Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board)

[urbanite]

A short review.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/mike-love/good-vibrations/

[tpesky]

There is never justification. 

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some. 

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands. 

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.   

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.   

Okay, I didn't see any "death threats" to Mike in this thread, nor have I ever seen one on SS.  Did I miss something?  People are being asked to comment on a book they haven't seen, by the same person who offered the thread topic "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?"  Remember that?  I remember it well, and the resulting "article".  That topic was a bit like the, "when did you stop beating your wife" question.  It's a set-up. Don't go for it.

I haven't asked anyone's opinion on a book they haven't read. I've read it. I really enjoyed it.

I also really enjoyed writing my article about Mike for Record Collector. Not everyone dug it. It's cool. Your use of quotations implies you don't consider it to be a real article. Ok. That's cool. But really, you need to calm down.

I've finished the book and it's flawed. It's obviously got a few stories some people will have heard before. But. Al not being a Beach Boy, Carl telling Mr T to be quiet, why Mike wears hats, loads of stuff I didn't know.

I enjoyed it.

I didn't know it was a mystery why Mike wore hats...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

That is correct.

[Lee Marshall]

Urbanite...Of course "candid" in no way, shape, or form is a substitute for the word honest.  They're not even distant cousins.  [kind of like law and justice aren't related]  I'm sure that the Back in the USSR myth survives because Paul has too much class to AGAIN try to set the record straight.

Oh...and I didn't meditate today...so anything negative I have to say about California's Mr. Negativity is 100% permissible and forgivable.  As a matter of fact I never mediate...so anything I've EVER said about this bald-headed pile of fly attractant is totally cool...groovy in fact.  Completely acceptable.

So there will be NO attempt at soothing ruffled feathers or forgiving trespasses in this booklette eh?  That seems to say there will be NO attempt to deal with truths, realities or any of the multitude of errors in judgement made by the so-called author of this apparent journey through the old and oft trod cow field.  Dead people will be targeted for offenses which never happened?  THEY can't sue.  Untruths retold will be included in the hope that to repeat crap X number of times finally makes it so?  The ever present and often highlighted and underlined resentment for being able to continue living the good life in spite of never having recorded anything successful and substantive from a SOLO perspective will continue to make sense to who?

Back when some of his claims might have carried a degree of truth to them there MIGHT have been some short term reasons for being "bitter".  30 some-odd years later...it is suggested that this old pile of disloyal bones is worth something in the vicinity of 50 million greenbacks.  Does anyone in their right mind believe that he accumulated all of that completely and totally due to his unique talents?

I sure as crap don't.  No Mike...I won't be giving you ANY money for your fantasy book and your fictional account of how you ended up living in the lap of luxury with nothing but sour resentment and a world full of people who KNOW that you're nothing but a dick.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm with you 100% Lee.

[guitarfool2002]

As others have been saying and the reviews are starting to appear, advance copies of Mike's book have gone out. I happened to be able to check one out. Without doing any spoilers or copying direct passages, or without doing a review, something did stand out and it runs through chapters of the book sometimes pretty obviously.

All I can say is, some of the defenses of various claims in the book might sound very familiar to readers of this board. I'd almost go as far as to say if you've kept up regularly with this forum, and the various topics and arguments around certain issues, you'll feel like you've read or heard it before.

Some posters here either had their fingers on the pulse of these things, enough to make some of the same points and offer the same explanations as you'll read in the book, or they just happened to be hitting on the same narrative.

As someone who has been reading this stuff for several decades, I recognized some of the original sources from which certain passages and background may have been used. Especially in the Smile chapter, certain descriptive words and phrases read like those in sources I've read and am familiar with. Some are too specifically worded not to notice.

But it was the similarity to quite a few posts made here on the Smiley forum (and the posters who made them) that really stood out. There are points, arguments, and even what you might call defenses that I recognized from discussions and debates here on the board. In some cases, some recently, I remember reading a poster's points (and defenses) and thinking that's odd, in all the years prior I don't remember that being raised as a point of defending or arguing for or against some aspect of Smile, or whatever else was the topic. Then those points also appear in Mike's book?

I remember them because I was involved in some of those debates directly as they played out here. And I remember who it was that was debating, and it sounded familiar on the pages of this book.

Apart from that, there was an odd method to offering some of the defenses. Instead of "setting the record straight", there were sometimes quotes from other band members and others involved with various aspects of the band inserted in order to bolster or back up whatever that chapter's narrative was suggesting. And some of them seemed taken perhaps too easily out of a larger context, but that's just my opinion.

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

Yup, to the point where some of these posters were pretty much plagarized...


okay, maybe 'plagarized' was a bit harsh, but in some cases is so close as to give pause for thought

edit

key word is , 'pretty much'

[Cam Mott]

Do you mean someone has had it right along or someone is a spy?

[Pretty Funky]

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

Yup, to the point where some of these posters were pretty much plagarized...

So there is concern that posters comments made ONLY on this message board have been lifted and put in Mikes book? Holy crap!

[Rocky Raccoon]

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

Yup, to the point where some of these posters were pretty much plagarized...

So there is concern that posters comments made ONLY on this message board have been lifted and put in Mikes book? Holy crap!

Sounds like Mike's co-author may have pulled a Todd Gold.

[Pretty Funky]

Could some of these said posts be by a now discredited former member of this board with a lifetime ban?

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Could some of these said posts be by a now discredited former member of this board with a lifetime ban?

