It is a true-crime novel, and does contain a lot of background info so that the reader can understand the crime. That being said, there are twists and turns in the story, and I found it to be a quick read-it's less than 400 pages.
I enjoyed it, and my bookclub read it a while ago-we had an interesting discussion, but not an interpretive one, as you mention for TOTS-MGGE is not really what you'd call a "deep book."

It's been several years since I read it, but I remember that I enjoyed it and, as cc pointed out, it was a quick read. I'm not sure how much discussion it would generate in a bookclub setting, though.

It is a highly fictionalized account of a true murder. It omits a lot of details and includes many that simply are products of Berendt's imagination. The social life of Savannah is there to provide the setting. It really isn't important to the story.

However, it is a fairly good read. I can't imagine it being useful for a discussion though. The Lady Chablis role is enlarged from nothing to become an important part.

I guess that's because having lived in Savannah at the time, we all got sick and tired of it. There were actually four trials. He was found guilty in the first three. His lawyer managed to get the fourth one moved to Augusta. The prosecution figured it would be another open and shut trial and didn't prepare his material well. The "new" evidence was highly suspicious. The jury felt that the police had not secured the murder site properly. So they acquitted Jim Williams. By this time, he was a sick man and died not long afterwards.

There was a local TV documentary done after his death. The coroner showed pictures that were taken at the scene that need a lot of explaining. He felt that Jim was as guilty as could be and that it was the lack of preparation of the prosecutor that allowed him to go free.

Perhaps you could work into the discussion how something like this becomes fact because the story is well written, and the truth is blurred and becomes ignored.

> non-fiction novel

I don't understand this term. A novel is a story. Historical fiction, maybe. I know its a term used often nowadays and it just seems all wrong to me.

>It is a highly fictionalized account of a true murder

What agnes said. I never thought of it as non-fiction, and am surprised its being discussed as such. But I did love the book, thought it quite fun. Chablis was marvelous. And the book made me want to visit Savanah one day.

BTW, stay away from the movie - horribly disappointing (tho again, Chablis comes on to play herself which is a treat)

Thank you all! Very helpful, although I haven't yet quite made up my mind if I'm going to read it or not. Perhaps I should just start and see if it grabs me.

Cindy, the term 'non-fiction novel' is mine in this context; I used it after reading Berendt's introduction, which tells you that the characters are all real and everything is based on fact - I prefer things to be either properly true or more clearly fictional. It's one of the things that puts me off reading this one.

At the time of the murder, Chablis was an ugly little man impersonating a woman in a seedy dive on the wrong side of town. Why the Berendt decided to build up her story is anybody's guess. Thanks to the genius of Hollywood makeup artists and hair stylists, he was transformed into a rather presentable female. Once he/she learned the magic art of makeup and dress, she became a tourist attraction.

She/He has written a book called Hiding My Candy. Guess what it's about.

I too enjoyed the book. And it also increased my desire to go to Charleston someday. I think the discussion value lies in the "style" of the book. How do we feel/react to fictionalized versions of real events. Compare to In Cold Blood the best of this genre. Ragtime What about all the fictionalized memoirs? Biography with made up scenes? Thinly veiled real life characters? Joyce Carol Oates Black Waters

I think this could be a very interesting discussion. (Please note I'm trying to use using italics.)

I liked it so much I re-read it again last year for the 2nd time. Chablis is an unforgettable character and I enjoyed the description of Savannah, Georgia. I thought it had a real "deep southern" feel to it. On the other hand, it is not great, classical lit by any means, just a fun read.

Delightfully funny, charming book.

anyanka...I really enjoyed it, although I usually avoid the kinds of books that all the "non-readers" have in their possession.

An interesting contribution to a discussion might be in focusing your input to the points you have made here...can there be such a thing as a non-fiction novel? Is it possible to tell where the urban legend diverge from the truth (you might need to do some preparatory research on the real story) and where they both diverger from the novel? Does this kind of fiction create enough interest in the real events that people then tend to investigate the truth...do a little research.? Is there a value to this sort of fiction...or is it a combination of being too lazy to do the research for a serious non-fiction account of the story...and lacking the creative spark to write a fresh novel?

Previewing the message, my list of questions does tend to seem like an assignment for high school English...but I thought that they would have allowed me to read the book for a book club discussion by tossing aside having to read a pop culture book.

(WICKED is sitting on my TBR shelf for the same reason. I tend to balk at books that are being read by people who think it's hard to find a book for their child to do a book report on...and that consider People magazine the high point of their reading for the month. Yes, I am a reading snob. And I consider it the single most important skill that people can give their children)

> the term 'non-fiction novel' is mine in this context

I can see that. But I've heard the term used elsewhere rather loosley and I just don't get it. Its a novel, or its a memoir, or its historic fiction. And why yes, I do have an Type A personality (but I am learning to be more flexible)

Veronica, I think your discussion idea is perfect. And those questions are just fine - they are a good starting point for discussing something that I think most folks don't really consider.

>Yes, I am a reading snob. And I consider it the single most important skill that people can give their children)

LOL! I don't mind where something is reviewed and I don't get bugged by who reads it. If its something I think I might like, I try it. But I understand what you are saying. There are certain books that if they are the only ones owned by the occupant, I roll my eyes. Even if I've read them!

I love you folks! You go beyond saying read/don't read, giving me angles to read it from etc. Fabulous.

Cindy, I agree with you - I like my novels to be fiction, and my true-life accounts to be true. Peter Ackroyd is one of the few authors who manages to blend historical figures into his stories successfully, in my opinion, and make the whole thing bigger than historical fiction.

With this type of truth or fiction account of an actual happening, the discussion could revolve around whether or not omitting facts influences the reader. I think it does.

In the book, the self defense theory seems reasonable. When in reality, the case for murder done in a fit of rage to an unarmed victim is probably much closer to the truth.

Many people living in Savannah at the time of the trials were aghast when the Augusta jury acquitted Williams. Anyone reading the book for the first knowledge of the murder would probably consider that justice was done.

I much prefer the term "true-crime novel" with all that it implies-a fictionalized version of the situation surrounding a nugget of truth: the actual crime. That being said, I usually don't like them, and probably would not have read this book if it hadn't been our book club selection. The leader of this discussion HAD done some research, and even had an article photocopied for us about the actual events, and our discussion was close to Veronica's suggested one. Our conclusion was that it was a great story, if you could put aside the fact that it really happened, and not just as he had written it. It felt a little dishonest. We're a group of Type A's!, and like our non-fiction accurate and our fiction to be...fiction! (Occasionally with a little steam...as long as it advances the story, of course!)