OK, I'm a "normie." Carr's story leaves me flat.

I've never been shot, either, and James Brady's story is inspirational to me.

Go figure.

From the position of a recovering alcoholic/addict this story is completely credible. When my girlfriend was in a difficult delivery with my only child in 1983 my only true concern deep down in my heart and soul was furious resentment that the 12 hour ordeal kept me away from my precious drugs and alcohol. I was loaded as soon as I could escape the hospital. I don't live that way any more. But I am just one drink away from going right back into that Hell.

I read the excerpt published in the NYT recently, and I read this interview. I haven't read the book, so I can only speak to what I gleaned from the above.

My problem with Carr's work is that it would appear I have nothing to learn from it. Yes, I suppose it's impressive that he so rigorously tracked down the many people and documents from his past and pieced together a version of his life (and former self) far different from the one he remembers. But I already know that human recollection is flawed, partial, and endlessly self-deluding. This is not news to me. I know that addicts do all kinds of astoundingly shitty and manipulative things. This is not news to me. Addicts can get bizarrely paranoid and disconnected from reality. Not news. Men often wreak violence on others, and parents often neglect their kids. Not news.

I also know that it is not at all unheard of for addicts to "age out" and find some form of recovery. They can and do fight back to the surface and back into the world of responsibility, family ties, integrity, self-discipline, and success. Really, not news.

Carr's story isn't newsworthy because, as far as I can tell from what I have read, he offers no insights into his motivations, his inner life, the causes and effects. I find myself with no better understanding of the forces that drive a person down to the bottom and back up again than I had before I had ever heard of David Carr. It seems as if Carr is simply reporting the facts: I did this, I did that. I don't have any real idea of how he feels about what he did, or what he really learned from it, or -- most importantly -- WHY he was how he was. He appears incapable of any real introspection, or any real insights into himself. Because I don't know him from Adam, I'm really not terribly interested in all the sordid little details of exactly what he did and exactly how he was perceived by others. I feel ripped off because he seems to offer the reader nothing further than mere reportage.

Plus, I think that even the simple reportage aspect of his story is woefully incomplete if indeed he doesn't include any viewpoints from his kids. He claims he wants to protect them, but I don't buy it. If he truly wanted to protect his kids, he never would have written this book at all.

Maybe the book contains what I missed in the excerpts and interview. Otherwise, I have zero interest in reading it.

Those who do not know the horrors of addiction first hand are called "normies" in recovery circles, as they have not experienced the guilt, shame, and complexities of addiction and rarely, if ever, understand the complexities.

But all you have to do is walk into an AA meeting to have a room full of people who get it. Which is exactly what I did at noon after I had read this interview. I talked about the vagaries of memory buried under layers of denial, drugs, alcohol, and time. Like Carr, I wondered aloud what I had done I cannot recall, and will never know. I described the methodology he used, the issues he identified, and my own lingering regrets.

I shall never know the truth about myself and what I did. I know much of the story, and have made amends wherever possible to those I harmed. Yet I am haunted by a lack of knowledge, by a fear that I was even more of a screaming asshole than I know, that I might have committed crimes and harmed others I cannot remember.

I've been to a lot of meetings in my time, but rarely have I experienced the rush of people seeking information I had today. Everybody wanted the name of the book and the author. Everyone resonated with his dilemma, and respected the courage and integrity it took to take such a rigorously honest examination of his history.

If you don't get that, you're a normie. But if you're a drunk like me and the people I spoke to this afternoon, you understand the tortures of the soul at a level normies never will. Count your blessings.

Sold a bunch of books today, and proud to do so....

and Christ was he ever a creep in the day. It comes right through the yellowed photos: Sociopathic creep. Also, he was surprisingly lardy for a junkie. He looks cruel and conniving, with a huge mound of vanity where his soul should be. Insufferable.

He seems an engaging enough fellow now.

Thanks also for the reminder that I am privileged. I have been submitting resumes online and making phone calls between peeks at Salon because I need a job, but I AM privileged because my husband still has a job, with insurance, we still have relatively good health, and we have family that would keep us off the streets if necessary. In my part of town that is almost like being a Rockefeller.

I'm not sure if I am as critical of Carr as you are, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said in my last post, I would certainly like to read the stories of the "unconnected" and many of them do not have any writing talent, so I agree with your point that a journalist might want to use his talent to give a voice to those who don't have one. (Remember the oral histories about working and the Great Depression that were compiled by Studs Turkel? I still have the copies of them I bought years ago, and read them from time to time.) I'm glad to say that our local paper still has outstanding feature stories that focus on one local family or person battling unemployment, flooding, drought, medical problems, the public schools, you name it, and give them ample space to tell their stories. I think that if the print media is to survive, they need to take page, so to speak, from papers other than the NYT.

Keep in mind that Carr seems to have given many of his former friends the opportunity to tell their side of the story, even if it has to include him. I also don't mind his reminders of his luck and privilege. It shouldn't stand out that much, but considering that we have been under the thumb of a bunch of crooks who lecture self-sufficiency when they have been rescued and coddled by their families their entire lives (yeah, I'm looking at you Bush) it does.

What's kinda funny is that I read Carr's piece in the Times and I'm sure it might be somewhat relevatory to people who have no experience with the drug world, but since I have unfortunately been to many more funerals than weddings and baby showers, thanks to ODs, it did not reveal much to me, except that some people lived to tell the tale.

I'm glad that someone mentioned "The Liar's Club" by Mary Karr because it is one of my favorite memoirs and handles the line between truth and fiction very well. I just found a copy of her second memoir and am almost finished reading it.