70 replies to this topic

[melnyk]

and in addition to the aforesaid...

[dykehaze]

Seems like the only rational thing to do at this point is find this woman and burn her at the stake.

[Winehouse8327]

There always was a lot of buzz around her name.
She definitely does know how to ignore the buzz, do you remember?

I don't quite agree. I think Amy pretended to ignore it. I mean, who takes as many drugs without wanting to forget what he lives? Even though it probably dates back to the oldest problems, there's a part of the ''buzz'', as you say, that was surely disturbing her.
I take an example here. In the book of Mitch. At one time after the release of Back To Black, Amy refused outright to leave home to avoid being followed by paparazzi. It's human. It's completely impossible, if we have a heart and a head, to completely ignore such harassment.

[mrmagic]

Hello again. First of all what comes across from most of you is that you loved Amy, regarded her almost as a sister and feel protective over her. It's almost as though you are defending her honour, which I can understand. However, Uno, in response to your question, yes I have seen track marks on Amy. As I don't catalogue images of her drug abuse, I don't have one to hand that I could link to, but yes I have seen it. I agree though that it was very unusual to see such pictures: mainly because, as the author was told, she used heavy-duty makeup to conceal the marks and also injected in places that couldn't easily be seen. Although there has been evidence that she injected, even if there hadn't been, we knew that she was taking heroin, so does the way she took it make any difference?
I can think even off the top of my head of more than one occasion when Amy didn't come to collect her award personally and it ended up lost- the most famous example obv being the Mark Ronson episode. There have been others though.
Then there's the bottle of vodka - are you saying that she only went to a rehab clinic once and only drank on the way there in the video you've posted? I seem to recall that combination happened several times?

---------- Post added at 03:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 AM ----------

In the same vein, if the author does not endorse the comments made by Alex Foden, then why put them in print? If she herself has not enough faith in the interview to stand behind what was said, comments she was willing to put her name next to, why should any fan or reader have faith in what was printed in this book?


And not to nitpick simple facts, but since it was brought up, isn't it stated in the book that DMX is a rap group? A simple inaccuracy that can be researched and corrected using nothing more than a Google search...yet, there it is, in print. Unless Earl Simmons has some kind of undiagnosed multiple personality disorder, I'm sure he'd be surprised to hear that he is a rap group. So, per your own line of questioning, how can we trust this book?

She quoted Alex Foden because she was presenting his side of the story - it doesn't mean she agreed with it. I think most people were sceptical of Alex's motives and his influence in her life, but a biography is meant to be unbiased and impartial, presenting several different sides of the story in cases where the truth is unknown and leaving people to come to their own conclusions.

---------- Post added at 03:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------

You seem very defensive, the reviews will ultimately speak for themselves.

I am defensive because I have known the author for years and she's one of my closest friends. You are definitely entitled to your opinion but the problem is when you're saying things about the book that aren't true. As you've obviously read it and have picked up on many other things about it, I don't understand why you would say there's only one interview when there are 25+. According to the review in Star mag this week, it was credible because of those interviews with people close to Amy so I was surprised that as you read the book you didn't notice these.

---------- Post added at 03:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 AM ----------

fuck psychology and the book tbh

that's profound...

---------- Post added at 03:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 AM ----------

this book to me does everything but support psychology at its finest, no wonder people hate shrinks and the idea of them

So it's a bad thing to raise awareness of how common it is for young children to commit suicide and to try and look at the reasons why? Some people don't like shrinks, true, but that's usually when they tell people things they don't want to hear - home truths that they are in denial about. I've been to shrinks in the past.. not ashamed at all to say that. It's painful at times to have to confront certain things but they're usually right in what they say.

---------- Post added at 03:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 AM ----------

Seems like the only rational thing to do at this point is find this woman and burn her at the stake.

LOL! I will tell her you said that - she will be v amused!

[amylove]

According to the review in Star mag this week, it was credible because of those interviews with people close to Amy so I was surprised that as you read the book you didn't notice these.

Isn't Star a tabloid?

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

So it's a bad thing to raise awareness of how common it is for young children to commit suicide and to try and look at the reasons why? Some people don't like shrinks, true, but that's usually when they tell people things they don't want to hear - home truths that they are in denial about. I've been to shrinks in the past.. not ashamed at all to say that. It's painful at times to have to confront certain things but they're usually right in what they say.

