
As more information is released about the drama series development, you can be sure to see it updated here.

As more information is released about the drama series development, you can be sure to see it updated here.

As more information comes to about this development, you can be sure to see it updated here.

Rather than paraphrase Mr. Carr’s full statement here, I have included the first two paragraphs of the statement below and provide a link to its original source for visitors to continue reading.
You’re wholly right that “Kill Your Darlings” was a tired, ludicrous reading of the story of the murder case; and like all the other terribly inaccurate readings that have been put out there, it was based almost entirely on Allen Ginsberg’s versions of events. And Allen had an awful lot of reasons for revising the facts to suit a narrative that served his ego and his agenda far more effectively than it did the truth.
First off, the facts of the case: David Kammerer did not begin his obsession, as you have rightly suspected, when my father was an adult: it began when my father was only twelve or so, and Kammerer was his Boy Scout troop leader (and the fact that my father later killed Kammerer with his Boy Scout knife is not something that any psychologist or detective I know would ever dare to call a coincidence).
The remainder of the statement contains a powerful message about the damage produced by child abuse, the impact it has across generations, and the film’s distortion of the murder it supposedly documented. I, for one, am grateful that Mr. Carr has spoken out, and I hope that other visitors of 17th Street will feel similarly.
Late last week, Caleb Carr and a number of other notable New Yorkers were asked to comment on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s legacy. Mr. Carr’s short video feature can be viewed here, along with an excerpt from the commentary Mr. Carr contributed. The full article can be read at the New York Times website.
When Michael Bloomberg finally leaves office, we may rely on pervasive testimonials concerning the manner in which he has made the city cleaner, safer, more attractive to business and a hive of new development; and many of these assessments will even have the virtue of being true. What is less likely to be discussed is the cost of all this supposed civic improvement to the soul of the city.
The influx of wealth and the super-wealthy from around the world has meant the exodus of those creative New Yorkers who gave the city its own unique romance — and heart. This is part of the “he cleaned up crime” aspect of Bloomberg’s legacy: For it was the city’s seedy, crime-ridden neighborhoods that could offer cheap housing not only to the middle and lower classes of workers and business owners, but to artists, writers and musicians.