Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:45 pm

:lol: very funny :lol:

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:46 pm

Albert Goldman wrote:
LesterB wrote:Many thanks for confirmation of this Doc. I am having some ipad problems with pictures on the posts but will endeavour to have a look later on the PC.

I seem to remember that the March 1970 Goldman review was also cited by Elvisly Yours mag some years ago but dated 1969??? I'm having a feeling of Déjà vu here - have we discussed this before.


Confirmation? This only confirms that neither Doc or you have not really read the book. The biography does not end in such a claim!


Perhaps near the end? It is a long time ago since I read it. I remember reading it very carefully at the time before throwing it away.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:48 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:Why should i read a book thats had pretty much bad reviews from nearly every writer/reviewer since its publication. I have read quotes that have come from the book, and from what i've read is enough for me to think that this is trash. The reviews that i've read about the book are from reliable writers who tell as it is. I did read a few pages of the one he did on John Lennon and i remember thinking "this is rubbish". So do i need to read the Elvis one....NO!


No. You need to read the book itself. Or do you want to live your life talking for granted what is good and bad on the say so of others?

Whats the point? The trash he wrote about Lennon and the style he wrote it in he does the same to Elvis....so why bother? Guralnicks two masterpieces is all any fan needs.....


You base this on "reading a few pages" out of around a thousand. You're an adult. Read the damn thing yourself instead of relying on letting other people tell you what is good and bad.

You need to get off your high horse!....i hope you enjoy re-reading it again, let us know what you think.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:07 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Firstly, I have to say that the first article from 1968 seems pretty much on the money (excuse the pun) when it comes to Goldman's comments about Elvis being a commodity and little else.


What is most striking is the article says almost nothing about the TV special, which one presumes he was paid to watch and preview for the readers of the New York Times.

We read of no songs, or of how unique it was that Elvis was featured without any guest stars. We do not heard about his performances at all, because this would force the man to acknowledge how dynamic Presley was.

And all of his references to Elvis are condescending and crude, and more than a little sexist (another unseemly trait of his writing).

The 1968 article foreshadows what was to come, just 13 years later.


poormadpeter wrote:The issue here is that there is nothing wrong with a writer writing a book about Elvis and actually hating everything the singer did, providing he has the intelligence and the literary prowess in order to argue his case and state why he feels that way.


Correct. And as should be evident by the scathing 1981 Village Voice review, Goldman completely failed in his role as biographer, hateful or no.


poormadpeter wrote:I have yet to see one person say that they think the book is pretty truthful.


Read with care. This is not the first time I've asked this of you. This appears on page 1 of this topic:

I did buy the book then, still have it and most of what is written was true ...

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76177#p1151293


There is indeed a presumption as to what the 68 Comeback special article was intended as. But it appears that you don't know the answer to that either! One would also assume that a preview article would also state the time of the program it was previewing and the channel. And yet the article as you present it does neither. Such a preview would also be likely to be printed on the day of the show rather than two days before. Therefore this could simply be an opinion column and not a preview. The jury is out.

And yes, I obviosuly did miss the comment on the front page.

As for my comment about a negative biography being fine providing it is done well, yes, I italicised that for obvious reasons and to stress it. But I had also stressed that I wasn't necessarily talking about the book but the comments about it - and, in that case, Alexander's comment that someone can only write a biography if they have a [positive] passion for the subject. I was very careful not to pass judgement on the book itself as I haven't read it recently, just passing comments on some of the ideas being thrown around here with regards to it.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:19 am

I remember Goldman running down the sit down shows, saying Elvis tried to sing in the same key he did when he was 19, he was so stupid, that he failed on most of it but that finally at the end, he managed to pull of a creditable version of One Night that had a little fire. He apparently didn't feel the special was a triumph.

