Matthew Perry joins the self-censorship game, removing mean Keanu Reeves references from memoir
Matthew Perry apologizes again for wishing death upon Keanu Reeves in his book Friends, Lovers, And The Big Terrible Thing
Aux News Matthew Perry
Surprise, bitch! Bet you thought you’d seen the last of Matthew Perry’s extremely revealing book tour. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on how much you love mess) the author of Friends, Lovers, And The Big Terrible Thing is once again dropping delicious press quotes. This time, he’s joining the list of celebrated writers, including Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, and Ian Fleming in censoring new editions of his book—specifically that bit about Keanu Reeves.
According to Variety, Perry announced at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books that future editions of his memoir would not include the parts where he wished death upon The Matrix star. “I said a stupid thing. It was a mean thing to do,” he said. “I pulled his name because I live on the same street. I’ve apologized publicly to him. Any future versions of the book will not have his name in it.”
It seems Perry is still going with the excuse that he chose Reeves’ name at “random,” something he claimed during his initial public apology. The excuse is hard to believe, however, considering that Reeves was famously good friends with River Phoenix. “Why is it that the original thinkers like River Phoenix and Heath Ledger die, but Keanu Reeves still walks among us?” Perry lamented in his book (in the original version, anyway). The connection between the two My Own Private Idaho stars feels relevant as to why Reeves’ name got dragged into the situation.
Plus, Perry reiterated his dismay that “Keanu Reeves walks among us” again in reference to Chris Farley’s death later in the memoir. Multiple mentions of a specific contemporary’s hoped-for demise, and we’re supposed to believe he just picked a random neighbor’s name? Also, publishing a high-profile book where you wish death on your famous neighbor whom you don’t have a feud with is a pretty bold move!
Then there’s this: Perry admitted at the festival that he hadn’t yet personally apologized to Reeves. “If I run into the guy, I’ll apologize. It was just stupid,” he repeated. Given the small world of celebrity, it surely wouldn’t be difficult for Perry to track down Reeves’ email and send a quick apology note, or even get his agent to send the John Wick actor a fruit basket. Maybe he just wants to do it himself, in person. Or maybe the lack of effort is a sign that Perry is not actually that sorry for the negative name-dropping in his book.
At the very least, we can agree that publicly wishing for Keanu Reeves’ death was indeed a stupid thing to do. Or maybe not so stupid, since it’s generated press for Friends, Lovers, And The Big Terrible Thing, for better or worse. Whatever the case may be, no doubt Reeves would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, one that he has never asked to be a part of, since October 2022.
61 Comments
Am I the first to say “Could he BE any more self-censoring?!“
I haven’t censored an ANUS like that since the Seventies
I think this is being read backwards. He’s slamming Phoenix et al for being lightweights.
“Self-censoring”? I’m pretty sure the term for that is “editing,” but you dummies wouldn’t be familiar with that process now, would ya?
thatsthejoke.jpg
surely there’s a different word if the reason for the editing is public outcry after it’s been released.
If there’s not, let’s make one up: like “Oops-my-baditing”
Separating “gawker sites can’t stop writing about it” from “public outcry” is a good step towards savvier media literacy.
‘public outcry’ is cleaner though. but is there not another word for it? i wasn’t trying to pithy.neither editing nor self-censorship feels right to me.
To me, public outcry implies the general public, not the online media sphere. Which, if you hop backwards through this “story,” it all boils down to Variety publishing a few excerpts from the book, particularly the Reeves line, because that’s what these companies do with celeb memoirs: cop an early copy and comb it for potentially interesting or controversial blurbs. Other outlets (including our dear AVClub) picked up the scent of controversy and printed the same blurb. Then it gets stirred up again as Perry makes a statement to clarify the blurb, stirred up again as Reeves either comments or refuses to comment, stirred up as Perry makes various media stops on the book tour, etc etc etc. The whole thing creates an air of “did you know people are upset about what Matthew Perry said?” And now we have the AVClub stirring it up once more in the face of this edit,* doing their old “golly we really wish we didn’t have to talk about this again!” schtick. I think a lot of people reading and commenting on this site conflate “the media is going nuts over this” with “the public is going nuts over this,” and the writing/tone on this site preys on it, as it’s become a shit-tier clickbait factory.* Perhaps “revision” would be a more palatable word? But this is the process, books get reprinted with changes mandated by the author, their publisher, their estate, etc all the dang time, for every number of reasons, pressures external and internal. To call it self-censorship, or to frame cleaning up a poorly-conceived statement, with bad faith, just really sucks and adds to this narrative that receiving and acting on feedback is capitulating to fascistic tone policing.
This was a great comment, gold stars!
No, there isn’t.
This deserves top comment for skillfully calling out AVC for stirring the pot (though it’s maybe more clearly meant to be sarcastic here than in the one about Little Mermaid?) and lack of editors.
This time, he’s joining the list of celebrated writers, including Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, and Ian Fleming in censoring new editions of his book[.]I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Dahl, Christie, and Fleming who censored new editions of their books.
Though Dahl did edit his own books to fit the times when he was alive.
Dr. Seuss too.
Pretty sure if you suggested this to Fleming while he still had air under his ribs he’d’ve laughed until martini came out his nose.
Pretty sure Christie was alive when “And Then There Were None” had its title changed the first and maybe the second time.
I may be incorrect, but the context suggested to me that the author was specifically referring to the revisions that made headlines over the past couple of years and not historical revisions like that title change.The inclusion of Fleming alongside Dahl and Christie clinched it, given that he (at least as far as I know) never did those kinds of revisions.
