Holley George-Warren spent 4 years writing this book and notes that this is the span of Janis’s career. In those 4 years Janis left an enduring mark aHolley George-Warren spent 4 years writing this book and notes that this is the span of Janis’s career. In those 4 years Janis left an enduring mark and in her 4 years of research and writing George-Warren has written what may be the definitive work. She shows the stages of Janis’s life and how they segued into her career through interviews, Janis’s letters, and 1960’s print and TV items. Due her short life (27 years), the author is able to give detail as well as the big picture.
It’s hard to envision the person Janis had become from looking at where she came. Her typical middle class parents descended from “Pioneer stock” – farmers, tradesmen, real estate agents and boarding house proprietors. Her mother’s family was fundamentalist Christian but suffered from alcoholism, violent arguments and divorce.
Both parents loved music. Her father enjoyed a quiet life of reading and classical music. Like her father, Janis became a voracious reader, carrying books on tour and always ready to discuss them. Her mother had performed locally and turned down an offer that could lead her to a singing career in NYC. She followed her mother’s (Janis’s grandmother’s) advice to acquire a marketable skill. Neither Janis nor her mother was pressured to marry, which was not typical of the time.
Chapter 6 begins with a quote from Janis “I never seemed to be able to control my feelings…” . She seems to respond to criticism (style, sexuality, drinking) by exaggerating the criticized behavior - which provoked more criticism. For instance if her clothes were criticized she dressed more outrageously. Most devastatingly, campus frat-boys entered her into the “ugly man” contest.
While her early performances were mostly knock out successes, her music career went in spurts. She would return to the family home and go to a technical school or college. Once the styles caught up with her in San Francisco things took off.
Through most of her adulthood, she could not afford long distance calls; thereby creating the author’s best primary source. Janis wrote her parents often. She writes well – not just grammar and spelling, but what she says. She tells her parents what she is doing – all truthful – but the tone is like a typical career girl in the city. George-Warren shows the contrast in the import of what is said and what is actually happening.
There has not been a female singer before or since that could parallel Janis. Aretha holds singular distinctions in rock, pop and gospel, but to my knowledge, no female vocalist had (or has) the natural voice and timing, style, audacity or the grasp of the blues. The book shows how Janis studied Otis Redding, and now that I know this, I can hear the influence.
It is easy to conclude that Janis had a deep need for love and affirmation. She did not want to be alone. I’m extrapolating that the defensive behavior (that made her outrageous) and selection of partners (who self-medicated like she did) made her unable to connect and/or find someone who could connect with her. When she thought she did, it only brought disappointment. While surrounded by people, she remained singular and alone as she lived and died.
It is good that George-Warren was able to interview so many of Janis’s family and associates (too many have already passed on) to capture spirit of this unusual life now. There is a great collection of photos, a few of which would make a much better cover photo than the one selected. The index worked the few times I tried it.
This is highly recommended for those interested in Janis Joplin and/or the music of the 60’s....more
In 1999 "Premier Magazine" asked free lance writer Tom O’Neill to write a 30 year commemorative article on the Tate-LaBianca murders. The article was In 1999 "Premier Magazine" asked free lance writer Tom O’Neill to write a 30 year commemorative article on the Tate-LaBianca murders. The article was expected to cover the murder’s impact on individuals and Hollywood in general. O’Neill takes the reader along with him on this project that wound up enveloping him for 20 years.
Most people, particularly celebrities, like to see their name in print, so landing interviews was expected to be easy. O’Neill not only got a cold shoulder from friends and neighbors of the victims, he also found police and judicial records sealed or missing. Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wanted him to stop and threatened to ruin his reputation, and sue him and his publisher.
The book does not dispute the guilt of Manson and his family but uncovers a trove of negligent police work, fishy cover stories, missing evidence and perjury. The back story has a cast of enablers who may or may not be criminally liable and sheds some light on "why". Here are a few of the many intriguing characters for whom O’Neill provides well documented stories.
- Reeve Whitson – made the first call from the Tate house – before the news of the murders was out. Who was he? Why was he there? Why was he not interviewed?
- Dr. Louis Jolly West, David Smith and Roger Smith all operated “clinics” in San Francisco where Manson and his family hung out. The clinics were actually fronts for these men who researched LSD and other drugs. O’Neill digests their applicable research and interviews them. He documents how all three were associated with COINTELPRO and/or MKULTR.A, CIA drug and mind control experiments.
- Roger Smith – The drug researcher above was also Manson’s parole officer prior to the murders. He sat by as Manson violated his parole many times (drugs, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, auto theft, etc) was caught and released to the chagrin of the arresting officers (Who is Manson’s godfather?). Susan Atkins has “catch and release” experiences too. Smith approved a questionable trip to Mexico and took in Manson’s baby with Mary Brunner. If all that isn’t questionable enough, Manson was his only parolee.