When you exploit an individual to do so, yes.
Psych is theories, you can take what you want from it but no psychologist has the "right answer" to your problems, they only help you self-reflect which hopefully enables you to improve yourself... just my opinion though.

She also wanted to distance herself from the sensationalist spin given to the book by the tabloids.

Yet, it seems like tabloid recognition isn't such a bad thing: "A recent book on Jessie J was packed with exclusives, made the front page of The Sun, provoked a media storm on almost 300 news websites, and sold out online within 24 hours of its release."

"If Amy Winehouse was a car, and life was a highway, her biggest mistake was never applying the brakes."

Nothing profound about that.

Edited by allisost, 17 May 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[LRock10288]

Isn't Star a tabloid?

a wretched one at that, haha.

[Elsie]

Hello again. First of all what comes across from most of you is that you loved Amy, regarded her almost as a sister and feel protective over her. It's almost as though you are defending her honour, which I can understand. However, Uno, in response to your question, yes I have seen track marks on Amy. As I don't catalogue images of her drug abuse, I don't have one to hand that I could link to, but yes I have seen it. I agree though that it was very unusual to see such pictures: mainly because, as the author was told, she used heavy-duty makeup to conceal the marks and also injected in places that couldn't easily be seen. Although there has been evidence that she injected, even if there hadn't been, we knew that she was taking heroin, so does the way she took it make any difference?
I can think even off the top of my head of more than one occasion when Amy didn't come to collect her award personally and it ended up lost- the most famous example obv being the Mark Ronson episode. There have been others though.
Then there's the bottle of vodka - are you saying that she only went to a rehab clinic once and only drank on the way there in the video you've posted? I seem to recall that combination happened several times?

Okay honestly everything you say happened really doesn't sound convincing if it's only something you vaguely remember. Some facts would be nice, otherwise it just sounds sensationalistic. And that's not the kind of things fans would support.

[Cecilia]

we knew that she was taking heroin, so does the way she took it make any difference?

No it doesn't to me. I don't give a shit how she took her drugs, I don't even care what drugs she took. She was an addict and that's what killed her and it's terrible. The point is that conjecture shouldn't be presented as fact, even if it's over something that's trivial, because it puts into question the validity of other "facts" in the book that do matter.

[melnyk]

No it doesn't to me. I don't give a shit how she took her drugs, I don't even care what drugs she took. She was an addict and that's what killed her and it's terrible. The point is that conjecture shouldn't be presented as fact, even if it's over something that's trivial, because it puts into question the validity of other "facts" in the book that do matter.

Oh, that's true!

P.S. As for me, the point of people's addictions is very private and even intimate, I'm trying to avoid discussing other people's addictions, especially behind their backs. Honestly, I don't understand why the hell some people are trying to rummage in Amy's past (the past - because she got over it) and reasoning about kinds of stuff and ways of it's taking.

[ancre]

Hello,
I'm a friend of the author [...].

Yeah, mrmagic, it seems you took Amy's lyrics to heart: I should just be my own best friend.


I wouldn't be surprised if you were Ms Chloe Govan herself Nice to meet you by the way.

I suspend my comments untill I read the book - I'm a bit anxious though because of some assumptions in the book made with no hard evidence, what was pointed out by other forumers.

Edit: I can't help to mention something:

Notes the author: “Feeling increasingly alienated from the preteen pageant queens and pink-adorned princesses clutching Barbie dolls — on Amy’s part, she’d rather have been mutilating one than playing with it — she fell into depression.”

Well, Amy used to play with Barbie (yes!) - look at this pic - she clutches the doll in her left hand:



And Mitch mentioned in his book that there was a time in her life she loved pink and refused to wear other colours

Dear Author, you don't have to invent things to make Amy original and rebellious. She was that way even playing with dolls and wearing pink...

Edited by ancre, 17 May 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[mrmagic]

Isn't Star a tabloid?

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

I wasn't talking about Star the newspaper, but Star the magazine, which is a weekly covering actresses, musicians, fashion...

---------- Post added at 01:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

Isn't Star a tabloid?

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------



When you exploit an individual to do so, yes.

How has Amy been exploited? I take this sample from the author's interview: "Amy was deeply troubled and it was that side of her that made for her most profound song-writing. Just as Amy transcended her pain and turned it into something beautiful via the medium of music, discussing her problems openly will have an impact on today’s – and tomorrow’s – generation of troubled young people and help them to turn their own pain into something positive too."

