Quote
CousinC

Quote
swiss

It's far more complex than Keith disrespecting his band and letting them down--and especially implying that he alone put his ego above music.

I see no reason to give Keith a break. He needs no "break" from me or anyone else.

And what, specifically, leads you to the assertion that Keith let himself down in LIFE? Perhaps you were let down. As well as others who hoped to see him in a certain way. I wasn't let down at all. It's an unevenly "written" piece, reflecting someone fluctuating at a great many levels of emotional honesty--and commitment to mining his memories--as authentically as he could. The portrait that emerges is tremendously uneven. And often does not showcase himself, doesn't put himself in a favorable light. I mean, really--he shines a harsh and unflattering light at himself sometimes, and it seems he's aware of that and saying "Take it or leave it--this is me." Other times he's immersed in/obscured by self-illusion, what Tele refers to as his "weapons" talk--when he starts brandishing his shooter or the blade and saving the day, or whatever.

But I am more impressed with LIFE than almost any auto/biography I've read, and I've read a lot. To allow that unevenness was bold of Keith, and the publishers. But that is life, isn't it? We can try to sand it down, and create lovely coherent narrative for ourselves and others. But the more honest we are the more contradictions and frayed uncontrolled edges emerge. And LIFE allows for that. I think it's stupendous, and brave, work. Again, certainly didn't let me down--as much as I rolled my eyes at Keith at times when he'd start spinning off into wishful thinking "story land."

-swiss

I have not read everything here.
But I like this, swiss . .

Thanks, Cousin C. Some peeps also did not read everything I wrote, but decided anyway they did NOT like it

-swiss

Quote
swiss

Quote
ROPENI

Quote
Naturalust
Hey Ropeni, I am truly sorry my somewhat adolescent joke hit you where it shouldn't have. My intention was not to imply anything personal and I truly would be wrong to play light about a partner who was lost in this lifetime. I know loss and should have lightened up. Truly nothing personal and I hope you find love again in this life. My thought about music and musicians, especially male, singer song writers form california , slightly screwed up , may have colored my passions in this thread. I am for from a psycopath but if i was I probably wouldn't know it, I think I'll choose not to take your word for it. Let's stay civil if not supportive, I'm sorry dude. peace

Naturalust,Thank you for your words,and apology accepted,and yes l have been blessed with a second chance at love,but my first wife was "the one" for me,plus she was also a huge Stones fan,perhaps cause of that l ,overreacted very strongly to ur post,and proceeded to get into name calling etc,for that my apologies to you,as civilized people all we have to is agree to disagree. Have a nice evening.
Roland.

YAY!

(((( group hug!!! ))))

Who's fighting? What for?

Quote
lem motlow
if ry had left without saying a word and died of a drug overdose i'm sure we would be hearing "he was a wonderful guy,turned me onto the blues.he was such a great player"

Maybe, but Keith doesn't seem to speak highly of the dead, as a knee-jerk reaction. I don't think he really liked Ry. He clearly appreciated some things about his technical guitar-playing ability, but they weren't "buds," the way he and Gram Parsons were. Like it or not---and whether or not we like what we think Gram Parsons was like as a "guy" or as a musicians--Keith was fond of the guy. He liked him. I posted a photo or 2 way back in this thread of the 2 of them. They weren't nodding off drooling junkies leaning against each other to avoid falling off their chairs----they LIKED each other. You see it in the photos of them together. You know as well as I some folks you like, and some you don't.

Ry Cooder is such a radically different kind of person---and musician---than Keith.

And beyond that, it's also not inconceivable there was some rivalry, if not jealousy. Those Jamming With Edward tunes are a testament not only to what Ry could do, but what Keith could not do so well. Keith is not the most intricate technical player on the planet---that we know. And I imagine sometimes that reality is---and, over the years, has been---inescapable to him. After 1966 or maybe 1967 Keith appears to have been too much of a sensualist and hedonist to have focused for any prolonged period of time, in a disciplined way, on his instrument. On the craft of playing. He is a marvelous interpreter of music, and he has many great notions. But he's a sprinter rather than a long-distance, marathon kinda guy. Meaning, not someone who practices and practices and aims for perfection and high-polish skill.