There are plenty of fishy side stories. These are the most curious for me:
- It's not surprising that Terry Melcher and Brian Wilson would distance themselves from Manson after the murders, but O’Neill exposes the legal issues of, for instance, Melchor’s claim that he never saw Manson after the murders.
- Why is Larry Schiller allowed to interview Susan Alkins and publish a pre-trial book despite the gag order? Note, Schiller was granted similar and questionable access to Jack Ruby.
- Why is Vincent Bugliosi so apoplectic? I was surprised about his back-stories (the revenge on the milkman!) but his frequent harassment of the writer hints of something deeper than the gaps in the testimony O'Neill showed him.
- Why was Paul Dostie's dig for more bodies curtailed?
The documentation presented and the record of how difficult it was to get, even on simple matters such as Manson’s parole violations, the identity of Reeve Whitson and the “free clinics” in Haight-Ashbury, on their own are significant.
While this is a research project, it does not have that feel. O’Neil’s chronological approach has you traveling alongside him as he follows leads. If you are interested in this time in history and read this, you will find yourself as engrossed in it as the author was in producing it.....more
This is an authorized biography, but it is not very flattering to its subject. While Joe Hagan takes the reader from Wenner’s childhood to his life noThis is an authorized biography, but it is not very flattering to its subject. While Joe Hagan takes the reader from Wenner’s childhood to his life now that he’s in his 70’s, the bulk of the book is about Wenner’s signature achievement, the creation of Rolling Stone magazine.
Wenner’s family, for me, was the most interesting part of the book. Wenner’s father was a striver, as were the generations before him. He was the first in the family to capitalize on the baby boom. Wenner’s disinterested mother came from a family that was active in liberal politics. She enjoyed bohemian and bi-sesxual lifestyles and, eventually, like her son, settled into a same sex relationship. Jann and his siblings learned to fend for themselves both at home and in the schools where they were placed. As as a boy Jann was always busy, always clever, always unsettled and usually in trouble.
You see how a usually stoned Jann founded Rolling Stone, managed it and extended its brand. Wenner found a void (none of the entertainment magazines treated rock and roll seriously) and filled it and morphed the magazine for the changing times.
Posing that rock peaked as an artistic and cultural medium while the magazine was still young Hagen shows how Wenner added a new slant on politics exemplified by Hunter Thompson’s drug infused wild-man commentary. With Reagan, politics was no longer a cultural phenomenon, and Wenner broadened the mission to include the new big thing: celebrities. With this change ads from record producers and sound system companies gave way to the more lucrative ads for high end cars and brand name goods. Wenner was able to found and acquire other magazines eventually paring down to just Rolling Stone. Hagen sees RS as a dinosaur with a circulation of 1 million and name recognition that exceeds its current significance.
Wenner is portrayed as a bundle of horrible traits: the boss from hell, a back-stabber, a con-man, totally greedy (his mother, clearly not the nurturing type, thinks so) ... name the negative trait, Hagen applies it to Wenner. There are bits of info that undermine this, for instance: He’s called a cheapskate but he seems liberal in giving out company credit cards; he fires on impulse but given Hunter Thompson’s missed deadlines, editing needs and just the general liability of having him around, Thompson should have been fired long before he was and should have never been brought back; It appeared to me it was Wenner's idea and start up cash for “The Fast Times …” and the writer he mentored turned on him, not the other way around; and saddest of all, Wenner supported the staff that wrecked the credibility of RS by the 2014 false rape story. In the last chapter, in a summary of Wenner’s life, Hagen finally gives some positive spin on Wenner.
Hagen interviewed 200 people. I’m guessing he felt obliged to include some little nugget from everyone. I didn’t check the notes to piece together who said what, but I think there are a lot of sour grapes over bad reviews, slights in R&R Hall of Fame inductions (Wenner is a founder) or writers not getting paid enough. Some squibs are tangential and Hagen is not averse to name dropping. This is a typical wedged in concept: Hunter Thompson took drugs with David Kennedy at David’s home while Ethel’s juke box, filled with 45’s by her boyfriend Andy Williams, was playing. Now, how important to the life of Jann Wenner is this?
A long list of celebrities, politicians, movie stars and writers appears. Some, like Mick Jagger, who has a trademark issue with Wenner, often appear. Others are cameos. The unusual Jann & Jane marriage is described as is Jann's life with Matt Nye. Wenner is called "star struck" particularly regarding John Lennon and Mick Jagger. Hagen notes Wenner’s circle and “rolodex” are from a earlier era.
There are a lot of good B & W pictures. The index did not work for me the few times I tried it.
