3 ms·

I think many people will not read the book because of the reviews saying Lewis is compromised. But you should absolutely read the book. It's very good. As Matt

I think many people will not read the book because of the reviews saying Lewis is compromised. But you should absolutely read the book. It's very good. As Matt Levin says: > You go to Michael Lewis for character and story. It does give you an inside look at being on the ground at FTX in the days before and after the collapse and also spends a big part of the book on time at Jane Street, which fascinated me. Before this, all I knew was OCAML, and not the craziness of modern trading. The big bet on Trump and the stock market election night 2016 is riveting. That insane idea SBF had, to pay Trump not to run again and talking to his people about it was also entertaining. It's just not really a book explaining the fraud. It's a number of wild scenes from a strange person's life as it collapses. And yeah, it is probably a bit too sympathetic, but it's not shy about him being a weirdo, and EA people being all a bit strange, and Lewis trying to understand what is going on in this guys head.

blueboo 3y ago
Maybe you’re implying this — it’s an obvious omission — but his credibility should encourage us to read “character” and “story” for their evocative imagination and not, say, for fact.
- adamgordonbell 3y ago
  Nope, not saying that. but the other person in the comments has a point: > It is also an unrealistic ask that an author get close access to still living characters and then manage to write a book to tell you how bad that person is. They are unlikely to be able to find a subject willing to give them access on another book again.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    So as a group I shouldn't take such authors as anything except entertainers?
    - adamgordonbell 3y ago
      Just expect they, like everyone, have a bias. Writers who do hit piece style things will portray things as bad and authors who do deep feature pieces will be positive because they each have a certain approach and bag of tricks and this has up and down sides. A hit piece person would never spend months embedded with someone, so wont give a deep picture. A lewis will, but be appropriately stockholmed by the whole thing. That inside the actors studio guy, he only interviews people about how great they are. You learn a lot, but it has a strong perspective. Others are combative and good at it. Styles shape form.
pavlov 3y ago
I read the book and was mostly disappointed. SBF comes across as a fundamentally uninteresting and uncultured person who is very proud of not having any interests and not giving a shit about other people. Even his parents struggle to tell anything noteworthy or likable about him. Lewis seems to relish the massive challenge of turning him into a protagonist, but the reader doesn’t share in those rewards. Also, trading stocks for a living is apparently just as boring as it sounds like. The descriptions of what Jane Street does made me feel somehow sorry for these people who are stuck making undiscerning myopic bets for their own sake instead of using their intellect for something productive. In the end, Lewis tries a shock twist: what if the bankruptcy lawyers are the bad guys after all? It’s unsubstantiated by anything in the book and just comes across as desperation on his part to close the book with something more satisfactory than “it was all a tremendous waste of time and other people’s money.”
- adamgordonbell 3y ago
  It's true, about the bankruptcy stuff at the end feeling a bit much. That's one of the many points where I felt he was being too sympathetic. But I found the rest of it fascinating. It just wasn't about how SBF was bad. Even this review says the book is interesting and you'll read it one sitting. A lot of the crazy scenes from Wallstreet that made lewis famous, when he wrote Liars poker are in this one transformed into a different world and that is interesting. It's like look at absurdity and scale of what's happening here. But this time with nerds and gaming pcs, instead of Wallstreet and suits. If you don't like narrative nonfiction about finance, thats zoomed in on a specific main character, well, you shouldnt read a Micheal Lewis book. I must say I'm biased though, as I'm a fan of him as a writer.

blueboo 3y ago

Maybe you’re implying this — it’s an obvious omission — but his credibility should encourage us to read “character” and “story” for their evocative imagination and not, say, for fact.

adamgordonbell 3y ago
Nope, not saying that. but the other person in the comments has a point: > It is also an unrealistic ask that an author get close access to still living characters and then manage to write a book to tell you how bad that person is. They are unlikely to be able to find a subject willing to give them access on another book again.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  So as a group I shouldn't take such authors as anything except entertainers?
  - adamgordonbell 3y ago
    Just expect they, like everyone, have a bias. Writers who do hit piece style things will portray things as bad and authors who do deep feature pieces will be positive because they each have a certain approach and bag of tricks and this has up and down sides. A hit piece person would never spend months embedded with someone, so wont give a deep picture. A lewis will, but be appropriately stockholmed by the whole thing. That inside the actors studio guy, he only interviews people about how great they are. You learn a lot, but it has a strong perspective. Others are combative and good at it. Styles shape form.

pavlov 3y ago

I read the book and was mostly disappointed. SBF comes across as a fundamentally uninteresting and uncultured person who is very proud of not having any interests and not giving a shit about other people. Even his parents struggle to tell anything noteworthy or likable about him. Lewis seems to relish the massive challenge of turning him into a protagonist, but the reader doesn’t share in those rewards. Also, trading stocks for a living is apparently just as boring as it sounds like. The descriptions of what Jane Street does made me feel somehow sorry for these people who are stuck making undiscerning myopic bets for their own sake instead of using their intellect for something productive. In the end, Lewis tries a shock twist: what if the bankruptcy lawyers are the bad guys after all? It’s unsubstantiated by anything in the book and just comes across as desperation on his part to close the book with something more satisfactory than “it was all a tremendous waste of time and other people’s money.”

adamgordonbell 3y ago
It's true, about the bankruptcy stuff at the end feeling a bit much. That's one of the many points where I felt he was being too sympathetic. But I found the rest of it fascinating. It just wasn't about how SBF was bad. Even this review says the book is interesting and you'll read it one sitting. A lot of the crazy scenes from Wallstreet that made lewis famous, when he wrote Liars poker are in this one transformed into a different world and that is interesting. It's like look at absurdity and scale of what's happening here. But this time with nerds and gaming pcs, instead of Wallstreet and suits. If you don't like narrative nonfiction about finance, thats zoomed in on a specific main character, well, you shouldnt read a Micheal Lewis book. I must say I'm biased though, as I'm a fan of him as a writer.