That is what the author was probably referring to, but I think it’s important context that these recent revisions didn’t happen in isolation, and at least in the case of Dahl and Seuss, they had precedent while the author was alive.Not to mention that revising one’s own autobiography isn’t even in the same category of revisions for “sensitivity” or “keeping up with the times,” especially when you factor in that the comments about Reeves, according to Perry, weren’t even part of his memories or life story. He chose the name at random to make a joke in the book (I mean, I believe he’s obviously lying about that but we have to take him at his word), so now that he knows the joke wasn’t funny he removed it so that people will like his book and think it’s funny.
Was it first called And Then There Were Two, and then And Then There Was One, and the last revision was And Then There were None?
Was it first called And Then There Were Two, and then And Then There Was One, and the last revision was And Then There were None?
I suspect giving you the real answer might get be put back in the grays. The original title is extremely bad.
You forced me to google, and wtf. Even for 1939 that’s…a lot.
No, dickhead, it had the N-word in it. How about you fuck off?
Instead of erasing things, why not just footnote them and put in an explanation for why you wrote the thing in the first place? Whether it’s self censorship because you regret something you wrote or it’s a new “woke” edition of a book. That way if the person wants to see the unedited/original version, they can flip to the back and read it along with any explanatory text as to why it was changed.Everybody wins.
Seems pretty clear he wasn’t aware that Keanu Reeves was on Twitter’s list of celebrities you’re not allowed to take a cheap shot at. No one would care if he’d put someone else, so it’s somewhat disingenuous to take it out when it’s Reeves.
Probably last time he checked Reeves was on the list of soft targets you’re expected to take cheap shots at. Remember when he was the go-to reference for “untalented actor”?
Exactly. Either way, I don’t believe his claim (said somewhere) that he just picked a random name.
“Either way, I don’t believe his claim (said somewhere) that he just picked a random name.”
Whoa, what? How come I haven’t read this anywhere else? Doesn’t EVERYONE need to know what Prognosis Negative believes? How is the world going to continue spinning without Prognosis Negative offering their opinion?!?!?!?
Or he thought it was fine because he knows the guy and lives on the same fucking street?
I have no opinion on this.
And here is your dutiful star.
You’re A Good Man, Chandler Binge!
It’s perfectly fine to wish death upon Keanu. In fact, in some contexts it’s considered polite and even expected. Just don’t wish death upon his dog unless you have a death wish upon yourself.
It was just a fucking . . .
You know what you did, Theon.
“It’s perfectly fine to wish death upon Keanu.”
Asking why someone is alive isn’t wishing that person death.
Updating. Revising. Altering. Rethinking. Editing. Changing. Omitting.
Lotioning. Oiling. Oiling. Lotioning.
*gets the hose again*
Red leather yellow leather red leather yellow leather.
wash, rinse, repeat.
Watching. Waiting. Commiserating.
Perry has a serious Keanu problem. And Keanu has been class in ignoring it.Perry’s like NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who can’t stop slamming food servers or Kansas. Don’t take my word for it:Adams can’t stop, won’t stop disparaging Kansas:https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/state/2023/03/01/position-of-topeka-mayor-disparaged-by-new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-kansas/69958758007/Adams can’t stop, won’t stop saying “Make your haters your waiters.” Interesting for a man who spends most of his time as an elected official inside clubs and restaurants:https://www.gawker.com/politics/eric-adams-is-obsessed-with-turning-haters-into-waiters
Entirely too much has been made about this stupid, off-hand joke
– The AV Club.
It was in his book, at least twice. Written! The dude thinks about Keanu. A lot.
The important thing is, the one thing that was remotely interesting about this book has now been excised. What a relief!
“Why is it that the original thinkers like River Phoenix and Heath Ledger die, but Keanu Reeves still walks among us?”I’m pretty sure he meant this as a rhetorical question and a lamentation about the supposed uncontrollable whims of fate, but the answer is objectively “drug addiction.” You’d have thought that would have come up during one Perry’s stays in rehab. If he wants to get into what physical, emotional or psychological causes led to Phoenix, Ledger and Farley having serious substance abuse issues while Keanu Reeves managed to avoid it, that’s a valid, but still very strange question.
Editing your own works is not censorship. Conflating the two is a means to make people more comfortable with the latter. Y’all need to stop it.
Editing isn’t SEO-compatible. Since the AVC move/purge and scabs coming on, they’ve been trying to claw their way back into being cool, but instead it just means showing up on Google first.
Outrage media is mad because celebrities aren’t being polite enough.
Is there going to be a second printing?
This time, he’s joining the list of celebrated writers, including Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, and Ian Fleming in censoring new editions of his bookWhat?
Good day, Miss M. Jane GPT.When we say we want to hear Matthew Perry’s views on anything, including his memoirs, that is what is known as a meme, and made facetiously. Thank you, and please refrain in the future.
Playing kinda fast and loose with the definition of “censor” aren’t we?
Perry DEFINITELY didn’t get the memo about Keanu being so beloved and was so clearly trying to dunk on him for being a “bad actor”…
Censorship? This is omission n0t censorship? He’s taking a line out of his book that made him look like a jack ass. It didn’t need to be censored.
This is a really hacky write-up for A.V. Club.
“This is omission n0t censorship?”
It’s neither, it’s editing.
Oh hey, a rage-bait headline and a tenuous connection to an unrelated controversy. Why write articles when you can write shitposts?
“The excuse is hard to believe, however, considering that Reeves was famously good friends with River Phoenix.”
Oh, fuck right off.