|
Post by sunnydey on Apr 3, 2010 20:33:09 GMT -5
That's not the way I see it but you are probably a deeper thinker than me.
|
|
|
Post by crave on Apr 3, 2010 21:55:15 GMT -5
It is sorta all over the place. ANd alot of the book takes place during her (short) time in the band. I do have the original book and there is definitely a different tone to this one.
|
|
|
Post by mickey65 on Apr 4, 2010 7:58:41 GMT -5
For those reading the new book with all the "new" stuff in it....are you under the impression that Cherie may be "embellishing" things in the new one to hype up attention for the movie, or may be coming forward with the "truth" now?
Just from what I've read in this thread, it seems as if she felt different about Lita and Jackie in the first one, and now in the new one, she's taking a different tone.
Just curious...
|
|
|
Post by sunnydey on Apr 4, 2010 9:51:15 GMT -5
I have seen no contradictions so far.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Apr 4, 2010 12:59:58 GMT -5
The first book was classified as a book for young people, and seemed to be written as such. This one has a definite "adult" tone (the "sex education" couldn't be any more graphic, and I read it over specifically looking for Joan's whereabouts during it, but she's the only member not mentioned). Cherie threw a shot or two at Lita in the first edition, but in this version she goes to town. However, Currie has updated how she feels about Jackie in this version. There was no mention of how she would "later regret" pushing for the band to accept Jackie in the original, no mention of the "constant complaining about money". It kind of amazes me that she would be angry about a member that was looking out for their best financial interests. I understand that she was young, but where is the "now I see why Jackie was concerned"? Cherie doesn't seem to be humble enough to admit that Jackie was right (in 2010, anyway...let's check back in a year or two). Anyway, there is a definite difference in comparison to the first version with regard to J. Fox.
|
|
|
Post by crave on Apr 4, 2010 14:58:07 GMT -5
Sandy & Cherie were apparently the only 2 present for the sex ed class...she says afterwards that she didn't even wanna tell the 'others' what happened.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Apr 5, 2010 0:14:37 GMT -5
I noticed that she states "Lita was supposedly driving to the sound check herself, and I supposed that maybe Jackie would be coming up with her". But there's no mention of Joan in the entire chapter. It seems odd that she would account for the whereabouts of the two that she holds in low esteem and make no mention of Joan in that chapter at all. I just wonder if it was by request from Jett.
|
|
|
Post by crave on Apr 5, 2010 6:43:21 GMT -5
Could be. I re-read it just to see once aganif the others were mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Apr 6, 2010 8:45:17 GMT -5
Sounds more like a comedy than a bio. If I do decide to pick up a copy of this it will be for the kitsch factor.
|
|
|
Post by sunnydey on Apr 6, 2010 9:47:30 GMT -5
That's the same reason I like to read Jackie's blogs.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Apr 7, 2010 0:51:20 GMT -5
Oh come on. With all due respect, how are Jackie's writings faddish? Back it up (as we have discussed multiple examples of "kitsch" in this current version, I.E. The author suddenly changing her opinion of group members to suit her current stance on them. "Kitsch" is faddish art or literature. How is Jackie's blog kitsch?
|
|
|
Post by crimsonjett on Apr 7, 2010 1:15:01 GMT -5
Got the book a few weeks back and I really enjoyed, Cherie was extremely candid in places, brutally honest about the pain of watching a family member slowly destroy themselves with an addiction, I could relate and I admired her honesty. The opening chapters dragged a bit I thought but once we met Kim and Joan it picked up, one thing I was surprised about was her "fun times" with Joan were never mentioned. I think the closest thing was a few flirty glances, perhaps their extra-curricular activity was cut out due to a request from Joan. Lita had the best lines and calling her a 'fat ass' was pretty juvenile downright spiteful really and the way Jackie was portrayed alot of poison in those words, how many ways can I say that I hate a person? Yikes, I know there is alot of bad blood between these two but gd***. Also that unbelievably detailed description of Kim Fowley's tutoring 'skills' will be hard to erase, man he's creepy enough with clothes on XD
|
|
|
Post by crave on Apr 7, 2010 6:30:23 GMT -5
She does mention her 'times' with Joan, aklbeit in one paragraph and does not go in to detail.
|
|
|
Post by sunnydey on Apr 7, 2010 9:13:53 GMT -5
Why Barack Obama Reminds Me of Joan Jett? Now that's a kitschy blog.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Apr 7, 2010 11:06:17 GMT -5
HA! LOL! Ok, ok.
|
|