- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Most Helpful Favorable Review
7 out of 7 people found this review helpful.
posted by Lexie-L on November 3, 2011Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Most Helpful Critical Review
2 out of 6 people found this review helpful.
Interesting point of view
posted by Anonymous on December 29, 2011Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 30, 2014
Posted January 15, 2012
Posted September 10, 2011
Confusing, wrong on many basic facts, misleading - Zero stars
I am really confused after reading this. What "operations" did the writer receive other than a nose job? There is a lot of focus on the cardiac cath which is a procedure, involving small incisions, not an operation. What doctor would suggest "open heart sugery" to this patient? It is not called that anymore.. .there are more specific names and it is done to correct an identifiable problem. Psychologists don't prescribe medication so the whole scene with the Indian doc seems fake. How did this friendless woman move huge studio mirrors into a farmhouse alone? These mirrors are huge and expensive, not usually left for salvage. It also bothered me that she now calls herself a graduate student in psychiatry...psychology maybe, but psychiatry is a branch of medicine, practiced by doctors (M.D. or D.O.) not graduate students. And the naked horse riding scene.. what is a "delicious slump?" Yuck.
0 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 8, 2006
Not all it's made out to be
There are major problems with Sickened. Early stages of fact checking show there are fabricated passages, as there were in James Frey's A Million Little Pieces. These have been referred to the publishers Random House who say this is now a legal matter and admit there are factual errors in Sickened: 'We will make appropriate correction to the text in the next printing of Sickened to address those facts about your family history that you have shown to be incorrect.', they say in a letter to Sandy Gregory-Parocai dated 26th April 2006. However, they do not accept responsibility for the factual errors, saying: ' ... it is important to recognize that Julie did not invent any of these facts. She learned them from the stories you repeatedly told her during her childhood. If she got any of these facts wrong about your family history, your mother, her husbands, your early years, and the circumstances and incidents in your first marriage, it is because you provided the information to her in the first place.' And additionally the letter says: '... that there are errors in Julie¿s retelling of your family history in no way detracts from the accuracy of Julie¿s memoir of her own life and experiences.' Is it ironic perhaps, that a book which is all about allegations of fabrication by the mother simply repeats what she is alleged to have told the daughter about her family history, without saying that's what it was, or checking against documentary evidence (as I did with the full co-operation of the mother and none from the daughter and publisher)? The letter concludes: '... we remain confident that the story she tells in Sickened is a true and honest portrayal of her childhood.'
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 5, 2011
No text was provided for this review.