That's not the point of Living in the Past's post. Who of a sound mind culls through a book published 13 years ago looking for minor factual errors?
Maybe he should just call Salazar and Brant up and scream at them. Leave me out of this petty bullsheet!
Agreed. A dumb error in a book with the crux being the wrong year and the OP took that much of an effort to point it out??? Yikes!
Agreed, contact the author(s) as Malmo suggested.
What do you mean by "the crux being the wrong year?" Salazar never finished seventh in the world championships in any year. He finished second in 1982 and fourth in 1983.
I'll note that in the publishing world, the publisher isn't responsible for hiring a fact-checker. The author is, and it's optional.
I know this because I was close to, and followed along with, a friend who wrote a best-selling true crime book published by a big NY publisher. My friend was responsible for hiring a fact-checker, which she did, and the fact-checker fact-checked me (and dozens of others).
But nowhere in the author's contract was there anything about fact-checking -- it was left up to the author.
Maybe he should just call Salazar and Brant up and scream at them. Leave me out of this petty bullsheet!
Malmo,
I was simply reading the book and came upon the claim that Salazar finished seventh in the world champs, which I immediately recognized as BS. I wasn't scanning the book for errors, as you say.
Since Salazar qualified for the US cross country team, I was curious why he decided not to race against Rob de Castella and Carlos Lopes in the world championships, given that he would likely be facing them in Los Angeles five months later. That was just my honest curiosity as a reader. But Salazar could not go into that subject while claiming to have finished seventh in the championships. I thought it was worth pointing out this Catch-22. You could think of my post as a partial book review.
In the book, Salazar also says that he and Henry Rono spurted far ahead of the rest of the field at the 1978 NCAA Cross Championships in Madison, Wisconsin. It was really cold that day, with ice and snow on the ground, and the pair went off course for 50 yards. Unlike Salazar, who fought his way back to the front, Henry threw in the towel (finishing 237th out of 241). This is on page 82 of the book and is consistent with what I posted on here last year when Henry passed away.
I didn't get that information from this book, which I bought only recently. I read about it in the Madison newspaper at the time. I wasn't in Madison when the race happened on November 20 because I was home for Thanksgiving break. But I had returned when the article about the race was published. When I read page 82 of this book, I was thrilled to realize that my recall from the 1978 article was accurate! You and some other guys did a good job of gaslighting me.
As I posted last year, Henry Rono did go off course and he wasn't burned out from his historic track season (as others asserted at the time) because he had beaten Salazar in all of their cross county matchups that season, including the PAC 10. So there's a good chance he would have won his fourth NCAA cross country title under better conditions. That was the point I made last year. You were so offended that you attacked me as only you are capable. Well, now you can call Alberto and John Brant and scream at them for what they wrote on page 82.
Avocado's Number,
Thank you for your reasoned assessment. I agree "annoying" would have been more accurate than "shocking," but the latter term was more suitable as a headline.
You seem to have a lot of unvested interest in the book. We all get what you're saying, and why, but nobody on this message board is involved. Why don't you call Alberto and yell at him?
I wish you the best (I'm actually serious believe it or not), but there is no end game here, unless there is a reprint.
At least we agree on one thing (probably more than this), that Avocados Number presents a well-reasoned opinion on most things. He's not one of the usual suspects.
You seem to have a lot of unvested interest in the book. We all get what you're saying, and why, but nobody on this message board is involved. Why don't you call Alberto and yell at him?
I wish you the best (I'm actually serious believe it or not), but there is no end game here, unless there is a reprint.
At least we agree on one thing (probably more than this), that Avocados Number presents a well-reasoned opinion on most things. He's not one of the usual suspects.
Malmo,
I was an English major and enjoy reading, discussing, and critiquing books. Perhaps Letsrun is the wrong place for that, but a few others on here seem to share that interest. When an autobiography has errors, it's perfectly legitimate to point them out. Doing so might save others from wasting their time and money on a defective product. It's also a way to redress the balance for the breach of trust with the reader.
I highly recommend Brendan Foster's autobiography. Tim Hutchings praised it a few months ago on another media platform that you and I frequent, so I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. Had I not seen his positive assessment, I probably never would have read Foster's book. I admit that is not precisely analogous to my treatment of Salazar's book here.
I also wish you the best and sincerely apologize for my past rude behavior.