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

Isn't Star a tabloid?

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

Yet, it seems like tabloid recognition isn't such a bad thing:

No it isn't - it's a sort of necessary evil and if coverage in a tabloid gets the positive message out there that you want to put out, then it has to be worth it.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Okay honestly everything you say happened really doesn't sound convincing if it's only something you vaguely remember. Some facts would be nice, otherwise it just sounds sensationalistic. And that's not the kind of things fans would support.

Well what i can say is that when it came to facts about Amy, she didn't publish anything that couldn't be corroborated by at least two people close to Amy. That's why she worked with people who were known to be close to her and many of them agreed to the project when they'd turned down other books because they liked the angle she was taking with it and the fact that she WASN'T exploting Amy, but doing it to preserve her memory and help other people. It's obvious that you've made your own mind up about this book, which is fine - I'm just answering your comments.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

Yeah, mrmagic, it seems you took Amy's lyrics to heart: I should just be my own best friend.


I wouldn't be surprised if you were Ms Chloe Govan herself Nice to meet you by the way.

I suspend my comments untill I read the book - I'm a bit anxious though because of some assumptions in the book made with no hard evidence, what was pointed out by other forumers.

Edit: I can't help to mention something:

Notes the author: “Feeling increasingly alienated from the preteen pageant queens and pink-adorned princesses clutching Barbie dolls — on Amy’s part, she’d rather have been mutilating one than playing with it — she fell into depression.”

Well, Amy used to play with Barbie (yes!) - look at this pic - she clutches the doll in her left hand


And Mitch mentioned in his book that there was a time in her life she loved pink and refused to wear other colours

Dear Author, you don't have to invent things to make Amy original and rebellious. She was that way even playing with dolls and wearing pink...

LOL! I'm not Chloe - but I will be asking her to come here and talk to you herself. I can say that I'm a massive fan of Amy too, perhaps not as much as she is or as some of you are, but I think she's a legend whose music will live on for centuries.
The comment about Amy not feeling like the others - she did mutilate her dolls btw! But also she felt ugly because the other girls were the archetypal pretty-in-pink princesses and she felt like she wasn't as girly or pretty as them. I think thast's what the comment meant. Amy has said she didn't feel girly or pretty growing up in interviews I've watched too.... even though she liked pink! So I don't think that's a contradiction.
PS is that really a Barbie in her hand?

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

I don't quite agree. I think Amy pretended to ignore it. I mean, who takes as many drugs without wanting to forget what he lives? Even though it probably dates back to the oldest problems, there's a part of the ''buzz'', as you say, that was surely disturbing her.
I take an example here. In the book of Mitch. At one time after the release of Back To Black, Amy refused outright to leave home to avoid being followed by paparazzi. It's human. It's completely impossible, if we have a heart and a head, to completely ignore such harassment.

I definitely don't think she ignored it. I think that's why she used to lash out at people all the time, she felt threatened by the constant attention. It must be pretty frightening to not be able to walk out of your door without people following you and flashing a camera in your face. I do personally feel that some of the hounding made Amy's problems worse. It's one thing to comment about her in a newspaper or magazine but to follow her 24/7 and hang around outside her house so she can't be alone, that must have an impact. How can you get better if you have to get better in public??

[amylove]

I wasn't talking about Star the newspaper, but Star the magazine, which is a weekly covering actresses, musicians, fashion...

You make it sound so innocent. All of these "magazines" are tabloids that talk shit about celebs, it's called GOSSIP, and if you don't recognize this, I can't trust your judgment.
I'm sorry, but you're not helping your friend. She's obviously not living in her truth, which is that she writes sensationalist garbage because that's what sells. Her intention might be good, but the way she writes and presents the info is exploitive... it's selfish & unfair because Amy is dead and only she knows the truth, she has "friends" who have no problem revealing shit about her, and you're going to use her to make yourself look like you're the messenger of psychological awareness when your observations about someone you don't personally know may or may not be true.

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

And that's not the kind of things fans would support.

Well, decent fans anyway.

