![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ruuger posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
freddiemercuryfansHas anyone else read this book yet? I got it for Christmas and I'm not quite sure what I thought about it.
The biographical stuff was mostly second hand sources (only people really close to Freddie that the authors had actually interviewed themselves were Peter Straker and Jim Beach) so there wasn't much new there. The main premise of the book - putting Freddie's life into the context of the gay scene of the 60-80's and the rise of AIDS - was quite interesting, and it sometimes felt like the actual biographical parts were just padding.
My main problem was that there seemed to be a lot of speculation. There was a list of sources in the back, linked to the text with footnotes, but other times there would be long sections without any linked sources that were given just as much weight as interview quotes. Sometimes these parts would even contradict things that were sourced. For example, the writers clearly had their own theory on when Freddie contracted HIV and how long he knew about it, and ignored all the evidence contrary while latching on to the ones that supported their theory. The writers were also *really* obsessed with trying to connect Freddie with Gaetan Dugas (the much-maligned "Patient Zero" of AIDS).
I also got the feeling that the book had been rushed so that it could be published in time for the anniversary of Freddie's death. There was a lot of repetition, and several parts of the book could have used heavy editing.]
The biographical stuff was mostly second hand sources (only people really close to Freddie that the authors had actually interviewed themselves were Peter Straker and Jim Beach) so there wasn't much new there. The main premise of the book - putting Freddie's life into the context of the gay scene of the 60-80's and the rise of AIDS - was quite interesting, and it sometimes felt like the actual biographical parts were just padding.
My main problem was that there seemed to be a lot of speculation. There was a list of sources in the back, linked to the text with footnotes, but other times there would be long sections without any linked sources that were given just as much weight as interview quotes. Sometimes these parts would even contradict things that were sourced. For example, the writers clearly had their own theory on when Freddie contracted HIV and how long he knew about it, and ignored all the evidence contrary while latching on to the ones that supported their theory. The writers were also *really* obsessed with trying to connect Freddie with Gaetan Dugas (the much-maligned "Patient Zero" of AIDS).
I also got the feeling that the book had been rushed so that it could be published in time for the anniversary of Freddie's death. There was a lot of repetition, and several parts of the book could have used heavy editing.]
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 05:50 pm (UTC)And I must admit that the last few chapters did make me cry.
I'd love to hear what you think of the book when you read it because like I said, I'm not quite sure if I liked it or not.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 07:13 am (UTC)Anyway, without going into my politics of AIDS rant right now, I am interested because many years ago I wrote a paper about Freddie as an AIDS artist. (Realizing he may have rejected that label for himself, he nevertheless fits the bill.)
I will post when I get a chance to read it :)
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 08:51 pm (UTC)As to Freddie, we know from what his doctors have said about their need to contact him with the test results, that he probably became positive in around 1987. Why try to make an issue of the date?
To be honest, any book that isn't official is something to be wary of. Especially with somebody like Freddie, who was a: very private, so there are less known details, and b: is a favourite subject for speculation and nasty rumour.
Thanks for the review!
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 07:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 08:09 am (UTC)There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about AIDS. I try to keep up to date on research, but it's not always easy.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 05:47 pm (UTC)Yeah, the timing of the book couldn't have been at a worse time because of all the news coverade about Patient Zero theory being debunked right before it was published. I wonder if the book would have a different approach if it was written now - because seriously there were sections of the book that were just Six Degrees of Gaetan Dugas to try to create a direct line from him to Freddie...
(that said, this book was far more respectful of Dugas than many other things that I've read)
Why try to make an issue of the date?
The writers' theory was that Freddie had become positive already in the early 80's, and that the first test that he had in 1985 was already positive - and that Freddie was just either in denial or lying about the result until 1987... That, I thought, was the low point of the book.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-05 08:15 am (UTC)Did he take some silly risks in the early eighties, and behave in a reckless fashion? Yes, though that was his choice, and appears to have been an informed one. But he wasn't infected then. The fact that it seems to have happened later, after he had made the decision to live more sensibly, only makes it all the more sad (and ought to make for a better tale in a book, really, but what do I know!)
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 10:36 pm (UTC)Freddie was a rock legend who was a very private person, I feel sure he would not approve of this book.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 05:50 pm (UTC)(I completely forgot to mention in my review one of the most egregious things, which was that the book actually listed Daily Mail as one of their sources! Daily Mail!)
no subject
Date: 2017-01-04 10:06 pm (UTC)