It may be an annoying error, but "shocking" seems a bit overwrought. First, the book names two co-authors, Salazar and Brant. Normally, if the book is merely ghostwritten, the title will name the "celebrity" author, followed by the word "with" and the ghostwriter's name, but this book names Salazar "and" Brant as co-authors, which strongly suggests that Brant, a freelance sportswriter, was responsible for the writing, editing, and fact-checking. (Brant was also the lone author of Duel in the Sun, which focused largely on Salazar.) Second, the U.S. trials for the 1984 world championships in February were also at the Meadowlands, so Salazar, who probably did little more than a cursory review of that section of the book, could easily have missed Brant's error; it's very unlikely that Salazar actually forgot that he didn't run the world championships that year or forgot when his son was born.
As for the purported seventh-place finish at the 1984 world championships, I have no idea where Brant got that information, but Salazar had a string of also-ran performances early in 1984; a seventh-place finish in some race during that period would have been consistent with his other race results.
Books are supposed to be accurate. They are supposed to be fact chequed (Br. spelling) and edited.
Robert Johnson didn't write this book, a real writer did.
Another point is that calling Salazar and John Brant to yell at them is unnecessary; I'm confident they are both going to read this thread at some point.
The upvotes/downvotes in this thread are bizarre. I have not read the book since it came out 13 years ago, but if I remember correctly Salazar in 1984 (at the ripe old age of 25) was on the down side of his career in early 1984.
By the time he reached his 24th birthday in August 1982, he was already the American record holder in the 5k, 10k, Marathon, had made an Olympic team, won New York twice, Boston once, and finished second at the 1982 World Cross Country. In other words, Salazar is one person that does not need to embellish his resume.
The upvotes/downvotes in this thread are bizarre. I have not read the book since it came out 13 years ago, but if I remember correctly Salazar in 1984 (at the ripe old age of 25) was on the down side of his career in early 1984.
By the time he reached his 24th birthday in August 1982, he was already the American record holder in the 5k, 10k, Marathon, had made an Olympic team, won New York twice, Boston once, and finished second at the 1982 World Cross Country. In other words, Salazar is one person that does not need to embellish his resume.
You make a good point. That's why the main fault for the errors probably lies with John Brant. Salazar apparently didn't fact-check his coauthor, but he should have. Brant probably confused the trials for the championships. Salazar naively trusted his coauthor to get the story right.
Agreed. A dumb error in a book with the crux being the wrong year and the OP took that much of an effort to point it out??? Yikes!
Agreed, contact the author(s) as Malmo suggested.
What do you mean by "the crux being the wrong year?" Salazar never finished seventh in the world championships in any year. He finished second in 1982 and fourth in 1983.
You seem to have a lot of unvested interest in the book. We all get what you're saying, and why, but nobody on this message board is involved. Why don't you call Alberto and yell at him?
I wish you the best (I'm actually serious believe it or not), but there is no end game here, unless there is a reprint.
At least we agree on one thing (probably more than this), that Avocados Number presents a well-reasoned opinion on most things. He's not one of the usual suspects.
Malmo,
I was an English major and enjoy reading, discussing, and critiquing books. Perhaps Letsrun is the wrong place for that, but a few others on here seem to share that interest. When an autobiography has errors, it's perfectly legitimate to point them out. Doing so might save others from wasting their time and money on a defective product. It's also a way to redress the balance for the breach of trust with the reader.
I also wish you the best and sincerely apologize for my past rude behavior.
There you go, the personal explanation that explains everything. My bad.
I never thought you were rude at all. No need to apologize, Sir. I just didn't understand your purpose. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
[edit] Ok I see why you thought I was being rude to you.
quote: "Another point is that calling Salazar and John Brant to yell at them is unnecessary; I'm confident they are both going to read this thread at some point."
You simply had a different take than my intentions. No big deal.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Books are supposed to be accurate. They are supposed to be fact chequed (Br. spelling) and edited.
Robert Johnson didn't write this book, a real writer did.
A cheque is something you write to pay a bill. We spell it like that in Canada too. Nobody “fact cheques.” British, Canadian, and American spellings in this case are all check.
Agreed. A dumb error in a book with the crux being the wrong year and the OP took that much of an effort to point it out??? Yikes!
Agreed, contact the author(s) as Malmo suggested.
What do you mean by "the crux being the wrong year?" Salazar never finished seventh in the world championships in any year. He finished second in 1982 and fourth in 1983.
I see what happened here: 2nd and 4th is 7th...oh wait that'd be 6th...well... 6th, 7th, whatever...