Go Fug Yourself Book Club discussion

June book discussion is open for business! I read this several months back, and I have been too busy for a re-read or even a skim, so I am going to cut and paste my review without revision. This was a 3-star read for me, but I am obsessed with the underlying story and can.not.wait for the J.Law movie. Anyhoo....here is my review

This was a fascinating story. There are clear villains, and heroes, and geniuses and hucksters playing on the best and worst in people. Everything is set in the land of instant billionaires and world changing technology. Sadly for me, I didn't think the story was particularly well told. There were weird digressions, the same notes were hit over and over, and we learned nothing about Elizabeth Holmes herself. There is no insight at all about what motivated her to do anything. Further, there is very little to explain how she seduced investors like George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Rupert Murdoch to invest and companies like Safeway and Walgreen's to let her do her thing unchecked. (Note: knowing Betsy DeVos lost money in this almost made me cheer for Holmes.) That is, for me, the most interesting part of true crime. Understanding what motivated everyone to do what they did. I want to do a whole lot more reading about this, it is by understanding that we have some hope of preventing things from happening again. This book gave us a story at which to gawk, but no additional understanding of how and why these things occurred and can be prevented in the future

ETA a true related story: I was over at Boies Schiller last month to meet with a contact. They have an espresso bar in the office, and I was sitting and talking to a lawyer there when David Boies walked in for his afternoon caffeine. I heard not one word that my host uttered because I had some sort of psychotic break where everything was drowned out by a voice in my head shouting at me to go ask Boies how he could have been fooled by this charlatan. The man, no matter what else one might think of him is a genius and not a pushover. Luckily decorum won, but it was close.

I've been #2 on the hold list (of 10 copies) for about a month! Maybe tonight?

I could not put this book down. I didn't mind so much that there was little to no information about Elizabeth or her motivations; it made sense to me, since this is essentially an expansion on the WSJ's investigative reporting. AFAIK, she hasn't spoken publicly at all about her reasoning or methods? If the author had tried to give any insight into her it would all have been conjecture.

Amanda wrote: "I could not put this book down. I didn't mind so much that there was little to no information about Elizabeth or her motivations; it made sense to me, since this is essentially an expansion on the ..."

I think that sussing out motives is always conjecture. Hitler never talked about what drove him, nor did Jack the Ripper.. Evildoers that do explain their motivations are inherently unreliable narrators, so people who write about them still have to do the same sort of research. Reporters and crime writers are like profilers. They talk to those around a perpetrator and they infer from that and from behavioral patterns what drove actions.

Glad you liked it, it is wildly popular. I enjoyed the read somewhat, I just already knew the story (in part from the excellent reporting in the WSJ which riveted me. I had hoped a book would provide more insight than I had from reading press about Theranos. The HBO doc does a better job at that IMHO. I really enjoyed it.

Bonnie G. wrote: "This was a 3-star read for me, but I am obsessed with the underlying story and can.not.wait for the J.Law movie. Anyhoo...."

I have high, high hopes for the movie! It's such an outlandish story and it seems like a good fit for Adam McKay too. Though his stuff skews a bit bro-ish for me, I'm thinking (hoping) having a female lead will change that.

Amanda wrote: "I could not put this book down."
Same. It was one of my favorites from 2018. It did feel like reading a very long news feature, but that worked for me. Especially since I went into the book with only a broad understanding of the story.

I absolutely loved it! I couldn’t stop listening to it (on audible). I didn’t know anything about the story though so I just found it so shocking. Fascinating parable about how far bluster can take you.

I could not put this book down. I was fascinated at how far it all went. Every few chapters I would stop and look at my husband and say, I cannot believe this was happening! And for how long. This con went on for years! I know the book doesn't speak to her motives, but if I had to conjecture, she knew she wanted to make $$$ and had an idea while at Stanford. She worked the VC angle and hoped that the scientists she hired would carry the whole thing to fruition, not realizing how long R&D like this takes, especially on something that is not really a viable concept. After that, it was all smoke and mirrors to try and keep everything afloat and the $$$ coming in.

