A further thought on Dreams. If a book is cover-to-cover lies, you can’t just pluck one item from it and pontificate, ‘This ‘fact,’ is true, because it plays into my theory.’
When a book contains as many lies as Dreams, you need independent confirmation if you want to state absolutely that some part of it is true. There is zero evidence that Stanley Ann temporarily lived in Chicago or ever worked as an au pair. Zero. The book didn’t even get the year of the film right—because it was nothing more than another in an endless string of lies.
What probably happened was that Bill Ayers saw Black Orpheus and wanted to work a mention of it into the book. Since it’s almost impossible to prove a negative (i.e: that Stanley Ann wasn’t in Chicago) he saw no reason not to indulge himself. It’s the kind of movie he would like.
The overwhelming pattern of Dreams is lies. If you want to build a theory on a ‘fact,’ contained in that fictional account, you need outside proof. There’s not the slightest trace of evidence that Stanley Ann went separate ways from her parents prior to very early in ‘61. To say, ‘I know it’s true because Dreams says so,’ is more like a punchline than a proof.
I posted a reply before reading your latest, all I want to say now is, thanks for your polite attention, I really don’t wish to take this any further right now.