If enough people I trust tell me something is trash and I know in my gut instinctively that it is trash, I don't need to read it myself to reach the same conclusion. I would spare myself the waste of time. In this case, I did read this and the scorn was just overwhelming.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:27 am

Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Now, unlike some of the big-mouthed misanthropes on this forum, there is no "hatred" for deceased, discredited biographer Albert Goldman. Elvis Presley is now a figure of history. We are simply looking back at a time when a small-minded man, armed with college degrees, a typewriter and an agenda, tried desperately to tear down the achievements of one of the 20th century's greatest icons.



I love people in general - misanthropes hate people (you can check it out from Wikipedia). I just hate really stupid and smug people.

Why the hell do you call yourself Albert Goldman on this forum and have a picture of him in your avatar?

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:05 am

Albert Goldman wrote:
LesterB wrote:Many thanks for confirmation of this Doc. I am having some ipad problems with pictures on the posts but will endeavour to have a look later on the PC.

I seem to remember that the March 1970 Goldman review was also cited by Elvisly Yours mag some years ago but dated 1969??? I'm having a feeling of Déjà vu here - have we discussed this before.


Confirmation? This only confirms that neither Doc or you have not really read the book. The biography does not end in such a claim!


I have read the book, and anyone may discern (except you, it seems) that I did not say that it ended that way.

Thank you.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:14 am

poormadpeter wrote:There is indeed a presumption as to what the 68 Comeback special article was intended as. But it appears that you don't know the answer to that either!


Yes, it was just a coincidence that it was published on Sunday December 1, 1968, included a 1968 TV Special black leather caricature by the great Al Hirschfeld, and "Singer Presents Elvis" aired nationally on Tuesday, December 3, 1968.

Or that Goldman stated in the first paragraph, "Elvis Presley, coming up on the home screen for the first time in eight years and his first special, Tuesday night at 9 on NBC."

It is folly to assume a New York Times critic was not afforded a preview screening of a major network TV special. It is much more reasonable to assume Goldman took the opportunity as a platform to rip Elvis a new one, while eschewing any mention of the horrible hour he spent looking the the videotape.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:27 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
LesterB wrote:Many thanks for confirmation of this Doc. I am having some ipad problems with pictures on the posts but will endeavour to have a look later on the PC.

I seem to remember that the March 1970 Goldman review was also cited by Elvisly Yours mag some years ago but dated 1969??? I'm having a feeling of Déjà vu here - have we discussed this before.


Confirmation? This only confirms that neither Doc or you have not really read the book. The biography does not end in such a claim!


I have read the book, and anyone may discern (except you, it seems) that I did not say that it ended that way.

Thank you.
'

Have you really? Will you find your copy ASAP after you have found your Charro 45 rpm? Or did you lend the book from the local library?

If you knew what you were talking about, you would have corrected the false assumption about the the ending of the book, wouldn't you? In fact, your opinions seems to be based only on Marcus' article.

"The carelessness of a practiced faker"? (see your post on page 1)

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:39 am

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Now, unlike some of the big-mouthed misanthropes on this forum, there is no "hatred" for deceased, discredited biographer Albert Goldman. Elvis Presley is now a figure of history. We are simply looking back at a time when a small-minded man, armed with college degrees, a typewriter and an agenda, tried desperately to tear down the achievements of one of the 20th century's greatest icons.



I love people in general - misanthropes hate people (you can check it out from Wikipedia). I just hate really stupid and smug people.

Why the hell do you call yourself Albert Goldman on this forum and have a picture of him in your avatar?

You still haven't answered my question!

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:45 am

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Now, unlike some of the big-mouthed misanthropes on this forum, there is no "hatred" for deceased, discredited biographer Albert Goldman. Elvis Presley is now a figure of history. We are simply looking back at a time when a small-minded man, armed with college degrees, a typewriter and an agenda, tried desperately to tear down the achievements of one of the 20th century's greatest icons.



I love people in general - misanthropes hate people (you can check it out from Wikipedia). I just hate really stupid and smug people.