I am interested to see what happens with the court case. This has been my book of 2019 so far.

So pleased this was so popular. Why do people think she was able to convince these sophisticated investors to ignore what was in front of their faces?

I think it’s partly because it sounded too good to be true, but if it really was true, they wanted to be in on it because it would have made so much money. My sister works for a competitor to Walgreens and I asked her about it. She said that it’s always a race to see who can get what out first and if this had panned out, Walgreens would have run circles around them. The risk was almost worth it.

Nichole wrote: "I think it’s partly because it sounded too good to be true, but if it really was true, they wanted to be in on it because it would have made so much money. My sister works for a competitor to Walgr..."

I completely agree - when you've invested so much time and money into something, you want to believe it will work so your investment doesn't come down to nothing. It makes you do crazy things. (I see this happening right now with the Boeing 737 Max - I heard something this morning on the radio about airlines not wanting to let go of the idea of it going back into the skies because they've invested $100+ million into it happening, even though the public perception is generally terror at the idea of being on one of these planes after the crashes earlier this year.)

I also really enjoyed the book and can't wait to see how the fraud charges play out! I do wonder when Elizabeth realized that her plan wasn't viable - because she didn't have the medical (or medical device) knowledge in the first place, I can see her believing this could eventually come to fruition, but at some point amid the hype, she had to know it wasn't going to happen, and I wonder when that was. Like, one meeting with a military general and you're telling other investors your devices are used on battlefields overseas and in Medevac helicopters?!

Even though the whole story is just awful, I do kinda got to be impressed with her spin. Had she been a little more truthful, a little less eager to build herself up from nothing and make billions of dollars, she would have been a hell of an asset as a Chief Marketing Officer for any big company.

Allie wrote: "Nichole wrote: "I think it’s partly because it sounded too good to be true, but if it really was true, they wanted to be in on it because it would have made so much money. My sister works for a com..."

Con (wo)men have to be masters of spin. I feel like she never really believed it would work -- maybe before development began, but it was clear from the time that the first team began work that they could not create her vision. And there were experts telling her it was impossible. I don't really see that she is any different from the people who sold securitized mortgages. She built a house of cards and told people it was made of steel, and lord help them they believed her.

The thing that I cannot wrap my head around after reading this is: HOW did she manage to get so many men who should have known better in her thrall? Is it really as pathetically simple as they will believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a young blonde woman with big blue eyes?

Hi
First time poster here. I don't know if I should be following a thread of conversation, but thought I'd just post my own random thoughts here.
Apologies if I'm barging in where I shouldn't!
I was surprised at how readable the book was. It fairly whizzed along like a blockbuster read. Right up to the end, where, unfortunately there was no great blockbuster denouement. The book was published ahead of Holmes being sentenced. And in the end, the writer didn't have access to the inside of either Holmes or Sunny Balawi's heads to explain their motivations either. Which made the end feel a bit of a let down.
I can't help thinking that it's ironic that a book which is so much about Silicon Valley hype is also at the centre of a mini cultural storm itself! I don't mean the book's been overhyped at all, but there are so many other versions of this story now being told across all platforms. I listened to the podcast, The Dropout, because I heard discussion of Theranos on the Slate Money podcast some time ago. That led me to the book - which has since led to me watching the Netflix documentary. It's been interesting seeing how each of these has had a different focus. The documentary was great for seeing what a lot of the characters actually looked like, but missed out the whole thread about the Fuisz lawsuit. The podcast had access to more friends of Holmes' but none of the struggles Carreyrou had in pulling the story together.
I have a suspicion that a fictional version of this book might be more satisfying. When the writer isn't bound by libel laws. For what it's worth, I suspect that the Holmes' Balawi relationship was one where they were each enabling the other to the point where neither could back down.

The library has finally gifted it to me!

But I am concerned it will drive me nuts- everytime I see it on my player, I start singing "Bad Blood" in my head. And I'm not a Taylor Swift fan!