The book is important for documenting the development of one of the last solely owned surviving international magazines and the culture that spawned and created it. For that this book is a 4. As a biography, it seems like a hit job. While this may be an accurate portrait of its subject, I’m not convinced....more
Her two musicians/song-writer husbands wrote iconic songs about her; Eric Clapton’s “Layla” is the most passionate song I know. The text of her memoirHer two musicians/song-writer husbands wrote iconic songs about her; Eric Clapton’s “Layla” is the most passionate song I know. The text of her memoir is low key, but the life she describes is full, vibrant and wild.
The famous marriages are presaged by her unusual and sad childhood spanning England, Scotland and Kenya with her parents, siblings and grandparents. I found this section at least as, if not more, interesting than the marriages. After meeting, living with, marrying and divorcing the stars, she writes of her life without fame.
Like her mother before her, Boyd is often left to fend for herself in her marriages. George seems to give her up for meditation. She left George’s coldness, for Clapton’s years of passion, but after all the pining for her (see Clapton’s autobiography for more on this) when he finally had her, he lost interest. Like her mother she was immobilized by her husbands’ affairs. With both men she found a role in cooking for the entourage and decorating large estates. She remained friends with both. After a divorce: how many women can ask for and get a new house?
She seems to be pleasant and compliant under emotionally abusive circumstances. She holds her head up. There are drugs all around, she tries them, but escapes addiction. Her last chapters cover her life after the stars. Some will say its a name dropping venue, my thoughts are that after all she has been through, starting with childhood, she appreciates these friendships and wants the reader to know that she is happy and active.
This is a straightforward memoir. Reading Clapton’s memoir will add to your appreciation of Boyd. You will cringe when he describes his meaning of “Wonderful Tonight” which shows the cynicism she was living with.
The book doesn’t have the perspective of Marianne Faithfull’s, autobiography (Faithfull) which interprets the era. This book is more of a report on what happened as Boyd saw it. I would image her domestic experiences were similar to other wives of the era's rock stars....more
It’s been 23 years since publication but Marianne Faithfull’s look at her life in the vortex of the 1960’s and the crash of the 1980’s holds up. This It’s been 23 years since publication but Marianne Faithfull’s look at her life in the vortex of the 1960’s and the crash of the 1980’s holds up. This book is perceptive, literary and far beyond my expectations.
Clearly, her drop dead beauty brought Faithfull into the decade’s music explosion and an incredible physical fortitude helped her survive drugs, alcohol, exposure and malnutrition. Her openness to new experiences and her lifelong reading (she is not a high school graduate) add dimension to this book that you don’t get in many rock memoirs.
There is an inside view of life in an entourage. Glamour, energy and money seem to bring out competition and jealousy. She writes of the landmarks of the times, for instance, for many of those close to Brian Jones, his death was merely an incident of convenienience. There are two scenes with Bob Dylan that are worthy of wider note in the canons of the era. Mick Jagger, while totally self-involved, manages to be more sober and humane than the others. Faithfull speculates that the only person Mick loves is Keith.
She gives a fuzzier view of the life of an addict. She notes the hierarchy of street life: drug addicts are better than alcoholics. While she lives on “the wall” she has resources the others don’t. She can visit her mother who is raising her son in the house Mick Jagger bought them. She maintains enough lucidity to keep her contacts in the music industry which eventually result in an album. The narrative on rehab is clearer. Faithfull’s childhood was no more stable than her life in the maelstrom of celebrity which she joined, arguably, as a child. While it was Faithfull who left Mick, it took her almost 20 years to vanquish the experience.
I’d like to know more about her mother, father and son. While this book shows the dismissive nature of male rock stars towards women, I’d be interested in, as the talking heads say, “more color” on her observations on the role of women in this period.
There is a lot here. It is a must read on the era. ...more
This book is a memoir of Victor Maymudes (with commentary by his son) complied from tapes he made before his untimely death. I have to admit having Bo This book is a memoir of Victor Maymudes (with commentary by his son) complied from tapes he made before his untimely death. I have to admit having Bob Dylan in the title pulled me in, but the book is more than that.
Son Jacob begins with portraits of his mother and paternal grandparents. You may wonder where this is going. You see later that they are critical. To understand Victor (whom the book is actually about) you need to understand his roots and his milieu.
If the tapes are an actual transcription, Victor has an amazing recall for sequence, places and names. The times without Dylan are as interesting as the times with. Victor was an active participant in the post war opening up of communication, the changing formats for the arts and the protest movements before (and after) meeting his eventual friend and boss, Bob Dylan. Victor’s coffee house and the entertainment he presented spawned careers and gave Victor producer experience, connections and cred. Because of Jacob’s portraits of his grandparents, you can appreciate Victor’s awe when he met Dylan and why he gave him large pieces of his life.