Why the hell do you call yourself Albert Goldman on this forum and have a picture of him in your avatar?

You still haven't answered my question!


Are offended by my avatar? If you are, I apologize.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:51 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:There is indeed a presumption as to what the 68 Comeback special article was intended as. But it appears that you don't know the answer to that either!


Yes, it was just a coincidence that it was published on Sunday December 1, 1968, included a 1968 TV Special black leather caricature by the great Al Hirschfeld, and "Singer Presents Elvis" aired nationally on Tuesday, December 3, 1968.

Or that Goldman stated in the first paragraph, "Elvis Presley, coming up on the home screen for the first time in eight years and his first special, Tuesday night at 9 on NBC."

It is folly to assume a New York Times critic was not afforded a preview screening of a major network TV special. It is much more reasonable to assume Goldman took the opportunity as a platform to rip Elvis a new one, while eschewing any mention of the horrible hour he spent looking the the videotape.


i didn't realise the cartoon and the article were linked. Even so, if the NYT hired Goldman to write a preview then that is what he would have had to have written - and it certainly ISN'T what he wrote.

What's more, Goldman was NEVER hired by the NYT as a critic; he simply wrote a total of 6 articles for the newspaper during 1968 - none during 1967 or 1969, suggesting he was used on an ad hoc basis. NONE of those 6 articles are reviews. As with the Elvis article, the NYT archives them as arts features - reviews have a different category. The Presley article therefore was written because Elvis was back in the spotlight, and references the show, but was NOT a preview for it.
Last edited by poormadpeter on Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:51 am

Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
LesterB wrote:Many thanks for confirmation of this Doc. I am having some ipad problems with pictures on the posts but will endeavour to have a look later on the PC.
I seem to remember that the March 1970 Goldman review was also cited by Elvisly Yours mag some years ago but dated 1969??? I'm having a feeling of Déjà vu here - have we discussed this before.

Confirmation? This only confirms that neither Doc or you have not really read the book. The biography does not end in such a claim!

I have read the book, and anyone may discern (except you, it seems) that I did not say that it ended that way.
Thank you.
'
Have you really? Will you find your copy ASAP after you have found your Charro 45 rpm?

:D

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:14 am

Albert Goldman wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
Albert Goldman wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Now, unlike some of the big-mouthed misanthropes on this forum, there is no "hatred" for deceased, discredited biographer Albert Goldman. Elvis Presley is now a figure of history. We are simply looking back at a time when a small-minded man, armed with college degrees, a typewriter and an agenda, tried desperately to tear down the achievements of one of the 20th century's greatest icons.



I love people in general - misanthropes hate people (you can check it out from Wikipedia). I just hate really stupid and smug people.

Why the hell do you call yourself Albert Goldman on this forum and have a picture of him in your avatar?

You still haven't answered my question!
Not really offended. Would like an answer though.

Are offended by my avatar? If you are, I apologize.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:21 am

Not really offended by it. Just want to know why-could you answer it?

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:30 am

poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:There is indeed a presumption as to what the 68 Comeback special article was intended as. But it appears that you don't know the answer to that either!


Yes, it was just a coincidence that it was published on Sunday December 1, 1968, included a 1968 TV Special black leather caricature by the great Al Hirschfeld, and "Singer Presents Elvis" aired nationally on Tuesday, December 3, 1968.

Or that Goldman stated in the first paragraph, "Elvis Presley, coming up on the home screen for the first time in eight years and his first special, Tuesday night at 9 on NBC."

It is folly to assume a New York Times critic was not afforded a preview screening of a major network TV special. It is much more reasonable to assume Goldman took the opportunity as a platform to rip Elvis a new one, while eschewing any mention of the horrible hour he spent looking the the videotape.


i didn't realise the cartoon and the article were linked. Even so, if the NYT hired Goldman to write a preview then that is what he would have had to have written - and it certainly ISN'T what he wrote.