Great thoughts Macy! I had the same feeling of bring let down. The story is so insane I still enjoyed the read but I felt like it didn't bring much I didn't know. so many questions! I wonder if any of the investors will speak. I feel like their stories, why they continued to trust and back Theranos, would be fascinating.

I'm new to this group, so I hope it's okay to jump in. I read Bad Blood a few months ago and found it riveting. I wished for more insight into what Holmes was thinking, but I also appreciated Carreyrou's approach of sticking with facts and quotes from sources he could cite. Given that nobody close to Holmes would speak with him, it's understandable that we're left without much understanding of Holmes's motivation.

It was incredibly interesting to read about what enabled her to carry on this fraud for so long, despite numerous people raising warnings. The people who should have been doing due diligence totally failed, but it made me wonder how often this happens in Silicon Valley.

One thing that nettled me a little was how Carreyrou focused so much attention on Holmes's voice; I guess he wanted it as an example of her deceptive nature, but given how deceptive she was overall, I found this somewhat petty. And, having read about how Silicon Valley investors often treat women, I could understand perfectly well why she might want to use a deeper voice.

Of course, I'm curious to see what happens next. This article includes quotes from Holmes's deposition that make clear that she knows many of the things she said were lies, and it will be interesting to see whether her trial reveals any more about her motivations.

BW wrote: "One thing that nettled me a little was how Carreyrou focused so much attention on Holmes's voice"

Hi BW
I thought the emphasis on her voice was a bit odd too - until I heard it! And it is really, really strange! Trust me, it really is! And I'm writing here as someone with a high pitched voice, who tries to lower it on her voicemail.....
I think the point is the combined lack of authenticity AND self awareness.
Her voice wasn't deep at school, so she must have deliberately lowered it five octaves or so.

BW wrote: One thing that nettled me a little was how Carreyrou focused so much attention on Holmes's voice; .."

I'm not done yet- at about 75%. I'm listening and I don't think that is the best medium for this. It's a very one note interest. I feel like its "introduce someone, talk about their work, talk about the disillusionment with Theranos." I also feel like it's a lot of .... waiting for the shoe to drop.

But onto the voice, Earlier today I watched the documentary on HBO and the voice is freaky! And then every once in awhile she slips and goes natural and makes the fake voice even freakier! And I'm watching all these interviews with her and her eyes! They're freaky- and then the receptionist is interviewed and she mention Elizabeth never blinks I felt vindicated!

It makes me sad that a woman feels she needs to lower her voice to be taken seriously but I think we all do it,

There are many things making me wish this had been real. Lab testing is a scam and the chance to go to Safeway and get a blood test. An amazing idea! I hope someone is moving forward with the idea,

I totally agree with Macy above who says this would have been better fictionalized. Might have read better than "here's a person and their story and the next person and the next....."

And I also agree with Bonnie- so much overlap between Theranos investors and the current White House!

Pamela wrote: "BW wrote: One thing that nettled me a little was how Carreyrou focused so much attention on Holmes's voice; .."

I'm not done yet- at about 75%. I'm listening and I don't think that is the best med..."

The voice is so so weird. Her whole persona is weird. The not blinking thing is part of that for sure. She dresses like Steve Jobs, so perhaps she is trying to co-opt his voice too. He is not using it anymore.

I just finished and I found the book to imminently readable. I kept waiting for there to be a big time jump assuming that there had to be a point where the illegal and unethical activities took a break. How wrong I was! Each chapter read a bit like a new article but in helping build tension I felt it actually worked well instead of turning me off.

Katie wrote: "I just finished and I found the book to imminently readable. I kept waiting for there to be a big time jump assuming that there had to be a point where the illegal and unethical activities took a b..."

Ditto, I felt it was a slow build.
I'm done and while I'm amazed by the story, I also wonder if I had to read a whole book about it. A really good indepth article would have been just as good. I didn't need the deep detail. And I'm much more interested in her and why she is like she is and he didn't really go into that. Was it a scam or as things spiraled out of control, was she just scared and trying to cover it up to save face? I'm curious! Either way, she needs to go to jail. And she should not be living in a "luxury condominium" and living the high life.