[mrmagic]

You make it sound so innocent. All of these "magazines" are tabloids that talk shit about celebs, it's called GOSSIP, and if you don't recognize this, I can't trust your judgment.
I'm sorry, but you're not helping your friend. She's obviously not living in her truth, which is that she writes sensationalist garbage because that's what sells. Her intention might be good, but the way she writes and presents the info is exploitive... it's selfish & unfair because Amy is dead and only she knows the truth, she has "friends" who have no problem revealing shit about her, and you're going to use her to make yourself look like you're the messenger of psychological awareness when your observations about someone you don't personally know may or may not be true.

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------



Well, decent fans anyway.

The fact is that if she's working with suicide charities etc to spread the word about getting help with these conditions and using Amy as an example, then people are being helped by what she's doing. I would say that's anything but selfish - and I know she isn't bothered about money. But if, having read all that I said, you still think so, then it's clear that this isn't the book for you. You have your opinion and I have mine and I don't think we are going to agree.
However let me ask you something. I'm curious: do you think then, based on what you said above, that Mitch exploited his daughter? Remember that he and Daphne Barak colluded to film Amy without her consent or knowledge. She had no idea that Daphne was taking notes on her for a book; in fact, she thought Daphne was her friend. Mitch knew what she was doing and allowed it. Perhaps he thought it would help? Anyway, regardless of his motive, do you regard this as exploitation? How do you think this compares to Chloe's book?

[Elsie]

Well what i can say is that when it came to facts about Amy, she didn't publish anything that couldn't be corroborated by at least two people close to Amy. That's why she worked with people who were known to be close to her and many of them agreed to the project when they'd turned down other books because they liked the angle she was taking with it and the fact that she WASN'T exploting Amy, but doing it to preserve her memory and help other people. It's obvious that you've made your own mind up about this book, which is fine - I'm just answering your comments.

So, it's safe to assume that the words of people close to her should be taken as gospel even with so many of them selling their tragic version of events shortly after she died... especially for a person so exposed at the time, it seems highly unlikely she'd manage to keep anything private, especially trackmarks or stumbling into rehabs all the time.
I basically agree with @allisost, her/yours intention might be good but the tone sounds like one of those DM obituaries. (well, from the so far posted)
About her childhood - unless it was her parents or brother giving interviews, I don't see how anyone would know such specifics about it :/ Feel the same way if Mitch speaks about her marriage or friends.

[Winehouse8327]

she did mutilate her dolls btw!

PS is that really a Barbie in her hand?

No offense, you pretend Amy mutilated dolls. Personally, I've never heard this information, but maybe it's true. The only problem is that unlike you, who has no interviews, videos or pictures to prove it, (except perhaps a passage from the book of your friend, who as we said earlier lack of credibility) people here posted proofs to show you their points and still, you don't believe them . You should not exaggerate. How can you find a way to replicate about the Barbie thing, while @ancre has proven what she explained with a picture. Did you play with Barbies? Probably not, because believe me, this is indeed what Amy holds in her hands. (By the way, pink or not - Barbie or not, who cares ?Nancy Spungen was accustomed to wear pink, and she tried to stab her nanny at 6. I wore pink and became an addicted. My sister is an angel and hated pink, all this means nothing.)

I definitely don't think she ignored it. I think that's why she used to lash out at people all the time, she felt threatened by the constant attention.

I agree !

do you think then, based on what you said above, that Mitch exploited his daughter?

Can we avoid any mix please? There's no comparison to be made between Mitchell, father of Amy, who was trying to help her addicted daughter, and that of your friend who's writing a book based on gossips. It's completely different. One, Amy was still alive at that time, nothing was lost. How your friend might help Amy while her problems end up killing her? Two, Mitch was the father of Amy. He didn't know how to help her and did his best. Your friend doesn't even know Amy. In addition, she claims herself expert in the field, while Mitch was not an impostor.

Although everyone seems against you here, this isn't the case. All we ask is that you prove what you reveal as true facts with concrete evidence. Which, incidentally, excluded the book of your friend. When you will post valid photos or videos , maybe we will consider your point of view. We're not just fans in denial, believe me (I personally believe that Amy has already injected heroin - although I prefer not to go into the subject), but if we protect Amy at this point, it's only because you have no proof of what you say, or what your friend said. It's not because we choose to just close our eyes. If you did, I'm sure most fans here would have reasons to believe you.

Edited by Winehouse8327, 17 May 2013 - 05:15 PM.