What's more, Goldman was NEVER hired by the NYT as a critic; he simply wrote a total of 6 articles for the newspaper during 1968 - none during 1967 or 1969, suggesting he was used on an ad hoc basis. NONE of those 6 articles are reviews. As with the Elvis article, the NYT archives them as arts features - reviews have a different category. The Presley article therefore was written because Elvis was back in the spotlight, and references the show, but was NOT a preview for it.


I don't understand pete... why are you defending this guy or trying to rationalize what he did in writing this book about Elvis?? He was a total f'ing a$$hole...

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:36 am

Goldman trashed Elvis and Lennon. It's a fact. So he hated two of the greatest singers of the 20'th century and maked a lot of money from such biased biographies. He had talent of course in writings things like that. I think he is the number one biographer in portrayng Elvis and Lennon as the dark and evil characters the music world ever knew. Nothing positive about them, only negative features.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:04 am

poormadpeter wrote:
stevelecher wrote:Man, you can see nothing but disdain for Elvis in everything he ever wrote. That's the most unmistakeable thing about him. I wonder why people who think the book is pretty truthful are here on this message board. Why do you care to write about such a sad and despicable person as Elvis.


I have yet to see one person say that they think the book is pretty truthful.


I read the book through, twice. And referenced it in later years, if there was an anecdote I wanted to check on, like the Ed Sullivan-cardboard-on-a-string rumor which is what got him filmed from the waist up (and this was in ANOTHER BOOK, too, one on the Sullivan show, so it's redundant). That particular anecdote was uncorroborated gossip: the same gossip Sullivan heard. Don't know about anyone else here, but I picked it up the day it came out, and stayed up all night reading it, and then stayed home the next day, finishing it. The first time.

And then, soon after, I read it again. And, after that, on a national call-in cable television show, ALBERT GOLDMAN told me "well, you haven't read my book." After the "click" from the host when I replied "yes I did, and . . ." I wanted to throw that telephone through the screen! I read the da** thing TWICE! Don't know about anyone else, but I did, and Albert Goldman HIMSELF accused me of not reading it! As I said, I referenced it against other accounts (as with his scrambled Tupelo geography to "mythbust" about which he frequently patted himself on the back).

Before he told me that, through the telephone, while on the air, he had called Elvis "a disgusting human being." I told him "before I ask you my question, you need to justify that RIGHT NOW!" That's when he said I hadn't read his book. :twisted:

And it is NOT true in many, many, many instances! And what is true can be found elsewhere. Most of it could be found elsewhere at the time, in one form or another, even the Parker stuff, if you knew where to look.

And I didn't throw it away. I know exactly where it is, and I would put myself through the hell of pointing out the numerous errors and lies, if anybody wants.

As I said, if others haven't read it, take it from someone who did: it wouldn't be a great loss to Presley scholarship not to read it. There are plenty of better books, and I listed the major serious biographies. In 1981, you "needed" to read it; you do not need to do so today. Really.

One more point, and it must be said for what it REALLY is, because it runs through both the book, and the NYT piece, and is UNMISTAKABLE:

drjohncarpenter wrote:And all of his references to Elvis are condescending and crude, and more than a little sexist (another unseemly trait of his writing).


No. That is not exactly what many of his comments are. While there are sexist comments in the book, there is something else, and it bursts through the NYT piece, in hot, purple prose. His comments are "more than a little insinuatingly homophobic." Go back and read it: it's very, very clear. "communing with his handsome young companions . . ." That's just one.

rjm
P.S. -- Here's a pic, from an Elvis film, with a character named "Albert"! It would make a dandy avatar! :)

AlbertTheDogLALLAL_highlight.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by rjm on Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:43 am, edited 3 times in total.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:41 am

rjm wrote:I read the book through, twice. And referenced it in later years, if there was an anecdote I wanted to check on, like the Ed Sullivan-cardboard-on-a-string rumor which is what got him filmed from the waist up (and this was in ANOTHER BOOK, too, one on the Sullivan show, so it's redundant). That particular anecdote was uncorroborated gossip: the same gossip Sullivan heard. Don't know about anyone else here, but I picked it up the day it came out, and stayed up all night reading it, and then stayed home the next day, finishing it. The first time.

