This is a book about James Hogue, a liar, thief, and cheater who is most famous for attending ivy league Princeton University under an assumbed name and identity. I decided to read this book to get a clearer pictire of James Hogue, after watching the excellent documentary on his crimes entitled "Con Man" directed by Jesse Moss. This book does not disappoint. It opens on his stay in Telluride, Colorado in which he posed as a world class runner, or entrepeneur, or engineer, or master carpenter (depending on who you talk to) and stole (from people he knew or worked for) over $100,000 worth of furnishings and trinkets; which he was convicted of recently and is currently serving ten years. It delves into his con at Princeton under the name Alexi Indris-Santana (he told others he was a self-taught sheep herder while he was there who happened to be good at running); and when he was caught by a person who saw him at a track meet who recognized him as "Jay Riivk Huntsman" who had attended her high school and wowed people with his running scores who was outed by a local reporter who got suspicious.
The author seemingly identifies with Hogue in lying, and discusses this in his book. He was a youthful liar that told lies about himself to people who were willing to listen, so he could get them to open up and he could gain insight into what made them tick. Samuels (the author) describes his lies as "... products of circumstance, and of some real and obvious instability in my own character." However, Samuels describes knowing when he lied in the past, and how he felt he should not do it because he would start to get truth and lies confused. Hogue is not able to do that, and seems to beleive in whatever lie he is telling at the time, including at the end of the book a con with the author concerning a freshman at Princeton.
The tale is fascinating and completely true. There is not a psychological disorder currently recognized for what Hogue has-someone who is compelled to lie, who is not happy with who he is so he feels the need to change and reinvent himself. There is also not a psychological disorder for his compulsion to steal, and then hoard the items he has stolen either.
The only way this book could possibly be improved is if the author had chosen to include a few pictures of Hogue from his "Jay Huntsman" and "Alexi Indris-Santana" days; and some pictures of Hogue growing up and currently today as an incarcerated man. Many true account books include pictures of the person the book is about at different stages in their life. It still stands as an excellent and chilling read into the mind of a forever imposter.

There are few funky part even I could tell it's typo. Someone properly edited this book, right?
It is confusing because I can't tell when the interview with Hogue in the dorm at Princeton took place. I mean, how could they even let him back in there?
He is arrested 2006 then sentenced 2007 refused to see the author in his jail in first half of the book.
Suppose the author is obsessed and following Hogue for ten years, there is not much have done since their first meeting in Princeton ( it is the first and only, right? I don't know for sure) to write the book about it now.
I wish the author left out his own agenda out of the way so we could concentrate on Hogue character, not the author who identify with the subject and want to tell about why.
I can't care less he went to Harvard because of fluke or couldn't drink milk with meat.
Oh, I love the cover design if anything, he made concept so it says, he shoulda be book designer instead of writer.

Was not an overwhelming book, to say the least. But then again, it is supposed to chronicle the true tales of Hogue. THe author has a bit of a disjointed writing style; there are a few times where you question the relevance of a passage. So sad that Hogue apparently does have the brains, the drive, and the talent to have a great life; too bad he didn't capitalize on his potential in an honest way.

Samuels has taken an admirable stab at dissecting this enigmatic Gatsbyesque con man's psyche for motive, astutely tabulating the paltry gain from the years of petty crime. In a funny aside that Samuels to his credit puts in the book, Hogue responds to one of Samuels's elaborate and quirky questionnaires by closing with this jibe: "What's with the janitor garb? Are you trying to show your solidarity with the lumpen?"

The book is an elaboration of a New Yorker article and probably should have stayed as such (much like Barry Werth's Scarlet Professor), as it feels stretched and padded. Although not a great writer, Samuels rightly senses that he holds compelling subject matter. One fault is that the chronology would have been much better as a simple linear progression; it confusingly yoyos between past and future. Also, instead of just letting the story tell itself, Samuels often intrudes with exaggerated veneration of the privilege of a Princeton (or his own Harvard) education, with admissions committees' self deluding liberal smugness, and with largely irrelevant autobiographical items.

Hogue ultimately proves uncooperative and Samuels is left to speculate on his quarry, but perhaps there is no very profound mechanism at work here. Although I have to admit I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary Con Man. One wonders what a Truman Capote or a Norman Mailer might have done with this material.

Just finished reading Samuels The Runner, and literally could not put it down. Wow! What a crazy fascinating story. It's amazing that people like Hogue exist and that people like Samuels can tell their tale so well. I really felt like I was there, meeting Hogue in person. Not sure what the other reviewers problems are... I thought it was great, and so did every other members of my book group (expect Andy, but he hates everything!) Really, this is a five star winner!