Golly, gee, I hope so.

[Jim V.]

I assume this is about Andrew Doe. If so, I think we should come out and say it. If this is indeed true, is it surprising? Andrew himself said that he has been helping out Mike with his book (as a fact checker if I recall). However, if someone's saying his book reads a lot like filledplage's or Cam's posts, well then that got a bit more interesting.

Though I don't think anybody would wanna take literary advice from the filledaplague, with the "overuse" of those "certain" quotation "marks" if you will. But hey, I'd just like an answer for how a supposed school teacher gets front row tickets to every Beach Boys show on the east coast.

[18thofMay]

I assume this is about Andrew Doe. If so, I think we should come out and say it. If this is indeed true, is it surprising? Andrew himself said that he has been helping out Mike with his book (as a fact checker if I recall). However, if someone's saying his book reads a lot like filledplage's or Cam's posts, well then that got a bit more interesting.

Though I don't think anybody would wanna take literary advice from the filledaplague, with the "overuse" of those "certain" quotation "marks" if you will. But hey, I'd just like an answer for how a supposed school teacher gets front row tickets to every Beach Boys show on the east coast.

Just really, really unlucky?

[guitarfool2002]

I assume this is about Andrew Doe. If so, I think we should come out and say it. If this is indeed true, is it surprising? Andrew himself said that he has been helping out Mike with his book (as a fact checker if I recall). However, if someone's saying his book reads a lot like filledplage's or Cam's posts, well then that got a bit more interesting.

Though I don't think anybody would wanna take literary advice from the filledaplague, with the "overuse" of those "certain" quotation "marks" if you will. But hey, I'd just like an answer for how a supposed school teacher gets front row tickets to every Beach Boys show on the east coast.

There were points made in the book that reminded me of Cam Mott's and filledeplage's posts.

There was something about C50 and email that Andrew had made mention of on this board, too. And there were other points brought up that will be familiar to readers and followers of this board, points that had been made in various debates coming from some other posters who I (or we) could name, and they were familiar because I remember debating them with people here.

But if I did notice some things specifically, and perhaps this is just my reading of it, it was indeed that some passages sounded like the same debating points Cam Mott and filledeplage to name two had posted here in the past. Mike in this book seemed to be using the same points to defend his positions as the narrator of his autobiography as had been done here to defend Mike's position as fans posting to a fan message board.

[STE]

Well ok, I admit it:  I am, in fact, Mike Love.



Phew, time for me to medidate.

[HeroesandVillains]

Wait so the book sucks?

[Cam Mott]

Craig (and Billie?), I'm not clear on what is going on here. Are you accusing me of something?

[MrRobinsonsFather]

Craig (and Billie?), I'm not clear on what is going on here. Are you accusing me of something?

I haven't read the book and don't know of the specific topics guitarfool is talking about but I don't think he is accusing you of anything. All that's being said is Mike's book has some very similar opinions as certain things that some posters have said. Maybe Mike read some of these things and agreed with these opinions and maybe it's just a coincidence.

[SMiLE Brian]

Something is rotten in kokomo.....

[Ang Jones]

Craig (and Billie?), I'm not clear on what is going on here. Are you accusing me of something?

I haven't read the book and don't know of the specific topics guitarfool is talking about but I don't think he is accusing you of anything. All that's being said is Mike's book has some very similar opinions as certain things that that some posters have said. Maybe Mike read some of these things and agreed with these opinions and maybe it's just a coincidence.

I wonder what Mike would do if someone used some of his words without giving credit. Can't imagine!

[Lee Marshall]

Well ok, I admit it:  I am, in fact, Mike Love.

Wouldn't your board name, then, have been STD? 

[Theydon Bois]

Wait, if this means that Mike's book is going to have a multi-page digression about how discussing a topic is not the same as talking about it, then I think I'm out.

Mods, any chance of an official ruling with regard to posting quotes from this book?  (I'm talking about fair use of short passages in the context of commentary, rather than copy-and-pasting complete chapters or anything like that.)

[Marty Castillo]

I assume this is about Andrew Doe. If so, I think we should come out and say it. If this is indeed true, is it surprising? Andrew himself said that he has been helping out Mike with his book (as a fact checker if I recall). However, if someone's saying his book reads a lot like filledplage's or Cam's posts, well then that got a bit more interesting.

Though I don't think anybody would wanna take literary advice from the filledaplague, with the "overuse" of those "certain" quotation "marks" if you will. But hey, I'd just like an answer for how a supposed school teacher gets front row tickets to every Beach Boys show on the east coast.

There were points made in the book that reminded me of Cam Mott's and filledeplage's posts.

There was something about C50 and email that Andrew had made mention of on this board, too. And there were other points brought up that will be familiar to readers and followers of this board, points that had been made in various debates coming from some other posters who I (or we) could name, and they were familiar because I remember debating them with people here.

But if I did notice some things specifically, and perhaps this is just my reading of it, it was indeed that some passages sounded like the same debating points Cam Mott and filledeplage to name two had posted here in the past. Mike in this book seemed to be using the same points to defend his positions as the narrator of his autobiography as had been done here to defend Mike's position as fans posting to a fan message board.

Craig, what exactly are you getting at here? Mike taking liberties with posts/arguments made on the board? Members being fed talking points from Mike? How about some side-by-side examples?

[clack]

What's the point of bringing this up, if you're just going to talk around the topic? Is there something stopping you from saying what you mean, directly?