And then, soon after, I read it again. And, after that, on a national call-in cable television show, ALBERT GOLDMAN told me "well, you haven't read my book." After the "click" from the host when I replied "yes I did, and . . ." I wanted to throw that telephone through the screen! I read the da** thing TWICE! Don't know about anyone else, but I did, and Albert Goldman HIMSELF accused me of not reading it! As I said, I referenced it against other accounts (as with his scrambled Tupelo geography to "mythbust" about which he frequently patted himself on the back).

Before he told me that, through the telephone, while on the air, he had called Elvis "a disgusting human being." I told him "before I ask you my question, you need to justify that RIGHT NOW!" That's when he said I hadn't read his book. :twisted:

And it is NOT true in many, many, many instances! And what is true can be found elsewhere. Most of it could be found elsewhere at the time, in one form or another, even the Parker stuff, if you knew where to look.

And I didn't throw it away. I know exactly where it is, and I would put myself through the hell of pointing out the numerous errors and lies, if anybody wants.

As I said, if others haven't read it, take it from someone who did: it wouldn't be a great loss to Presley scholarship not to read it. There are plenty of better books, and I listed the major serious biographies. In 1981, you "needed" to read it; you do not need to do so today. Really.


You make some key observations about the Goldman book, and I commend you for dealing with your unfortunate exchange with that vile man as well as possible.

There is no debate that Elvis is filled with far more bullsh'it than revelation. And that his desire to destroy Elvis Presley was evident years before the 1981 biography was published.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:59 am

I am sorry, but English is not my native language. What means "Homophobic" ? Goldman hated homosexuals or he made allegations about Elvis being homosexual? Or "Sexist"?. He didn't like girls's behavior?

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:25 pm

jurasic1968 wrote:I am sorry, but English is not my native language. What means "Homophobic" ? Goldman hated homosexuals or he made allegations about Elvis being homosexual? Or "Sexist"?. He didn't like girls's behavior?


He was clearly insinuating that Elvis was "communing" with his "handsome young companions" in a VERY friendly way, this "communing" being with such "handsome" "young" "companions." He was insinuating that Elvis led a closeted gay life with all this "communing." In 1968, such language is VERY clear, and quite shocking in the NY Times. It was an accusation that, at that time, could ruin a career.

"Homophobic" means prejudice against gay people, or a revulsion to them. In later times, this sort of thing probably backfired on Goldman himself.

He also says things in the book revealing a disgust toward females. That is sexist.

I hope I did my best in explaining the nature and tone of Goldman's disturbing remarks.

rjm
Last edited by rjm on Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:22 pm

Thank you very much, I understand now what Goldman is all about. Maybe the tabloids were his biggest rival for his books

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:44 pm

elvis-fan wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:There is indeed a presumption as to what the 68 Comeback special article was intended as. But it appears that you don't know the answer to that either!


Yes, it was just a coincidence that it was published on Sunday December 1, 1968, included a 1968 TV Special [b]black leather caricature by the great Al Hirschfeld, and "Singer Presents Elvis" aired nationally on Tuesday, December 3, 1968.

Or that Goldman stated in the first paragraph, "Elvis Presley, coming up on the home screen for the first time in eight years and his first special, Tuesday night at 9 on NBC."

It is folly to assume a New York Times critic was not afforded a preview screening of a major network TV special. It is much more reasonable to assume Goldman took the opportunity as a platform to rip Elvis a new one, while eschewing any mention of the horrible hour he spent looking the the videotape[/b]
.


i didn't realise the cartoon and the article were linked. Even so, if the NYT hired Goldman to write a preview then that is what he would have had to have written - and it certainly ISN'T what he wrote.

