I read that after the publication of the book, Bill Smoot lost his credentials for teaching at San Quentin for using the real name of the prison. What do you think about that, and would the book has been as compelling if it wasn’t about San Quentin?
I am sure that the prison did not want anything published that could be perceived as a criticism on the prison. Certainly, the name San Quentin is well known and adds an element of interest. I know I prefer when something or someone is named, rather than “a closely identified source.”
1 Like
I agree. It adds a degree of realism. I have to admit, though, it did seem like an easy escape.
1 Like