If you read this for something about the “other side” of Dylan you will be disappointed. There is nothing you would not imagine: He is very private. His eyes are bad. He drank a lot before quitting one day. He plays chess. He could be hurtfully brusque. He boxes. He is more interested in money than he appears.
What you get from this is a portrait of a friendship taking place inside a work relationship. There are some very stirring episodes such as the concert in Poland; stories of daily life as tour moved from city to city; and narratives that reveal the friendship’s inequality such as getting and outfitting Dylan's own tour bus and Victor’s sacrifices and split decisions that protected Dylan and his privacy.
How the “job”, but not the friendship, ends is not surprising given the minimized, but present, backdrop of sexism. You see how Dylan speaks to Suzie and why marries Sara and Victor’s attitude towards marriage. There are undoubtedly women on the tours, but unless they have a notable name or can be called "X's girlfriend", even if they are a significant other, they are hardly mentioned. With the exception of Jacob’s mother, an almost exclusively male world is portrayed.
This is a quick read. Don’t read it to find an “other side” to Bob Dylan, it isn’t here. Read it to get insight into the post-war music industry, the day to day life of musical tours and a glimpse of life in the counter-culture of New Mexico and California. ...more
Laurence Wright tells of his growing awareness of the world as he experienced the major events of the late 20th century. His family had moved from Okl Laurence Wright tells of his growing awareness of the world as he experienced the major events of the late 20th century. His family had moved from Oklahoma to Dallas where this book begins and ends. He is embarrassingly honest about his early views and awkwardness.
Wright remembers the dull Dallas of the 50s, a city of few minorities and strong right wing opinions. LBJ was spat upon and JFK was greeted to Dallas by ads accusing him of treason. It was the home of General Edwin Walker who was influential in the John Birch Society, but more famous for Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination attempt. Remembering people and events of his youth, Wright sees Texas, with Dallas in particular, as a part of a regional block, which through “new money” rivals the social and political prominence of the “Eastern Establishment”.
The Kennedy assassination looms as Wright describes the guilt feelings of the Kennedy-hating establishment of Dallas and the collective shame for having citizens such as Oswald and Jack Ruby. The conspiracies are touched on and personalized when Wright meets a former employee of Ruby’s in New Orleans (Oswald’s home town), Marilyn “Delilah” Walle, who 8 months later was shot and killed by a man to whom she had been married for one month ((see: Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination#24, she could have testified about Oswald's visit(s)to Ruby’s club)).
Never using the word “generation gap”, Wright shows how it played out in his family. His parents are part of the “new” America who had sacrificed to win a war against a real and definable evil and afterward saw their lives improve. They believed in Richard Nixon particularly in contrast to the “Old Establishment” represented by the Kennedy's. Through this bedrock faith in the nation that Nixon represented, they supported the Vietnam War even at the potential cost of their son.
He writes of traveling in Europe and reading the French philosophers and finding America wanting. He visits socialist countries. In telling his experience of the draft he shows how middle class whites were able to skirt service, leaving the burden to minorities and the poor. Wright too easily receives conscientious objector status and went to Egypt for his CO service. There is a lot of reflection on race and the Civil Rights movement. He never mentions the women’s movement. Expanding roles for women are mentioned as though they just happened. He tells how he changed when at 30 he decides to have children, which he formerly shunned due to his dismal view of politics and the future of the world's environment.
Wright re-recreates the Watergate era when Americans were riveted to the black and white daily TV drama. Through his parents, Wright shows the effect of the Watergate hearings on Nixon’s “silent majority”. He writes of southern pride with the subsequent election of Jimmy Carter and gives some detail on Georgia politics of the time.
The book ends in 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas, where Ronald Reagan, representative of the “new”, “non-eastern establishment” is confirmed as the new power in the nation. Here, Wright connects with delegate Eldridge Cleaver, whose book Soul on Ice once spoke to him and where General Walker had been busted for lewd behavior and had sold his home to the Hari Krishna's.
Like Wright, I’m a baby boomer and the book is the story of our shared history (inclusive of living a time in Cairo). Being from the northeast and female, I have a different take on the “new” vs. the “old” establishment, place more importance on the women’s movement and havw never heard anyone admire Charles Manson; none of this detracts from revisiting this time with Wright. I’d like to see Wright bring this up to date, with a book on Aging with America, or similar theme....more
Over 30 years ago I read excerpts of this book. In reading the whole piece now, I see that the work not only holds up over time but also that the fullOver 30 years ago I read excerpts of this book. In reading the whole piece now, I see that the work not only holds up over time but also that the full work is more impressive than the parts selected by national magazines. This portrait of the Hell’s Angels has all the info you would find in a dry academic sociological study but Thompson’s prose, personal experiences and reactions would never appear in an academic work, and these contribute greatly to the character of the work.
Thompson has a curious relationship with the Angels. They accept him, but he has seen acceptance of outsiders turn on a dime, so he is careful in his demeanor, how he shares beer, stays useful and keeps a distance.
You learn the Angel attitude and where it came from. You learn how Angels made their living (and didn’t make their living), acquired and chopped their bikes, worked their legal and bail issues, used violence, degraded women (and about the mamas who accepted this). You see their racial attitudes, alcohol and drug use, how they buried their members, how they fascinated the public and their early experiences with California’s academics, artists and activists.
I was interested in the pre-Gonzo Thompson and found him to be a serious reporter. He delves into an official investigation (The Lynch Report) and checks out the truth of press reports (showing the New York Times troubles precede Jason Blair and Judith Miller). He reports and interprets what he sees. On pages 252-253 he gives an excellent summation.
The Gonzo style appears now and then in fledgling form in content and metaphor. For instance, on p. 175 “He tended the fire with the single-minded zeal of a man who’s been eating bennies like popcorn. The flames lit up his glasses and his Nazi helmet”.
This book may have the first use, in print, of the Thompson cachet “fear and loathing”.
I highly recommend this book for general readers interested in this topic or time....more
This is an oral history with Art Pepper telling his story in short chronological segments with interviews of friends and associates spliced in. While This is an oral history with Art Pepper telling his story in short chronological segments with interviews of friends and associates spliced in. While Pepper is famous for his jazz and jazz is part of the story, there is more about the drug and prison culture of California at the time. As Art speaks (you know this because the margins are justified) you adjust to his point of view which is best summarized on p. 424: “I’d known him in jail. He was a real criminal and dopefiend, so I trusted him.”
There are many remarkable things about Pepper’s life such as his loving but distant father who spots his talent, his stint in the Army in WWII where a last minute change in orders probably saved his life, his relationships with women, his adapting to prison life and his experience of Synanon. Most amazing is that he survived an incredible amount of drug and alcohol abuse until his mid- 40’s before is body gave out and he found someone who could love him despite his baggage and his habit.
Pepper’s life defined the wisdom of “Just say no”. Once hooked, his time was devoted to acquiring the resources to fix (boosting = stealing, begging “friends”, or playing a gig), “copping”, coming down (very unpleasant when lasting too long) and acquiring the resources again. He hides with stolen goods in rough neighborhoods and alleys and panics at the hint of a patrol. After a 5 day binge with pills he can’t stand up while wife attempts suicide. There are pages and pages of this and the people in this world seem to accept it as normal.
Synanon was a very curious place. I checked Wikipedia, and, it was (and still is in Germany) a “new religious movement”. It is said to run on donations. (Maintaining this residential campus for what seems like hundreds of adults with buses and its own private beach implies a huge donor base.) Treatment seemed to be separation from society and peer supervision. There were some unorthodox practices such as changing schedules, rooms and policies without notice, having 24+ hours of non-stop activities and “the game”. Synanon seemed to be a “rest cure” for Pepper, and a place where he learned social norms other than those of the street. Once his body was healed methadone and Laurie (who became his third wife) protected him from the worst aspects of addiction which he never did kick.
The reader is back in the “Mad Men” era which shows in Pepper’s attitude toward women. He gives a description of the breasts of each woman he meets. He learns, but shows no understanding of, basic courtship etiquette. In one of the Synanon games he re-enacts the one thing he feels sorry for. He does not say he feels sorry about the sadness he brought to Patti or the tragedy to Diane or Christine.
As you follow Pepper you can’t help but think of the thousands of addicts who live as Pepper did and worse. While Pepper almost killed himself and spent what should have been productive years in the worst prisons in the country, he had his talent, his father, and the women he used to cushion the blows.
The book is riveting through its full 500 pages and enables the reader to visit a dangerous world in the safety of an arm chair. There a good photos and a very good discography. In the “Afterward” Laurie Pepper discusses the difficulties in assembling the material. Its value is beyond the satisfaction it brought her husband, the Peppers have assembled an important historical record....more
This book arranges interviews, letters (presumably full text) to family and fans, a letter to an album cover designer, and an attorney's letter to himThis book arranges interviews, letters (presumably full text) to family and fans, a letter to an album cover designer, and an attorney's letter to him into a chronology for Hendrix's life. The editors have short intros to each piece citing what was happening in Hendrix's life at the time.
There are a few photos. A layout has changing text sizes and shades of purple. The wonderful line drawings have a signature that does not match any attribution (probably a copyright holder and not the artist). Were the book to have a larger format, it would be considered a coffee table book.
In the narratives you see Jimi's concern for his father, his daring in leaving steady (for this industry) gigs to work on his own art, his positive attitude, his openness to all music and his overwhelming exhaustion. He speaks and writes a lot about music giving the reader a glimmer of what he might have produced had he lived.
If you didn't know how the story ended, you would not know from the text. There is very little about drugs. His writing is so tame that you are surprised when he wrecks a car in Honolulu.
Fans, hungry for anything Hendrix will most likely want to read this.
The authors claim the narratives are based on Hendrix's letters and words, but the lack of family sanction casts doubts on the authenticity. I was glad to read this; glad it exists, but wish for a better book....more
Steinhorn has important things to say about how America has changed and who changed it. Tom Brokaw who coined the "greatest generation", is not a boomSteinhorn has important things to say about how America has changed and who changed it. Tom Brokaw who coined the "greatest generation", is not a boomer. He is a pre-boomer, and upon graduating from college, the world was his oyster in the way it never was for any boomer, despite boomer mythology. Brokaw is the archetypical beneficiary of the "greatest generation" world view. A by-product of Brokaw's book is that it fed the the media's simplistic line about boomers ... a line that has never been challenged.
Steinhorn speculates that WWII, the cornerstone of the adulation of the greatest generation, would have been equally well fought by the boomers. He cites evidence of their bravery in a war that had little meaning, and the bravery it took to oppose it.
As Steinhorn says, the boomers challenged the racism, sexism and general social constraints of the "greatest generation" and made a revolution was not the stuff of headlines. If the term "cultural revolution" didn't have such a negative pall, we might be able to apply it, because that is what it was.
It was micro and local. In schools it took the form of challenging dress codes, band music and why girls couldn't play soccer. In families it took the form of choosing friends, hairstyles, privacy and dating. Slowly, slowly more freedom of choice, and freedom of being the self set in. While there may be some nostalgia associated with the times, anyone who grew up in the 50s would never go back to the those "Leave to Beaver" days.
Steinhorn sees the new opportunities for women, minorities, the end legal constraints on gays and the more open society we have today as as a direct result of the many small, unsung actions of boomers.
This book has had little attention because it does not fit the media narrative about the boomers. There is data to support the thesis as well as personal stories showing examples. ...more
It's been years since the crimes, but Charles Manson (perhaps America's most famous living sociopath) is still of reading interest. Helter Skelter: ThIt's been years since the crimes, but Charles Manson (perhaps America's most famous living sociopath) is still of reading interest. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders remains the definitive work on the trial; The Family, for which there has been some dispute of facts, nevertheless, remains definitive on Manson and his followers. I believe this book will similarly survive as the definitive biography of Manson.
The detail on his sad childhood is sourced from state and county records, interviews with family members and local people as well as secondary sources. There are interesting photos of the young Charlie; Striking in to contrast the older Manson is the one of his wedding day. You follow Manson through his life in reform and correctional programs, inclusive of a stay at Boys Town. In prison he learned "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and picked up the jargon of Scientology. He exploited both upon release.
Author Jeff Guinn shows how Manson grew his tribe from his first recruit, Mary Brunner, to over 30 hand-picked followers. He shows how the women helped lure the attention and largesse of Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, were useful in entertaining Terry Melcher and were necessary in obtaining food, cash and credit cards. The men stole and rebuilt vehicles. Manson procured housing and was the authoritarian spiritual leader. The narrative takes Manson from his goals of getting a recording contract to that of surviving the coming race war; it describes how he manipulted others to commit crimes and later complement his courtroom antics designed for them to take the rap; and how he now lives in prison.
The "... and his Times" part of the title is covered by inserting the parallel events of the country in the Manson chronology. If you lived through these times, the specific placement helps set the stage for the Manson events and the more lengthy descriptions are not needed.
The last chapter starts a discussion on Manson and the times. While it is commonly said that he and "The Family" are a 60's phenomena, Guinn in his last paragraph states that Manson, himself, is a product of the 30's, 40's and 50's. I would have liked more development of this idea, because in a similar way, the 60's were a product of a pent up need for social changes that had not been met in the earlier three decades....more
I just don't know what to make of this. Is my tepid feeling for the book about the book or about or Townshend?
The band, as the first pages says, is RoI just don't know what to make of this. Is my tepid feeling for the book about the book or about or Townshend?
The band, as the first pages says, is Roger's thing, but everything that follows says that it's Pete's thing. Pete is not just writing music he's making personnel decisions; he's negotiating with managers, lawyers, signing rights. He's well into Quadrophenia before any mention of input from the band is mentioned. After this and more, it's amazing that on p. 346, Townsend says "Roger was the unquestionable leader...but Roger was the leader and always had been."
This is just one of many non-sequitors, large and small. There is his mother who ignores him throughout childhood only to clean his apartment at night once he moves out on his own. The Who's early period, characterized by guitar smashing and hotel wrecking, is understated as Townsend presents himself as a bread-winning workaholic dad. Yes, he's drinking a bit... but he's not taking drugs, except for this.. or that. Just after he writes of his financial uncertainty, he is buying a boat, a house (or his wife is) or refurbishing a recording studio.
On just about every page, a name is dropped. There is a lot of macho posturing, usually about women, but most strangely about eating flowers. After purchasing a number of impressive cars, and a receiving a number of moving violations he writes " ...never much interested in cars apart from their ability to transport me quickly and safely."
After 500 pages, it is still not clear "Who he is". There is more about buying boats and setting up studios than there is about how he related to his band mates (for instance the reaction to the death of Keith Moon) or why he followed Maher Baba. (I had to go to Wikipedia to learn what the religion was about.) He falls in love not just once, but often.
I come away with a number of feelings about all this. First is sadness for a lonely little boy. Then sympathy for a man with an addictive profile who buried himself in work; work was infused with the drama of the times. Then, sadness again that he lost out on warmth and love as a child, and seems unable to find connection as an adult.
Townshend has created some great art and made some technological strides in music. He is definitely a foremost artist of "his" generation. Despite all that has been written about the generation gap, not many have related it to the preceding generation's trauma of war as Townshend has. While this book does not answer his question, it may provide a blueprint for a future biographer to interpret Townshend in a more accessible way. ...more
This is actually two books. The first part is Harvey Pekar's take on the Beats with the bulk of it devoted to Kerouac, Ginzberg and Burroughs. The lasThis is actually two books. The first part is Harvey Pekar's take on the Beats with the bulk of it devoted to Kerouac, Ginzberg and Burroughs. The last part, a third of the book is a series of "guest" graphic writers and artists covering different aspects of the beats.
In the first part, Pekar's style cuts through the rhetoric and nostalgia of the era. The beats made great progress in literature, led progressive political movements and affirmed freedom of the press, but their personal morality left a lot to be desired. When one beat shot another, there was no remorse, only a desire to get the shooter off. They went to Morocco for boys and drugs. Burroughs hooks his wife and son on drugs. The beats' treatment of women was sociopathic: Burroughs played with his wife's life (and she lost); Kerouac denied his daughter despite a DNA match.
The text shows their serendipitous choices in content and titles and the casual attitudes of the period. In Mao's China, Castro's Cuba and cold war Russia. Ginzberg speaks freely about sex. Pekar has Daniel Ortega telling him to watch what he says, true or not, the context seems correct.
In the later part, the other writers and artists give different beat perspectives. The most moving of these is "Beatnik Chicks" by Joyce Brabner (wife, now widow, of Harvey Pekar) and illustrated by Summer McClinton. The last of these pieces, "Tuli Kupferberg" is reader-unfriendly by the busyness of its text and images.
There was a lot new to me. For instance, I did not know about Kenneth Patchen's bedridden life, or Diane DiPrima's 5 children or the origins of the City Lights Book Store.
This is the third graphic history I've read. The first, was the National Book Award nominee Radioactive: Marie and Pierre Curie, A Tale of Love and Fallout which pushed the boundaries of this art form. The author created her own type and used paper coated with light sensitive materials. The use of color and the images evoked the use of radiation, good and bad.
Pekar brings out the essence of his subjects. He tackles tough material and shows people what they might not want to see. I will look for more graphic histories by Pekar, Joyce Brabner and others....more
Author Don Lattin discusses the impact that key participants in the 1950's Harvard LSD studies had on today's culture through four biographies. He shoAuthor Don Lattin discusses the impact that key participants in the 1950's Harvard LSD studies had on today's culture through four biographies. He shows how the lives of each of the four intersected and how each followed his respective passion.
New ideas on nutrition and medical treatment advanced by Andrew Weil and perspectives on religion advanced by Huston Smith and Richard Alpert/Ram Das, once considered unorthodox are now mainstream. The most famous participant of them all, Timothy Leary, was a "Trickster" bringing only trouble for himself and a backlash against the drug he was promoting.
The story of LSD research starting with the CIA (the Unabomber was a participant!) to the famous Leary/Alpert tests was fascinating, as was the story of the termination of the study and its two professors. Their immediate lives after Harvard were period pieces, and somehow, though few people lived this sort of life, are considered emblematic of the 60's.
Besides the commonly identified Leary circle (Ginzberg, Burroughs, etc,) interesting to me was the variety of "household names" that flew into the Leary orbit: E Gordon Liddy, Aldous Huxley, Uma Thurmon (could she be called a step daughter?) Harry Winston (through his son Ronnie), Maynard Ferguson (name kept popping up), Bill W (founder of AA), Eldrige Cleaver, Bill Ayers (now again famous via Fox News) and (mystery woman) Mary Pinchot Meyer.
A small point, for a book with a generally smooth read, was the interchangeable use of first and last names. This works for those in the title, (i.e. sometimes it's Huston, sometimes Smith) but for those who have small "parts" it interfered with the read, since I had to flip back.
While this is a good book and each of the men profiled achieved, I don't buy the thesis about the depth of their impact. While each made a mark, there was a lot going on. The old ways of thinking were severely challenged by the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement and later the Women's Movement. These forced changes in thinking that have influenced everything including health and religion far beyond any impact of these four men. For instance, while I can't prove it, I think that the very publication in of "Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth with its straight talk on birth control, childbirth and menopause" was far more influential in changing the thinking/practice of medicine than any of the natural food/healing advocates. While, for me, the thesis was weak, the book the book was an interesting read.
For an excellent book on the impact of the 60's I recommend: "The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy" ...more
Author Bill Morgan explains in the Introduction that his intent is to construct a chronology of the "Beats" following the model of Susan Cheever's "AmAuthor Bill Morgan explains in the Introduction that his intent is to construct a chronology of the "Beats" following the model of Susan Cheever's "American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne", and "Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work". The plan is to show that the Beats, like the Transcendentalists, had a major impact on changes in society and American thought.
The chronology of what they did, where they traveled and when their works were written/published shows Alan Ginsburg as central to the group. While Ginsburg's centrality may be a matter of opinion, the book shows him at the heart of intra-group communication; He is always writing, visiting and encouraging his circle of friends. Ginsburg is constantly promoting Beat poetry, prose and people and seems to be the only one (outside of Gary Snyder who is mostly hiking in the woods or in a monastery in Japan) sober enough to do so.
Morgan clearly loves and admires the Beats. He credits them with leading everything from the post-war societal changes to the development of the video montage. While Morgan does a good job of piecing together Beat chronology and demonstrating the centrality of Ginsburg, he doesn't meet his goal of showing how society was changed by the Beats. He shows that Ginsburg was a father of free form poetry and that Kerouac was a pioneer of the narrator/conversational novel and that Lawrence Ferlinghetti took a big risk that resulted in a landmark ruling on behalf of free speech, but the Beats' role in the larger societal changes is not well drawn. The last chapter discusses the Beats as a catalyst, but the same can be said for many other forces or issues of the times.
Ironically, another point the book does prove is a quote from Beats detractor Richard Kimball (p. xiii) "They were drug-abusing sexual predators and infantilized narcissists..." The behavior of Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy towards their respective spouses and children is appalling and pales only to that of William Burroughs. Only Gary Snyder seems to be somewhat drug/alcohol be free. The Beats seem to be living in a state of perpetual childhood. They either can't or won't have paying jobs and if they don't participate in theft and seem to find it acceptable. While some of them made great art, by and large, they appear to be the ultimate free-loaders.
I recently saw "Howl", a 2010 film covering the poem, its obscenity trial and Ginsburg's early life. It would have been best to have read this before rather than after. The film treats Ginsburg's romantic relationships in a much different way than they are shown in this book.
This is a good contribution to the study of the Beats and their work. It's author has an interesting background as something like a free lance archivist for artists which, in itself, earns my respect. ...more
Since its publication there have been many drug inspired poems, rants and narratives, but Thompson can't be beat. He's the gold standard of the genre. His prose, narrative and attitude are consistent from paragraph to punctuation.
Thompson and his attorney are out to discover the American Dream in Las Vegas before the city went family friendly. Stoned on more alcohol and drugs than any human can survive, the pair zooms across the desert in the giant luxury cars of the day, running up hotel bills, damaging property and stealing tons of soap. There is little to no continuity in their experience as they move from place to place, meeting and abusing people as only addicts can.
It is the heart of irony they attend a convention of District Attorneys and law enforcement personnel who specialize in drug laws.
While it was written in the 1970's (with Nixon-era content) the style is that associated with the 1960's. It reads in a way that is still fresh and stylish after 40+ years. My read ("back then") provoked some out loud laughing. This time around it provoked a few smiles and "WOW" moments.
I wonder how millennials, if they were to read this, would relate to the imagery. There are giant cars, a reliance on pay phones, complex recording equipment (state of art for then), 29 cent hamburgers, and $2/per day rental car insurance. The many allusions to 60's/70's music create the backdrop for those who lived through this era; do they enrich the reading experience of young people? Would young people today recognize names like Melvin Belli, Sonny Barger or Caryl Chessman? or even Bob Zimmerman, Spiro Agnew or John Mitchell?
There are recounts of conversations all too common for the era. My favorite one (I've heard hundreds of variations) was on p. 145 with Thompson, "his attorney" with a DA from Georgia. The illustrations by Ralph Steadman match the fear and loathing content.
Anyone who wants a nostalgia trip to a glamorized drug life (that no one really led) will want to read (or maybe re-read) this book....more
Loading...
