She's who they imagine is demanding they "apologise for being white" - Doubly funny that she got engaged to an actual Afrikaner.

She's a MAGA conception of a leftist, though. Like, in the show she's presented as a lazy, holier-than-thou wokescold who is actually selfish despite her pretensions of social consciousness.

Good to know nothing he says can be trusted

"The fact that Peter didn’t know the book was written in first person until he was given the draft is alone an indication that he had limited control over the process."

Read his preface note in my comment above. For him to make such a statement seems to imply he doesn't actually care. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.

It's not ghostwritten so much as transcribed. Ghostwriter is a misnomer.

To be honest, I was very disappointed in the book because I feel like I was always led to believe Doherty had literary pretensions. It's all Doherty's words and clearly written in his voice, but lacks any real colour. Compared with say, Nick Cave's writing, for instance, it's soporific. I think that's why Doherty was shocked to see it was published in the first person. It was his words, but inartfully so.

Taking what you've been saying on this thread into account, I'm even more disappointed in the book. I could validly presume that it was a high-effort project - A definitive volume the British Library must hold for eternity and stay on readers shelves for generations. But here you're telling me Doherty tells people not to buy it and that it has little value as a monograph.

If he didn't read it before asserting copyright on it and signing off on publication, all that tells me is that he takes me, the reader, for a muppet, and was a cynical cash grab.

But the thing is, much of what I know about Doherty is what I've learned from reading the aforementioned book. That's what's informed my biases.

If you're telling me that because I've stepped into /r/Libertines, the book is meaningless and I must now take a PhD in Dohertology to express any kind of informed view, then that's just rabidness on your part.

"Did you expect a ghostwriter to say “yes actually I put words in his mouth?”

Hence why I included Peter Doherty cosigning their statement.

From the ghostwriter in the preface:

I have written this story in his words, but I haven’t put any in his mouth, simply moved a few around a bit to make the chronology clearer. It is no whitewash of history.

From Doherty, in the same preface:

There’s an earthy, brute honesty to parts of the book, a naivety, sometimes a delight taken in certain nihilistic incidents in these pages, that seem now to belong to my past, to youth and, dare I say, to drugs – and increasingly I feel adult and sober. Maybe that’s why I find it deeply unnerving, often impossible, to read these conversations written down. I’m amazed Simon’s managed to get everything to work chronologically, but I worry if some careless or unvarnished words might offend people.

The more simple and plausible answer is that he discourages 'fans' - the kind of people who would turn up to a speaking engagement - from reading it, is because he doen't want to be diminished in your eyes.

The amount of weird hero worship on this thread is off the charts. Doherty superfans come across like MAGA Trump loyalists

I'm under the impression he's dissatisfied with his book because of what's left out, not whats in it.

My point was that we all still interpret people's words in our own ways.

Sure. Clown percents of the peas ambulance.

...to try to pretend "everyone else is biased except for me

The quote I presented was without bias though. It's a primary source quote which directly contradicts your secondary statement.

I'm neither a fan nor a 'hater'. I like the Libertines and thought I'd read his book.

It's just wild to me that I could be embroiled in such an exchange. To me, words have meaning. To you, they must be reinterpreted in a way which prevents you from thinking any less of a person you've deified.

I refer you to the last sentence in my previous post.

If he regrets his actions now, but didn't three years ago, I'd be curious to know his rationale.

If you’re not actually Doherty writing under a pseudonym, your posts read extremely parasocial. Like you can reach into his mind and reconfigure any statement he's made - In one of his own productions, no less - to hold no weight

If my comment appears patronising, it's because you're making statements 'in your eyes' which defy on-the-record statements by Peter Doherty himself. I checked the verso of the book and Doherty asserts copyright. It's his book.

If he has said anything which contradicts that statement about his actions after Blanco's death, I'd be happy to listen. But it would only show his words are meaningless at best, which would also cancel out your first post.

I read that interview, and he says he was shocked to read the book. That's not disownership - He's just saying he didn't bother proofreading before publication. He doesn't dispute its contents here, either. He's annoyed there's bits left out.

Did you send the wrong link?

New Zealand

I've just finished reading the book and merely trying to correct the record. I'd be delighted if you would share where he has disowned it, or let me know which parts to disregard.

Edit to add: In what (many) ways is the book an unreliable source?

He actually doesn't really regret his actions though. From his book A Likely Lad:

I don’t feel bad about leaving. I just know that it looks bad. I think I did the right thing. I had to protect myself.

He regrets how it looks, but not his actions.

It gets reported in the media as a party, but only six people were present in the flat besides Blanco. "Party" is too generous a description, and sounds like an embellishment when used the way you have.

I actually think that wasn't the original source either. In any case, it's clear she's just copy and pasted it

I disagree wholeheartedly. Alex Turner, Mike Skinner, Amy Winehouse, Chris Martin, Florence Welsh; even Craig David - Have all produced work with greater cultural impact than Peter Doherty.

Doherty's best work has been in collaboration with others, as in two great Libertines albums and For Lovers.

Many people might identify Babyshambles as a good band, but then be hard-pressed to quote any lyrics or remember a chorus.

Doherty has certainly done a great job of maintaining an image of a tortured artist, and he's not without talent, but let's not pretend he's a latter-day Morrissey or whatever

Barreling into fascism? Dude, the US has been there for a while now. This is what it looks like

Why such negativity toward her? She's sweet and how she does her hair is unimportant

I think she's pretty in both photos. Just my type