What's more, Goldman was NEVER hired by the NYT as a critic; he simply wrote a total of 6 articles for the newspaper during 1968 - none during 1967 or 1969, suggesting he was used on an ad hoc basis. NONE of those 6 articles are reviews. As with the Elvis article, the NYT archives them as arts features - reviews have a different category. The Presley article therefore was written because Elvis was back in the spotlight, and references the show, but was NOT a preview for it.


I don't understand pete... why are you defending this guy or trying to rationalize what he did in writing this book about Elvis?? He was a total f'ing a$$hole...


I am not defending Goldman at all. And my above post is not about his book, it is about his 1968 article that the Doc posted. Part of the Doc's argument that Goldman was unfairly attacking Elvis in the 1968 article was because he said the article was meant to be a preview of the TV special (see the red section above) and yet he barely mentioned the special. My point is that isn't what the article was intended as at all. It was simply a features/opinion piece on Elvis that was published at that time because of the special. In the same year, Goldman wrote other opinion/features pieces on the likes of Jagger, Tiny Tim and James Brown. They were not reviews or previews. Just Goldman's column. I would suggest that the most Goldman had seen of the show at this point was a publicity picture or the TV trailer.

People are looking at those two articles as hateful BECAUSE of what happened 13 years later in the book. Both those articles are intelligently written and both make some very good points - which is why I said in my initial post that Goldman gave up intelligent writing and self-respect when he wrote the Elvis book, and simply concentrated on sensationalism to make a buck.

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:46 pm

rickeap wrote:
moffringa wrote:I am always surprised how fast socalled fans have the tendency to come up with arguments and
pieces of counter proof to attack in this case Albert Goldman's book. Like every writer,journalist
is on purpose trying to give certain artists a bad name.

Regarding his book on Elvis it is clear that noone likes it when his idol is attacked this way,yet
we all know that the story he published was based on first hand stories from former bodyguards
who have known Elvis since he started mid-50's So instead of blaming Albert Goldman,i would
blame Elvis his former bodyguards.

There is that old saying: " Don't shoot the Messenger "

I did buy the book then, still have it and most of what is written was true,despite that it hurts
to find out that your idol was far from perfect.



Can't agree with this. The `messenger' in this case seems to have approached the subject with an intense hatred and an agenda to highlight the negative and ignore the positive. This was not good or balanced journalism. It was unecessarily harsh and malicious.



I agree, Rick!

Re: Albert Goldman --> The Evil That Men Do

Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:35 pm

rjm wrote:
As I said, if others haven't read it, take it from someone who did: it wouldn't be a great loss to Presley scholarship not to read it. There are plenty of better books, and I listed the major serious biographies. In 1981, you "needed" to read it; you do not need to do so today. Really.

....

While there are sexist comments in the book, there is something else, and it bursts through the NYT piece, in hot, purple prose. His comments are "more than a little insinuatingly homophobic." Go back and read it: it's very, very clear. "communing with his handsome young companions . . ." That's just one.



Excuse me for chopping your post up, but I simply wanted to make two comments on the above two excerpts.

With regards to the worth of reading the book today - it IS a HUGELY important book that needs to be read. There is a thread on here somewhere about being fed up with the fat Elvis image and the notion that Elvis was always on drugs etc. Well, regarding that and how Elvis was viewed for many years, this book is ESSENTIAL. It may not be a great biography, but it is IMPORTANT in understanding how and WHY Elvis has been viewed the way he is from 1977 to the present day, and charting the beginnings of the trajectory. If a book is talked about and as influential as Goldman's, then it is essential reading.

Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with RJM's definition of homophobia. Accusing Elvis of "communing with his handsome young companions" is not homophobic (unless he said that such practices were disgusting etc after your quote), but it is libellous.