IMO the book's a boring rehash of what's been written a hundred times with zero new content, save what Linda Prefontaine reacted to. Vanilla prose, reads like a HS book report written entirely from secondary sources, no interviews/quotes from anyone who could've added context/interesting comments, e.g., Ryun, Shorter, Liquori, etc. Don't waste your money like I did.
I read the book and found it quite interesting. While the Jordan book was entertaining it read as just a promotion of the Prefontaine Image. This new book was a more honest, mature look at his life including his good and bad parts. Obviously the source of much of the information about his childhood came from Neta. Linda's argument that she had pictures of Steve without a shirt on prove that he was not abused is laughable. Most abuse does not leave physical scars. Of course I can see why Linda is upset because it makes her parents look very bad and basically erases her from the story.
This is a perfect response and most likely the truth.
The family absolutely should dispute this. However, they are also being hypocrites. For decades the family has pushed conspiracies that Pre was not intoxicated the night of the accident (despite his official blood alcohol content) and he was not at fault (the never found "other vehicle").
If they want to challenge lies about Pre's upbringing, they need to first admit that he was not perfect, made a huge error in judgement that night, and this bad decision caused his death. Until then, they have no credibility.
I read the book and found it quite interesting. While the Jordan book was entertaining it read as just a promotion of the Prefontaine Image. This new book was a more honest, mature look at his life including his good and bad parts. Obviously the source of much of the information about his childhood came from Neta. Linda's argument that she had pictures of Steve without a shirt on prove that he was not abused is laughable. Most abuse does not leave physical scars. Of course I can see why Linda is upset because it makes her parents look very bad and basically erases her from the story.
This is a perfect response and most likely the truth.
I don't know what Nita said to the author but I think it is important to note that Nita is six or seven years older than Steve was... Linda was three years younger. Nita would have been able to give a better account of what went on in the household. But it is also important to note that Nita had a different mother than the other two kids... and raised by their mom.
I never heard what the story was on Nita's actual birth mom. All I know is that Ray went to war he had already had Nita... and when he was in Germany he met Elfrieda.
I wrote a review of the book 3 months ago when it first came out and mentioned that I surprised to hear about the abuse. I also remarked about the lack of information from Linda in the book. I find it far more plausible that Neta had very different experiences than Linda did regarding their parents than to think that the author made up the claims of corporeal punishment. Perhaps we could get Linda and Neta to sit down together for an interview...
Since no one else has posted on it yet, I suppose I will offer my thoughts on the new Steve Prefontaine biography. Short version: It's great. Well worth the read. Now for the long version: The book caught me by surprise right...
Even IF the abuse is true, that's not the author's story to tell. Shame on the author for casting shade on Steve's parents long after they and him are gone.
Obviously, I don't have first-hand knowledge, but when I was a senior in high school, years ago, I did my senior project on Steve Prefontaine. I drove from Portland to Coos Bay and Ray and Elfriede Prefontaine were generous enough to welcome me into their home, sit down and discuss Steve, show me his bedroom, some memorabilia, etc. etc. I got nothing but a sense of price and appreciation of what Steve accomplished. I'm not sure the context of the "embarrassed" quote, but that was not at all my (admittedly limited) experience.
The family absolutely should dispute this. However, they are also being hypocrites. For decades the family has pushed conspiracies that Pre was not intoxicated the night of the accident (despite his official blood alcohol content) and he was not at fault (the never found "other vehicle").
If they want to challenge lies about Pre's upbringing, they need to first admit that he was not perfect, made a huge error in judgement that night, and this bad decision caused his death. Until then, they have no credibility.
You know hit-and-runs are a thing, right? You know people flee from crashes instead of sticking around, right?
12
11
Careful, not allowed to make those kind of jokes anymore
The family absolutely should dispute this. However, they are also being hypocrites. For decades the family has pushed conspiracies that Pre was not intoxicated the night of the accident (despite his official blood alcohol content) and he was not at fault (the never found "other vehicle").
If they want to challenge lies about Pre's upbringing, they need to first admit that he was not perfect, made a huge error in judgement that night, and this bad decision caused his death. Until then, they have no credibility.
Well I stayed in an Airbnb that was the closest house to where Steve died. The woman there told me that she believed a local doctor's kid was driving drunk and that Steve swerved to avoid him. It wasn't even debatable to her what happened.
I believe that has been floated by others. Is it in print? I should have Jonathan make sure and write an article.