I don't fault him--it's just his personality. And, in contrast, Ry Cooder is extremely serious about technical aspects of playing---and his proficiency---in a way Keith just isn't. Keith is a music geek in one way (same way as Gram), and Ry is in a very different, other, way. And you can hear in Jamming With Edward that Ry brought out different things in the other players who were on site with him. Mick seems able to relax and concentrate on this own thing more, and differently, than when playing and singing with Keith. Keith is just not---never has been---predictable/"reliable" in his playing. And Ry is. I don't mean Ry lacks imagination, but he is a steady-Eddie, and which provides a certain kind of comfort and ability to relax into playing with him. Keith, you'd always have to have 1/2 an ear/eye on him, because, unless he is really, really focused, Keith could drift into something slightly different.

Quote
lem motlow
the difference is ry actually worked with the stones in the studio,played on a couple of records and of course taught keith the open g which became his signature sound.he didnt really care for people[i'm sorry,a person] who rolled tape and then went back and lifted his ideas without giving him credit.

As many people have said here and elsewhere Keith is an interpreter. He picks up influences everywhere, and as someone said in this thread "keefifies" them. Keith learned and adopted open-G from Ry, and then adapted it to make it his own sound and mode and vibe. You don't hear Ry Cooder sounding like Keith or vice versa. As for whatever [perhaps justifiable] bug up the bum Ry Cooder has about the Stones, or even Keith, I'd love to see anything you can find where he expresses that.

In contrast, you'll see Keith sing Ry's praises for open-G anywhere you look. He never denies that's where he got it.

His relationship---again---with Gram was very different. He actually personally LIKED him, and he learned different things from him, in different ways. They bonded as musicians and humans. And they both happened to be introverted and rather fragile wrecks. Ultimately, Keith's defenses --and support system-- were a lot stronger.

Again----from Keith----probably from 2002 appearing in Bokris' 2003 book:
"The reason Gram and I were together more than other musicians is because I really wanted to learn what Gram had to offer. Gram was really intrigued by me and the band. Although we came from England, Gram and I shared this instinctive affinity for the real South. Gram was special. If he was in a room everyone else became sweet. Anything that Gram was involved in had a touch of magic to it...He taught me the mechanics of country music...the Nashville style as opposed to the Bakersfield style. Also, he got me into playing piano. I like to write a lot on the piano as opposed to the guitar. He started to turn me on to certain classic tracks and certain styles of playing things--George Jones, Merle Haggard, Jimmie Rodgers. We used to sit around the piano for ages, trying to figure out little licks. But not all country--that was the overwhelming impression, but also blues; Robert Johnson.

"Around '68 up comes this second Robert Johnson collection that included 'Love in Vain." 'Love in Vain' was such a beautiful song. Mick and I both loved it, and at the time Gram and I started searching around for a different way to present it, because if we were going to record it there was no point in trying to copy the Robert Johnson style or version. So I sat around playing all kinds of different ways and styles. We took a little bit more country, a little bit more formalized, and Mick felt comfortable with that. But in a way it was just like 'We've got to do this song, one way or another.' Because it was just so beautiful: the title, the lyrics, the rhymes, just everything about it."
Keith Richards, by Victor Bokris, 2003 (p. 147-148).

Quote
lem motlow
i sometimes think keiths biggest talent is convicing the media of his version of the truth.

