What do you think?
Rate this book
Superfly: The True, Untold Story of Frank Lucas, American Gangster
November 2, 2007, Hollywood introduced its latest gangster legend with Universal Pictures' release of its movie, "American Gangster." Starring Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, the movie, a can't miss, blockbuster, claims to be based on the true story of "Superfly" Frank Lucas, a major drug dealer from 1970s Harlem. According to the Hollywood hype, the movie shows how "Lucas outplays all of the leading crime syndicates and becomes not only one of the city's main line corruptors but part of its circle of legit civic city superstars, "But how does the real life Frank Lucas compare to the Hollywood creation? In their book, Ron Chepesiuk and Anthony Gonzalez investigate the life and times of Frank Lucas and answer many questions: how big a drug trafficker was Superfly? What was his relationship to the La Cosa Nostra? Was he really THE MAN, the pioneer and criminal entrepreneur who "Opened up the Asian connection".
Anyone wanting to learn the real story behind Hollywood's making of a gangster legend should buy this book and DVD.
130 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published October 25, 2007
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 1, 2011
poorly written with grammatical errors, although interesting, not a terrific book.
May 28, 2024
When the class went to the library, I was attracted to the book Superfly: The True Untold Story of Frank Lucas, American Gangster by Ron Chepesiuk. The reason why was because I’m interested in learning the history of many criminals. After reading this book, I was upset because it was the worst biography I ever read. The main problem is that author Ron Chepesiuk had a motive to embellish and lie about the stories in the book.
Chepesiuk’s book details the rise and fall of Frank Lucas, going over his early years as a delinquent to the end of Frank’s criminal career as Harlem’s most notorious kingpin. It goes into the intricacies of Frank’s life and the destruction of his criminal empire, leading to his indictment on drug trafficking charges.
When I look back at my notes, many times I did extra research to fact-check the embellishments that Ron Chepesiuk wrote in the book. For example, in the book, Chepesiuk tries to portray Frank as a non-extravagant man who tries to lay low in the final act of the book. The problem with this is that an excerpt from Richie Roberts, the detective who took down Frank Lucas in real life and in the book, contradicts the precedent that Chepesiuk tries to set. "Frank was never a frugal guy, always had to be the most expensive man in the room, you know that's kinda how we got him" (HOT 97 FM). The problem that I personally find with lying or twisting reality to fit the story that you’re writing is that it ruins the aspect of reality and truth. The honest telling of a person's life in a biography is what draws many readers to it, so if the author takes to lying to make the story more entertaining, it ruins the biography not only for me but many people. According to a 2016 report by Nielsen, 60% of nonfiction readers said that accuracy was one of the most important factors they consider when choosing a book.
Going back to my notes, it's constantly reiterated that Chepesiuk is trying to build a layer of sympathy for Frank Lucas. In the first chapter of the book, Chepesiuk wrote that when the Feds raided Frank's house, he only gave himself up to protect his children. This opposes the words of Richie Roberts, a first-person source who said, "The parts that depict Frank as a family man are ludicrous. They did it for dramatic purposes, you know, to make him look good and me look bad" (New York Times). The issue that this raises is that Chepesiuk clearly embellished Frank's relationship with his family to make the reader more attached to his characterization of Frank. But this is not the only instance where Frank is given an appeal to emotion. Chepesiuk wrote that when Frank was 6, he watched his cousin get murdered by the Ku Klux Klan because he glanced at a white woman and from there he saw everything as free game. Again, this claim is challenged because there is no evidence that this happened. Chepesiuk clearly wants the reader to be more connected to Frank by tying emotions to him.
Chepesiuk’s purpose for deceiving the reader is to attach the reader to Frank, even if most of it is not true. What Chepesiuk gains from the deception is the ability to control the narrative of what happened in the story, which causes his books to get more publicity. Ron Chepesiuk has a background in true crime, which is one of the most dramatized and commercially pressured genres, so can Chepesiuk be blamed for his flaws? Yes and no, because one must imagine his stress to get books out and also he has to understand that his work will be viewed as fact or a truthful retelling of stories.
