Would you say And The Band Plays On... is worth reading knowing the truth about Dugas? I bought it before i knew anything about that and it's put me off.
I read
And The Band Played On in the early 90s, so it's been a good few years and my memory may well not serve me well on details. I do, however, remember it as being an excellent book that I would read again & would recommend to others. I'd also add that at that point in time, the subject of HIV and AIDS was a very big deal and of great contemporary interest - people were still dying from AIDS back then, incl. for example big names like Freddie Mercury in 1991; I personally knew a few people who died. The book was lent to me by a friend and workmate, whose own ex-partner and flatmate would also pass away not long after.
And The Band Played On was one of the major works on the subject at this time. It was also filmed around that time (I can remember hearing about Richard Gere and Phil Collins being cast for roles).
The book is like a docu-drama, a genre I love. It combines a lot of journalistic investigation and sometimes dry scientific passages (if - like me - you're not very clued up on, for instance, virology or pharmaceutics) on the one side, with a fictional storyline on the other side, so like a medical thriller. But hey, you get to learn about (or at least get exposure to) scientific & sociological info. on the way: I like that element. This fictional line is, I suppose, semi-fictional, as many characters are real people. For example, those working in the front line investigating a cure, like Robert Gallo at the Pasteur Institute and the American investigative 'competitors'.
The 'story' (or history) goes: A killer disease suddenly springs up out of nowhere. Its main victims are gay men; though also strangely unconnected groups like hemophiliacs, Haitians, prostitutes and drug users, too. No-one can work out the puzzle at first. Wild theories abound (perhaps it's a form of cancer?, perhaps there's a toxic substance in Poppers, hence all the gay victims?) until it slowly becomes apparent that a) the disease here is infectious and b) it can be transmitted sexually (this it then refined to 'through bodily liquids', so through blood for hemophiliacs or drug addicts sharing hypodermic needles).
But this is all in hindsight. First of all, the scientific investigators have to work out what's happening and try to establish patterns between victims, and numerous studies were carried out. Gaetan Dugas provided a lot of useful information and proved to be a good study aid, for various reason: a) he was good-looking & charming and had plenty of sexual partners, b) he had a good memory, was cooperative and was able to provide detailed information about those partners, c) was geographically mobile due to his job (flight attendant) and HIV was by then a full-blown, city-hopping pandemic. A kind of branching, familytree-like structure with his partners could therefore be established, and in turn the spread of the disease could be studied.
He was definitely named Patient Zero in the book and in subsequent related works, I am in no doubt about that. (I can't remember about the use of 'o' as in outside that you mention but like I said, it's been a few years). And the term is also used in general for other pandemics. Naturally he wasn't 'the very first' to get it in North America, nobody will even know that. And yes, it's wrong if that's implied anywhere. He was, however, one of the first people whose sex-life was closely studied so as to get an idea about the spread of the virus, so he served a medical purpose in that way.
As to him being portrayed by ATBPO, or the press in general, as a 'sociopath', I can't remember that bit. One thing I would say though is that at the time that the book is set, AIDS equalled homosexuality and homosexuality equalled shame. I mean, complete and utter shame. Many gay men hid the cause of their illness (and their families that of their death), rather than have people find out who they really were. Two quite famous examples are Liberace and Roy Cohn. I think it was in ATBPO (or perhaps
Tales of the City, by Armistead Maupin) that people would scan the obituaries in newspapers to see how yet another good-looking young single man had mysteriously died of 'liver cancer' or whatever. I read in one article of a German victim whose family didn't want to know anything about corpses, coffins or funerals - like their son had never existed. Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS was huge news because no-one else was admitting it. So I don't doubt that there may have been great shame involved here too.
I would personally say, have a read and see what you think. Perhaps Dugas was harshly portrayed, couldn't say, but the book is also much bigger than his character. Otherwise, it would be like not reading a certain biography of Henry VIII because there is criticism of how Anne Boleyn was portrayed, for example. But that's just my opinion, & please do debate any of the above.
Reply to Topic
I haven't read And The Band Plays On... yet and i'm clearly not as informed about this as you but i did read the author of that book said he regretted his depiction of Dugas, he said he needed a villain to get sales to bring awareness to the disease which was his larger aim with the book. I believe him there as he was of course dying with AIDS and did die a few years after its release. If i'm correct the book paints Dugas as a sociopath that knowingly spread the disease, if that's not accurate in your view fair enough, like i said i haven't read it only articles about it written decades later.
Should finally read it soon.