So....why fault him of conveying to the media his [fluctuating] truths? Why not wonder why Mick hasn't stepped up to the plate and told HIS story?
-swiss

I would have loved to see the product of a keith - Lowell George collaboration. They would have probably got along famously and to hear Lowell's clear sustained slide over Keiths acoustic guitar...my ears are twitchin just thinkin about it...some that new orleans type funkiness and soul would have made an interesting transformation in the Stones. They came close with Billy Preston but on another guitar?...just dreamin.. peace

Quote
swiss

Quote
lem motlow
if ry had left without saying a word and died of a drug overdose i'm sure we would be hearing "he was a wonderful guy,turned me onto the blues.he was such a great player"

Maybe, but Keith doesn't seem to speak highly of the dead, as a knee-jerk reaction. I don't think he really liked Ry. He clearly appreciated some things about his technical guitar-playing ability, but they weren't "buds," the way he and Gram Parsons were. Like it or not---and whether or not we like what we think Gram Parsons was like as a "guy" or as a musicians--Keith was fond of the guy. He liked him. I posted a photo or 2 way back in this thread of the 2 of them. They weren't nodding off drooling junkies leaning against each other to avoid falling off their chairs----they LIKED each other. You see it in the photos of them together. You know as well as I some folks you like, and some you don't.

Ry Cooder is such a radically different kind of person---and musician---than Keith.

And beyond that, it's also not inconceivable there was some rivalry, if not jealousy. Those Jamming With Edward tunes are a testament not only to what Ry could do, but what Keith could not do so well. Keith is not the most intricate technical player on the planet---that we know. And I imagine sometimes that reality is---and, over the years, has been---inescapable to him. After 1966 or maybe 1967 Keith appears to have been too much of a sensualist and hedonist to have focused for any prolonged period of time, in a disciplined way, on his instrument. On the craft of playing. He is a marvelous interpreter of music, and he has many great notions. But he's a sprinter rather than a long-distance, marathon kinda guy. Meaning, not someone who practices and practices and aims for perfection and high-polish skill.

I don't fault him--it's just his personality. And, in contrast, Ry Cooder is extremely serious about technical aspects of playing---and his proficiency---in a way Keith just isn't. Keith is a music geek in one way (same way as Gram), and Ry is in a very different, other, way. And you can hear in Jamming With Edward that Ry brought out different things in the other players who were on site with him. Mick seems able to relax and concentrate on this own thing more, and differently, than when playing and singing with Keith. Keith is just not---never has been---predictable/"reliable" in his playing. And Ry is. I don't mean Ry lacks imagination, but he is a steady-Eddie, and which provides a certain kind of comfort and ability to relax into playing with him. Keith, you'd always have to have 1/2 an ear/eye on him, because, unless he is really, really focused, Keith could drift into something slightly different.

Quote
lem motlow
the difference is ry actually worked with the stones in the studio,played on a couple of records and of course taught keith the open g which became his signature sound.he didnt really care for people[i'm sorry,a person] who rolled tape and then went back and lifted his ideas without giving him credit.

As many people have said here and elsewhere Keith is an interpreter. He picks up influences everywhere, and as someone said in this thread "keefifies" them. Keith learned and adopted open-G from Ry, and then adapted it to make it his own sound and mode and vibe. You don't hear Ry Cooder sounding like Keith or vice versa. As for whatever [perhaps justifiable] bug up the bum Ry Cooder has about the Stones, or even Keith, I'd love to see anything you can find where he expresses that.

In contrast, you'll see Keith sing Ry's praises for open-G anywhere you look. He never denies that's where he got it.

His relationship---again---with Gram was very different. He actually personally LIKED him, and he learned different things from him, in different ways. They bonded as musicians and humans. And they both happened to be introverted and rather fragile wrecks. Ultimately, Keith's defenses --and support system-- were a lot stronger.

Again----from Keith----probably from 2002 appearing in Bokris' 2003 book:
"The reason Gram and I were together more than other musicians is because I really wanted to learn what Gram had to offer. Gram was really intrigued by me and the band. Although we came from England, Gram and I shared this instinctive affinity for the real South. Gram was special. If he was in a room everyone else became sweet. Anything that Gram was involved in had a touch of magic to it...He taught me the mechanics of country music...the Nashville style as opposed to the Bakersfield style. Also, he got me into playing piano. I like to write a lot on the piano as opposed to the guitar. He started to turn me on to certain classic tracks and certain styles of playing things--George Jones, Merle Haggard, Jimmie Rodgers. We used to sit around the piano for ages, trying to figure out little licks. But not all country--that was the overwhelming impression, but also blues; Robert Johnson.