Her husband at the time was the guy who found Steve I believe.
Hate to say this given I know nothing of anyone involved, but Linda's response is telling in its own way...those don't look like sane ramblings, and her evidence is iffy at best. Awkward all around...would love to hear from someone at that reading who witnesses the back and forth.
What's the purposes of even writing a new book like this as we know Pre's "story". Is this to tell us the secret of running well is to be created out of abuse? lol.
If I were the parents / sister I would already have a libel lawsuit launched.
1) There exists only one prior book about Pre. It's short, and it's basically written for children. Indeed, most of what has been produced about Pre up to this point is hagiography. Kenny Moore had a bit about him in his Bowerman biography, but Pre was far from the main character of that story. The new book is the only attempt anyone has made at a legitimate biography of Pre. It's based on interviews and a fair amount of material that hasn't been previously published. I don't blame people for not being interested in more Pre stuff, but this was a serious project that didn't just retread old ground.
2) The "abuse" described in the book would not have been understood as such at the time, and the author does a decent job contextualizing it. It was mid-century, blue collar physical discipline. It sounds like it was a bad situation for a while, but this certainly wasn't Frank Shorter level stuff.
3) There's no viable lawsuit here. To prevail, the plaintiffs would have the burden of proving that the statements in the book are false. They'd never be able to do that. This is the word of one sibling against another. The author was clear about where he sourced these allegations. You can't hold someone liable for writing a biography of a public figure that reasonably relies on the account of a first-hand witness.
Well I stayed in an Airbnb that was the closest house to where Steve died. The woman there told me that she believed a local doctor's kid was driving drunk and that Steve swerved to avoid him. It wasn't even debatable to her what happened.
I believe that has been floated by others. Is it in print? I should have Jonathan make sure and write an article.
Her husband at the time was the guy who found Steve I believe.
Two things are fairly certain:
(1) Another car was present, and it fled the scene.
(2) Steve had been drinking a fair amount, though his friends did not think that he was too drunk (by 1970s) standards to drive.
The only person who knows what happened is the driver of the other car.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I picked up the book because the reviews really hyped it up. Halfway though (just before Munich) and I'm not sure where all the hype is coming from. Writing is not great and the first hundred or so pages are a slog.
Well I stayed in an Airbnb that was the closest house to where Steve died. The woman there told me that she believed a local doctor's kid was driving drunk and that Steve swerved to avoid him. It wasn't even debatable to her what happened.
I believe that has been floated by others. Is it in print? I should have Jonathan make sure and write an article.
Her husband at the time was the guy who found Steve I believe.
Since you have been on the road, you know there is barely enough room for two cars. Coming down the hill (Pre's direction), there is no room at all on the right. The only reason to swerve would be if an oncoming car was in the wrong lane, and given that neither of them would have seen each other until the last moment, both of thrm would have instinctively swerved (Pre left, other driver right) and they would have hit head on.
The other option involving a second vehicle is Pre was driving in the wrong lane (possible due to intoxication) and swerved left into the rock, but the other car would have certainly swerved also and wrecked into the trees on the opposite side of the street.
Neither has any plausibility. What makes sense is he made a bad decision to get behind the wheel of a car at night on a narrow windy road while under the influence of alcohol, lost control, and crashed.
The story his family should be telling is the cautionary tale of why you need to not drink and drive and the importance of having a designated driver. It doesn't matter how famous you are, if you are an Olympian, or anything else, alcohol and driving do not mix.
As for the lady who "knows" what happened, well, there are millions who "know" JFK wasn't killed by Oswald, who "know" 9/11 was planned by the US government, and "know" aliens are being studied at Area 51.
One thing to add: if you change nothing about that night except put Frank Shorter in the car and Shorter is killed, Pre would be vilified today as "the man who killed Olympic gold medalist Frank Shorter."
People make mistakes. I remember Lyle Alzado traveling the country talking to HS kids in his final years, spreading the message to stay away from steroids. He admitted his mistake and did all he could to convince others not to follow his lead.
Even IF the abuse is true, that's not the author's story to tell. Shame on the author for casting shade on Steve's parents long after they and him are gone.
So people can't write books that say bad things about dead people? That would pretty much wipe out almost the entire history section of a book store, which is filled with books about dead people doing bad things.
If the author didn't source his facts credibly, or didn't present alternative credible views (like that of the sister), then sure that is unethical. But the act of writing about people after they are dead is not in and of itself problematic.