Missing the forest?

tomciav · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:47 pm

From the NYT's March 25 article on pulp novelist Donald Goines:"While enlisted [in the Air Force] Goines developed a heroin habit that plagued him until he died. For nearly 15 years after leaving the military, he pimped, robbed and gambled to support his addiction, spending several years in and out of prison." [snip]"Driven by a need to support his drug habit, Goines wrote at a feverish pace, sometimes finishing books in less than [a] month, [Bentley Morriss, chief executive of Holloway House, which publishes Goines] said. His novels at times have the hurried feel of a first draft. 'He was a junkie, but you'd never know it,' said Mr. Morriss, who remembered Goines as introspective and low-key, standing just over 5 foot 6. 'His eyes were always sharp, and he always wore long sleeves.'"
***My knowlege of herion is limited, but if TV and film paint an accurate picture, addicts will inject just about anywhere on their bodies, and the arms are the first place they try. So anyone looking to hide his habit would cover this part of his body, no?Morriss is either utterly unobservant or trying to paint his popular author in a positive light. Granted, it's difficult to do the latter; the article is full of evidence attesting to that. Is Morriss' statement a PR move? And if so, why is the Times helping out by publishing this quote?***

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:56 pm

I was left wondering where he spent the years that he was not in or out of prison.

Bolder1 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:38 am

I think you misunderstood the quote. It follows logically from the editor saying, "He was a junkie but you'd never know it."Thus, because he wore long sleeves, you couldn't see the track marks. There's no "cover-up here"...except by Goines himself.
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tom:
From the NYT's March 25 article on pulp novelist Donald Goines:"While enlisted [in the Air Force] Goines developed a heroin habit that plagued him until he died. For nearly 15 years after leaving the military, he pimped, robbed and gambled to support his addiction, spending several years in and out of prison." [snip]"Driven by a need to support his drug habit, Goines wrote at a feverish pace, sometimes finishing books in less than [a] month, [Bentley Morriss, chief executive of Holloway House, which publishes Goines] said. His novels at times have the hurried feel of a first draft. 'He was a junkie, but you'd never know it,' said Mr. Morriss, who remembered Goines as introspective and low-key, standing just over 5 foot 6. 'His eyes were always sharp, and he always wore long sleeves.'"
***My knowlege of herion is limited, but if TV and film paint an accurate picture, addicts will inject just about anywhere on their bodies, and the arms are the first place they try. So anyone looking to hide his habit would cover this part of his body, no?Morriss is either utterly unobservant or trying to paint his popular author in a positive light. Granted, it's difficult to do the latter; the article is full of evidence attesting to that. Is Morriss' statement a PR move? And if so, why is the Times helping out by publishing this quote?***<hr></blockquote>

tomciav · **Posted:** Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:41 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bolder1:
I think you misunderstood the quote. It follows logically from the editor saying, "He was a junkie but you'd never know it."Thus, because he wore long sleeves, you couldn't see the track marks. There's no "cover-up here"...except by Goines himself.
<hr></blockquote>***A good point about Goines's intentions. But the logic of the quote's second part hangs on the strength of first part. You'd never know Goines was an addict? Sure, if you knew nothing (or choose to notice nothing) other than his choice of clothing. Morriss' observations aren't a litmus test for addiction, but that's what he's offering up. He has books to sell. This is spin at best, an outright lie at worst.***

Bolder1 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:00 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tom:
***A good point about Goines's intentions. But the logic of the quote's second part hangs on the strength of first part. You'd never know Goines was an addict? Sure, if you knew nothing (or choose to notice nothing) other than his choice of clothing. Morriss' observations aren't a litmus test for addiction, but that's what he's offering up. He has books to sell. This is spin at best, an outright lie at worst.***<hr></blockquote>I have no idea what you're talking about. "You" refers to anyone who saw Goines on the street. Obviously, friends knew better, and that is what Morriss is saying. Nothing more, nothing less. And I think the movie is what will sell the books. I can't imagine any serious reader would or would not buy a book based on the author's personal life. At least I wouldn't.Sorry if I seem a bit testy. I just finished Howell Raines's unbelievable article. He's not writing about reality as I know it at The Times. He appears to have absolutely no grasp of organizational dynamics. Interestingly, to me, he came across as shy rather than blustering.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:30 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bolder1:
I just finished Howell Raines's unbelievable article. He's not writing about reality as I know it at The Times. He appears to have absolutely no grasp of organizational dynamics. <hr></blockquote>You might have something to contribute to the "A personal attack" thread.

Testy Copy Editors

Missing the forest?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links