"Around '68 up comes this second Robert Johnson collection that included 'Love in Vain." 'Love in Vain' was such a beautiful song. Mick and I both loved it, and at the time Gram and I started searching around for a different way to present it, because if we were going to record it there was no point in trying to copy the Robert Johnson style or version. So I sat around playing all kinds of different ways and styles. We took a little bit more country, a little bit more formalized, and Mick felt comfortable with that. But in a way it was just like 'We've got to do this song, one way or another.' Because it was just so beautiful: the title, the lyrics, the rhymes, just everything about it."
Keith Richards, by Victor Bokris, 2003 (p. 147-148).

Quote
lem motlow
i sometimes think keiths biggest talent is convicing the media of his version of the truth.

So....why fault him of conveying to the media his [fluctuating] truths? Why not wonder why Mick hasn't stepped up to the plate and told HIS story?
-swiss

Perhaps Ry and Mick Taylor are similar in their approach to music, being technical virtuosi, and that is why Keith never really got on with Mick Taylor as well. Keith has made disparaging remarks about this..paraphrasing..talking about guitar gods: "They can play as many notes as are under the sun, but if you ain't got that rhythm, baby.."

As to Ry complaining publicly, yes, he did; he called the RS "reptiles" and said they had been covertly taping the sessions, when he thought they were just jamming. Keith later said he was shocked to read Ry's comments, and said there was nothing new under the sun. But no, I can't provide the source; it's probably Rolling Stone ca. 1969

Quote
Bliss
Perhaps Ry and Mick Taylor are similar in their approach to music, being technical virtuosi, and that is why Keith never really got on with Mick Taylor as well. Keith has made disparaging remarks about this..paraphrasing..talking about guitar gods: "They can play as many notes as are under the sun, but if you ain't got that rhythm, baby.."

As to Ry complaining publicly, yes, he did; he called the RS "reptiles" and said they had been covertly taping the sessions, when he thought they were just jamming. Keith later said he was shocked to read Ry's comments, and said there was nothing new under the sun. But no, I can't provide the source; it's probably Rolling Stone ca. 1969

I think that's a good theory about Mick Taylor/Ry and Keith. And we have seen, in LIFE and elsewhere, that Keith isn't always actually the most secure person. Even tho he believes in his own soulful/emotional approach to playing, I can see how he'd also not be 100% comfortable around players who are more technically virtuosic, as you say.

I knew Ry has been basically under gag order about the Stones - didn't know that he spoke out before that point!

-swiss

Ry Cooder is NOT a technical virtuoso. He is all about feeling, too, but in a different way than Keith.

I agree with a lot the things Swiss wrote here, and I'm convinced Gram played an important role in shaping Keith's love for country music as well as his skills.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ry Cooder is NOT a technical virtuoso.

Neither is Mick Taylor.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ry Cooder is NOT a technical virtuoso.

Neither is Mick Taylor.

No, he isn't

Neither is Jimmy Page...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ry Cooder is NOT a technical virtuoso.

Neither is Mick Taylor.

No, he isn't

Neither is Jimmy Page...

Most definitely not!

For people who like this stuff See from 2:28



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-04 13:42 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman




For people who like this stuff See from 2:28

Why doesn't he juggle at the same time? That would be impressive.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman




For people who like this stuff See from 2:28

Why doesn't he juggle at the same time? That would be impressive.

I actually know this guy. He´s better when he sits down and plays mellow songs.

A "gag order" How dramatic! Details are in order.

Well with Ry I'd be fairly certain it was a gag request, not a gag reflex, most certainly not a gag ORDER. Ry plays to the beat of his own drummer, not Charlie Watts , probably something internal originating in the dude's gigantic soul. peace

Quote
stonesrule
Oh Lem, I admire your posts tremendously.

