|
|
 | 
BOOKS NOT TO READ
I innocently wandered into a couple of stinking swamps earlier this
year. They were cleverly disguised as books from respectable publishers.
Respectable publishing being what it is -- often impossible to respect
-- I suppose I wasn't exactly surprised, but I was a bit disappointed.
Neither book was libelous nor I have a firm belief in freedom of speech
and press. I take a solid anti-censorship stance. Sure, more worthy
material was passed over while this slime slid onto the lists, but
that's common enough. True, these writers were rewarded for ethically
loathsome performances, but Western civilization was built on such
foundations.
I have nothing against these books being published. I just don't think
they should be bought.
The first book in question was the U.S. edition of an "unconventional
biography": ANTHONY BURGESS by Roger Lewis. The book was extraordinarily
eye-catching (a play on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE featuring Day-Glo orange),
especially for a biography, and the controversial, contradictory, and
prolific Burgess is certainly fascinating fodder.
It did not take much reading of this alleged biography, however, to
realize that the author did not write an "unconventional biography." He
was doing a hatchet job -- make that a chainsaw-with-rusty-teeth job --
on Burgess. Perhaps he felt he was using Burgessian black humor and
intentionally shocking falsehoods to show the truth. If so, then he
failed miserably to get this across and must accept all I say here as
Burgessian black humor and therefore laudatory.
Since the book had originally been published in the U.K., I went online
to read earlier reviews. Sure enough, this waste of cellulose pulp had
received scathingly negative reviews. Some reviewers went to
considerable lengths to lay out factual errors and deconstruct Lewis's
insinuations. (One counts "three hundred errors of fact and at least
fifty malicious distortions.) Citing only one condemnation of many,
Blake Morrison ended his "Guardian" review with:
Burgess is like a definition of hell," [Lewis] writes. Perhaps he
thought to douse the flames by pissing on his subject. But surely the
simpler thing would have been to save himself the torture. This is an
idle, fatuous, self-regarding book.
Well, I thought, at least my fellow U.S. reviewers will also give the
wretched thing negative reviews now that it's squatted on our shores. I
was wrong. Perhaps it was, somewhere, put in its place with other fetid
waste, but "Publishers Weekly" said Lewis "...eschews the traditional
chronological narrative for a highly stylized, psychodynamic reading of
his subjects and their creative work..." and mentions the bio's
"charming lack of reverence." The "Boston Herald" found the book to be a
"digressive, brilliant, self-indulgent biography..."
Since the American reading public was not as well-warned as those in
Great Britain, I must assume that some books have been sold to the
unwary. I can only hope that the crass American greed that drove Thomas
Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press to buy such a vile piece of crap is left
mostly unrewarded.
One more burden of American shame to bear!
** PART II **
I received THE CROW: THE STORY BEHIND THE FILM by Bridget Baiss from
Titan Books. [It came along with the very spiffy THE HELLRAISER
CHRONICLES by Peter Atkins, Clive Barker, Stephen Jones and DEVELOPMENT
HELL by David Hughes. The first is keen. Of the second, to quote my
review:" There's nothing terrifically revealing, but the data is solid
enough...and the writing smooth enough to deliver a deft look at some of
the gears and wheels of Hollywood's monstrous machine.)"] Thinking it to
be a new, original work from England I started reading. Not too many
pages in I ran up against some factual errors concerning screenwriter
John Shirley and a some direct quotations that I knew, simply from the
phrasing, were not his words. But I work for John Shirley, I counseled
myself, so maybe I'm being hypercritical and nit-picky. Faulty phone
line, poor notes, paraphrasing. I'm sure I've done the same as an
interviewer. Nothing too terribly incorrect anyway.
I read on to see how she quoted the film's other screenwriter, Dave
Schow, who was on the set and involved in the day-to-day filming. (No, I
don't work for Schow, but do consider him a friend.)
Ah. Enlightenment. Something was amiss. She never spoke to Schow. Nor
did she speak to Alex Proyas, the film's director, or Ed Pressman, the
film's co-producer, or a lot of other pertinent people.
Checking with Schow, my suspicions were confirmed. Turned out that this
is the same non-book that Schow had justifiably ranted about and
eloquently condemned a few years back. In part: "[T]his casserole of
spoiled orts and leavings, is the sort of cut-and-paste scavengery in
which the writing itself lacks the passion to inflame actual anger,
leaving a residual emotion more on the order of annoyance or
irritation-as when a pesky fly persists in planting its feces-smeared
feet in your salad dressing, over and over and over. And over." (The
essay is available on Schow's Web site: http://www.davidjschow.com).
It had never occurred to me that it was the same book. He'd referred to
a tacky self- (or vanity) published tome, not a nice trade paperback
from Titan Books. Besides, the Titan edition's copyright page states
"First edition January 2004" with no listing of the aforementioned
edition from "Making of the Crow, Incorporated" published in 2000 in the
U.S.
In her self-serving, self-centered introduction, Baiss offers excuses
and insinuations concerning the non-interviewees. Should you believe
her? Let me insinuate something -- even the veracity of the review blurb
on the back cover is questionable: "'From the original comic strip to
the movie's wrap, Baiss meticulously examines every phase of THE CROW's
life.' -- Publishers Weekly." Since PW doesn't review self-published
books I was surprised to see this. I checked the online database of all
reviews back through 1995. Nothing, nada, zip, nil. No mention of either
the book or Bridget Baiss that I could find
[Shirley, by the way, had answered her questions in a phone interview
and was unaware of the non-cooperation of key players.]
My last hope for unwary consumers lay with intelligent reviewers on the
other side of the Atlantic. Sadly, they, too, served poorly. Paul
Skevington of "SF Crowsnest" wrote: "true devotees will come away
feeling, as I did, that a gap in movie history has at last been properly
filled." Andrew Pulver ("Guardian Unlimited"): "The major players,
director Alex Proyas, producer Ed Pressman, and the various heads of
department, seemingly withheld cooperation, but in the blizzard of
detail it hardly seems to matter." "Scifinews.net": "This is the
definitive account of THE CROW's production and the phenomenon it
became, packed with scores of interviews with the film's cast and crew.
I'm not condemning the reviewers. (Well, okay, maybe a teensy bit. But
the quality of reviewing isn't the topic here.) They received a
nicely-done book from a professional press and, naturally, went to
reading with at least an unconscious assurance this was worthwhile
material. I felt the same thing with the Burgess bio. (The reverse is
true, too. It's hard to overcome initial negativity if the finished
product is poorly executed.)
The reviewers -- and, most importantly, readers -- were misled. Again. I
can only hope that the crass British greed that drove Titan to buy such
a vile piece of crap is left mostly unrewarded.
At least this time the burden of shame can be shared.
|