Pamela wrote: "Katie wrote: "I just finished and I found the book to imminently readable. I kept waiting for there to be a big time jump assuming that there had to be a point where the illegal and unethical activ..."

She is about to marry a super rich guy who went to MIT. The world sucks https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/elizab...

Pamela wrote: "Katie wrote: "I just finished and I found the book to imminently readable. I kept waiting for there to be a big time jump assuming that there had to be a point where the illegal and unethical activ..."

I also watched The Inventor and it made me like the book better. It felt thin in comparison,

Squawks wrote: "I joined this book club mainly because I saw that June is the month for Circe, which I read several months ago but loved the book and would enjoy discussing it. Then, looking at the threads within ..."

Squawks, thanks for sharing your insider's perspective! You mentioned something that I'd wondered about while reading the book -- how many of the employees were aware of what was going on. Would you say that most employees thought the technology was really working the way Holmes said it was?

What was it like doing science in that environment? My impression from the book was that Holmes tried to really compartmentalize who knew what, so that very few people could have a sense of how the project as a whole was.

BW wrote: "Squawks wrote: "I joined this book club mainly because I saw that June is the month for Circe, which I read several months ago but loved the book and would enjoy discussing it. Then, looking at the..."

Squawks wrote: "I joined this book club mainly because I saw that June is the month for Circe, which I read several months ago but loved the book and would enjoy discussing it. Then, looking at the threads within ..."

Squawks, I about jumped up and down when I read your reply! How incredible to have an insider view. Let me start by saying I don't think you will be tainted by this (I was a long time attorney recruiter, was a hiring consultant for law firms, and I am now director of a tech/entrepreneurship program at a law school where I am always looking for cool things for my students, so I have done a lot of hiring and talked to a lot of employers.) It is my experience that if anything more people will want to talk to you so they can slip in a question. I once interviewed someone who was Jamie Dimon's personal assistant for that reason, and I would never have interviewed her otherwise and she got the job. Now on to Theranos...

I spend a lot of time with VC people and Angel investors, and all of them check in very regularly on progress for the companies in which they invest. They would never have gone so long without documented progress. I feel like either these people acted far outside the boundaries of best practices or they were lied to. Given the sophistication of this group of investors, I lean toward the outright lying. That said, I was recently talking to an AI who is among perhaps the top 5 most successful investors in the tech world and also has a day job heading Product for one of the largest tech companies, and he said, he never invests in products, he invests in people. Even if everything is going wrong, he will generally keep investing as long as the people he invests in believe something will come out of it. So maybe that is the answer? They saw problems but believed in Elizabeth.

Anyway, thank you so much for the insight and WELCOME. We love new voices around here.

Katie wrote: I also watched The Inventor and it made me like the book better. It felt thin in comparisone jump assuming that there had to be a point where the illegal and ..."

I guess I don't really care too much about the subject matter, so the detail in the documentary is enough.

I'm currently reading a 944 page book and I keep going "that chapter could be cut" whereas this book, I found myself going "well, that wasn't necessary, padding to make it longer."

Squawks wrote: "I joined this book club mainly because I saw that June is the month for Circe, which I read several months ago but loved the book and would enjoy discussing it. Then, looking at the threads within ..."

Wow- thank you for your comments! So cool to have an insiders view. I can't imagine what it would like to take a job at a place you thought was going to change the world and eventually find out it won't. I hope you were able to get out and find a new job!

Squawks wrote: "Hi, BW - I personally feel that single-digit employees were aware of the scandals before the WSJ article came out. The article came at an interesting time - a time that coincided when there was an ..."

Squawks, thanks so much for sharing. It boggles my mind that a few folks at the top could operate such a deception for so long. How devastating for the many employees who genuinely thought they were working on something valuable.

David Boise was just on the news representing the Jeffrey Epstein victims. So now I'm rooting for him!

Boies also repped Harvey Weinstein aggressively and intimidated countless victims. and took marriage equality to the Supreme Court mostly on his own dime and won. The man has done a lot of bad and a lot of good. He is complicated, but an undeniably great lawyer.