I take it that "Life" is not the best book you ever read.

well thank you and truth be told i never read the book.

you wouldnt know it by following any of this but i actually like keith alot .the problem is that at this point he's become like an old uncle that tips the bottle a little too much.
you have him over to the house and its-"oh,god,he's going into one of his stories again" and you know its gonna be the 9th version of something he didnt remember very well in the first place.

the reason i didnt read his book is that if he went into ...say,that story about going to morocco with brian and anita in the car again.....oooh man

the funny part was when someone said "its his version of reality"that was great.i really got a laugh out of that and its cool.its not like he's trying to rewrite the history of world war 2 or something.its only rock and roll...

Couldn't agree more..and you just know he'd spill something on the tablecloth.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ry Cooder is NOT a technical virtuoso.

Neither is Mick Taylor.

No, he isn't

Neither is Jimmy Page...

Most definitely not!

Ok, so...how about more inclined toward technical virtuosity than Keith? who leans toward the vibe heart and soul of the music once he gets down basic technique.

-swiss

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stonesrule
I take it that "Life" is not the best book you ever read.

well thank you and truth be told i never read the book.

Lem, you might want to check it out of your library, if not outright buy it. While not the best book you will ever read, as a Stones' and a Keith fan you might like it for what it is, rather than for it isn't. There are times (I'd say about 1/3 of it) when he's that drunken uncle, to be sure (and as said it's like nails on the blackboard). And as I mentioned before, the tone and pace of the book are wildly uneven---as is Keith's ability to remember and to be emotionally honest---and yet it's a pretty remarkable document.

About another 1/3 of it is really very good. When Keith talks about the England into which the Stones emerged, when he talks about how he came to music and what it meant to him, the early Stones, as well as insights into songwriting and playing, and how he experiences music--that stuff is priceless.

One of the things I appreciate most about this auto/biography is that you can see evidence of the process of putting it together. That's not going to be interesting to everyone, but it is to me. And it was clearly not effortless for the "co-writer" or for Keith. Keith likes to come off as a glib guy, devil-may-care, shit happens, rolls off his pirate back...but he's not entirely that way. He's also an exquisitely smart sensitive introverted dude. And in the unevenness of Life you can feel him struggling not only to remember facts (because he's a more of a "global" and less of detailed sort of person than that) but to recall how things felt. And to relay that. Which is hit and miss. But for this man who has increasingly over the years offered up a public-facing persona of slaphappy sloppy tipsy uncle, the clownish figure with jingle jangles in his frizzled hair---he's also someone who's experienced a great deal of pain. And, if you read at all between the lines, because it's pretty apparent in reading Life, he's spent much of his life trying assiduously to avoid pain. And only partially being successful at doing so. So when he does "get honest" about some things that have gone down, and he is able to stay in that place long enough to get a whole story out, we see glimpse of Keith few have seen.

That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

Quote
lem motlow
the funny part was when someone said "its his version of reality"that was great.i really got a laugh out of that and its cool.its not like he's trying to rewrite the history of world war 2 or something.its only rock and roll...

That was me. I don't believe there is One True Reality, or one way to tell the story of history. I believe the telling of history---even late 20th Century musical and cultural history, which is what we're talking about---varies from person to person, and even with one person will morph and change over time and in the telling.

-swiss

I would say "Life" is equally illuminating and exasperating. Illuminating when he talks about his childhood and his early love for Ronnie Spector. There is an innocence and sweetness about him. Exasperating when he clings to these macho stories that he is always the hero of, shoot-outs with drug dealers, "showing the blade", etc. Exasperating and tiresome. But basically I agree with Swiss that it's a brave book. It is not overly sanitized. It is in his true voice (whether he actually wrote it or not). If one is looking for an objective history of the Rolling Stones, that book is yet to be written. I don't know why anyone expected "Life" to be that book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-05 01:05 by 71Tele.

Quote
stonesrule
Couldn't agree more..and you just know he'd spill something on the tablecloth.

Yeah, but he'd spill generously, and then ask you to help him sniff it up your noses! lol peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-05 05:50 by Naturalust.

Once again, Naturalust, you are out of line. