Re: Daniel Wolff --> "Elvis In The Dark"

Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:40 pm

jurasic1968 wrote:I read this after almost 2 years the thread began (I am a new member) and I was amazed. Fabulous, superb article. Thank you, Doc, I couldn't believe Mr. Wolf made such a masterpiece! I think he's right about Peter "Careless Love". Inspite of the huge work of corelating all the sources, he had some ideas I couldn't agree. For the very start to him Elvis is a changed man in the Army and for worse. He became selfish here and with a very strong ego, writes Peter citing Red, Lamar and Rex Mansfield. It's hard to prove that.


You are very welcome!

Wolff makes some very astute observations, although Guralnick's second volume remains essential.

Re: Daniel Wolff --> "Elvis In The Dark"

Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:16 am

It seems I posted briefly in this, in 2011. And I stand by my brief comments that the Guralinick books are significant because of what had come before: Goldman. And because of that, it must have been very difficult to level any criticism, because without Guralnick, there would not be a major work to counter the damage that had been done.

But Wolff's review shows that now that Guralnick's book has served its necessary purpose (and it was necessary), the work needn't stop. And, with a few exceptions here and there, it has stopped. People are looking for different angles, as with focusing on just the Comeback years, but I doubt anyone of high stature would take on Guralnick and write their own major work. And that's kind of a shame, because there now exists so much more documentary material with which to complete the picture. To be fair to Peter Guralnick, he did caution that his Elvis was just that: HIS Elvis. He did leave the door open, but no one, apparently wishes to walk through.

When I went to the Grammy Museum in '10, to see the Wertheimer Smithsonian exhibit, they were selling the Guralinick books, stacks of 'em. As though they were the only book(s) you'd need for background.

I wonder if, after all the music that has been released since the final volume was published, all the photos, all the many artifacts that have been discovered, anyone will take up the challenge? I tend to doubt it, for the foreseeable future. But perhaps in the distant future, when Elvis is a truly historical figure, when no one can say "he would have been (##) years old," perhaps someone will do so. If we're still alive, that's something to look forward to.

rjm
P.S. -- I finally got a good look at that "cryogenic" fellow. He is a good writer, so it wasn't all that much of an "insult,"after all. But it was the principal of the thing, you know?