Chepesiuk's embellishments in Frank Lucas's biography raise serious ethical concerns. By twisting the truth to create a more engaging narrative, Chepesiuk betrays the trust of readers who seek genuine accounts of history. This not only distorts our understanding of Frank Lucas but also undermines the value of nonfiction. As readers, we need to demand accuracy and honesty in true crime storytelling. Only then can we preserve the integrity of these stories and ensure they reflect the true complexity of the events and people they depict. Future readers should approach such works with a critical eye and cross-check facts with multiple sources. Be skeptical of narratives that seem overly dramatic or sympathetic without corroborating evidence. By being discerning, we can truly appreciate and understand the depth of historical and biographical accounts.
Chepesiuk’s book details the rise and fall of Frank Lucas, going over his early years as a delinquent to the end of Frank’s criminal career as Harlem’s most notorious kingpin. It goes into the intricacies of Frank’s life and the destruction of his criminal empire, leading to his indictment on drug trafficking charges.
When I look back at my notes, many times I did extra research to fact-check the embellishments that Ron Chepesiuk wrote in the book. For example, in the book, Chepesiuk tries to portray Frank as a non-extravagant man who tries to lay low in the final act of the book. The problem with this is that an excerpt from Richie Roberts, the detective who took down Frank Lucas in real life and in the book, contradicts the precedent that Chepesiuk tries to set. "Frank was never a frugal guy, always had to be the most expensive man in the room, you know that's kinda how we got him" (HOT 97 FM). The problem that I personally find with lying or twisting reality to fit the story that you’re writing is that it ruins the aspect of reality and truth. The honest telling of a person's life in a biography is what draws many readers to it, so if the author takes to lying to make the story more entertaining, it ruins the biography not only for me but many people. According to a 2016 report by Nielsen, 60% of nonfiction readers said that accuracy was one of the most important factors they consider when choosing a book.
Going back to my notes, it's constantly reiterated that Chepesiuk is trying to build a layer of sympathy for Frank Lucas. In the first chapter of the book, Chepesiuk wrote that when the Feds raided Frank's house, he only gave himself up to protect his children. This opposes the words of Richie Roberts, a first-person source who said, "The parts that depict Frank as a family man are ludicrous. They did it for dramatic purposes, you know, to make him look good and me look bad" (New York Times). The issue that this raises is that Chepesiuk clearly embellished Frank's relationship with his family to make the reader more attached to his characterization of Frank. But this is not the only instance where Frank is given an appeal to emotion. Chepesiuk wrote that when Frank was 6, he watched his cousin get murdered by the Ku Klux Klan because he glanced at a white woman and from there he saw everything as free game. Again, this claim is challenged because there is no evidence that this happened. Chepesiuk clearly wants the reader to be more connected to Frank by tying emotions to him.
Chepesiuk’s purpose for deceiving the reader is to attach the reader to Frank, even if most of it is not true. What Chepesiuk gains from the deception is the ability to control the narrative of what happened in the story, which causes his books to get more publicity. Ron Chepesiuk has a background in true crime, which is one of the most dramatized and commercially pressured genres, so can Chepesiuk be blamed for his flaws? Yes and no, because one must imagine his stress to get books out and also he has to understand that his work will be viewed as fact or a truthful retelling of stories.
Chepesiuk's embellishments in Frank Lucas's biography raise serious ethical concerns. By twisting the truth to create a more engaging narrative, Chepesiuk betrays the trust of readers who seek genuine accounts of history. This not only distorts our understanding of Frank Lucas but also undermines the value of nonfiction. As readers, we need to demand accuracy and honesty in true crime storytelling. Only then can we preserve the integrity of these stories and ensure they reflect the true complexity of the events and people they depict. Future readers should approach such works with a critical eye and cross-check facts with multiple sources. Be skeptical of narratives that seem overly dramatic or sympathetic without corroborating evidence. By being discerning, we can truly appreciate and understand the depth of historical and biographical accounts.
May 17, 2024
Good story, but writing and sheer volume of typos left quite a bit to be desired.
September 1, 2009
I almost gave up on this book. Luckily, I didn't. It started getting good around the 7th chapter. I dont want to spoil the story but I'll say this much, how is it that you're a big time drug dealer and cant read or count money. And snitchin on ya enemy, Superfly luck he's still alive
February 9, 2013
Good book, but like always the book and movie they aren't corresponding with each other but a good read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews