING that will arise which will affect how the writer feels about something or someone. Again, maybe you did, maybe you didn't (I realize you did your best not to & I respect that), but the thing is, I don't know, and neither would anyone. They just have to take it at face value because that's all they have to go by, and everything is subjective.

Now, in the case of Chuck's book, we are dealing with one guy's personal memory, which, by his own admission, wasn't always the clearest. However, I still consider his to be more "factual" in nature merely because he wrote it himself about himself and his experience.

Truthfully, I believe your book has some real gems of pertinent information, and I have no doubt a lot of it was indeed factual. I'm just not sure I can be convinced yours is more "accurate" than Chuck's for 2 reasons: 1. you are not a first-hand player, and 2. The two books are not remotely the same. Savvy?

That I can respect, yes. And of course, I would never claim to be more factual than Chuck as it regards Chuck's own life. In reading my book you'll see that I touched on Chuck's sexual preference, as well as his HIV positive status, only briefly and in passing. I made that choice for two reasons. The first was, I didn't feel it was any more relevant to the career of Styx, and how the music got written, recorded, packaged and sold, than any of the other band members' sex lives that I also chose not to exploit. The second was, I knew Chuck was working on his book and I knew he would cover that portion of the story better than I ever could. He also covered John's struggles in a way that I could not because he was so up close and in the middle of it.

As far as Styx stuff goes, there ARE a couple of neat little things, just small details, but stuff that I found interesting nonetheless. I think Chuck's story about his approaching Dennis about his concerns about KILROY is hysterical. His early stories about playing weddings and such are also great.

As far as the Wooden Nickel years go, I'm very glad that I got my book out before Chuck, because we chose so many of the same stories to illustrate that period, I know that if I had put mine out after, people would have claimed that I plagiarized him. LOL, our accounts are eeerily similar there in some aspects.

I hope all is well.


Sterling



Thanks.



Sterling

[Rockwriter]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

I read Chuck's book twice in the first 36 hours that I owned it, actually.

As for my reasons for writing MY book yeah, there was more than one reason. One reason is I'm a writer and I am always looking for a story that has either never been told, or never been told properly. It was actually Tommy himself who tipped me off to the fact that there was so much more to the story of Styx that had never been told.

The other primary reason is not so much morbid curiosity, as the fact that at the time I began this, no other book existed. It was an open marketplace for a writer like myself, one devoid of any competition. From a marketing standpoint it made better sense than being the seventeenth guy to write a book about the Doors, you know? I hope that doesn't sound terribly mercenary, but that's what I do for a living and I have to be realistic about it.

That said, the whole thing was still fuelled by a lifelong appreciation for the music of Styx, and it's important to repeat once again . . . I like ALL of the members of Styx that I have ever met and dealt with.

Thanks, I hope all is well.


Sterling

[pinkfloyd1973]

for instance I spelled the name of DJ Dick Biondi as Dick Beyonde

I think I pointed that one out to you lmao



Robin

[Rockwriter]

for instance I spelled the name of DJ Dick Biondi as Dick Beyonde

I think I pointed that one out to you lmao



Robin

Yes you did, LOL. Thanks!


Sterling

[rajah2165]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

This is classic - she rips Sterling's book without having even read the whole thing!!!

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

[stmonkeys]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

This is classic - she rips Sterling's book without having even read the whole thing!!!

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

[Zan]

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

That's because I didn't. lol

But don't let that stop the legacy of Rajah's never ending slew of bullshit.

[rajah2165]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

This is classic - she rips Sterling's book without having even read the whole thing!!!

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

And what do you call "Sensationalized" - pretty negative sounding to me..

But maybe not to Zan's little puppy...

[rajah2165]

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

That's because I didn't. lol

But don't let that stop the legacy of Rajah's never ending slew of bullshit.

The bullshit is stating an opinion about something without having read the material fully....

But not surprising though...

[Zan]

The bullshit is stating an opinion about something without having read the material fully....

But not surprising though...

OK, from "what I have read so far," it seems like...

k?

And Rajah - you are the king of not reading anything fully. All you have to do is see my name at the top of a post before you start looking for buzzwords. lol...You crack me up.

[Zan]

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?

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php

Thought of Yogi immediately!

[stabbim]

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

Yeah, but you also don't think "Blue Collar Man" is a ripoff of "Superstars," so...

[Skates]

Yogi,

After reading ALL of Chuck's book, I cannot believe how small minded you're being. You learn a lot of the man's life, and the siuations he went through growing up in Chicago in a particularly homphobic part of town.

The older boy in school is a small part of the book. The rest is very, very interesting. In some parts, very sad, in others, very funny. The man has a great sense of humour.

Your decision to not finish it due to a small part of the book is not upsettting, it's pitiful.

Sterling, I didn't realize he didn't grant you an interview for your book, I wish he had. I inhaled his much like i inhaled yours.

Rajah, what are your thoughts on the book? From your own personal insight?

From the siamese cat story to our favorite boy scout, it's a good read. I have a different respect for George after this.

Oh and Froy, because I know you're going to comment as well, grow up and read this one. You might just be surprised.

[stmonkeys]

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.

I admit that I have not read all of your book, tho I have read some of it. So I am not an expert on it, no. The reason I called it a somewhat sensationalized documentary (not a piece of tabloid literature) is because even though I know it is meant to tell a straightforward story, I have always felt, even from the beginning that there was more than one reason why you even wanted to write the book - Probably the same reason most of us wanted to read it - morbid curiousity. I do respect that you omitted some of the darker details and tried to stick to the more basic story of the band, I really do.

I WILL read the whole book eventually, I will! But be careful what you ask for, Sterling. I might get REALLY enlightened then!

That said, I am tickled you were able to make it past the first three chapters of Chuck's book.

This is classic - she rips Sterling's book without having even read the whole thing!!!

And the legacy of Zan and her "opinions" continues.

funny... i don't recall Zan "ripping" sterling's book anywhere.

And what do you call "Sensationalized" - pretty negative sounding to me..

But maybe not to Zan's little puppy...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sen·sa·tion·al·ize /sɛnˈseɪʃənlˌaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-sey-shuh-nl-ahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
to make sensational.


[Origin: 1850–55; sensational + -ize]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
sen·sa·tion·al·ize (sěn-sā'shə-nə-līz') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. sen·sa·tion·al·ized, sen·sa·tion·al·iz·ing, sen·sa·tion·al·iz·es
To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details


it all depends on the way you look at it. i didn't see zan "ripping" or trashing the book in any way. most biographies i have read tended to be a bit sensational to begin with, (unless you were motley crue or something.) yes, it probaby would have been better if she had made her comments after reading the whole thing, not basing them on a selected portion of text, but i imagine that NO ONE HERE has ever done THAT before...

wooof

hey zan, can you scratch behind my ear? ::::wagstail:::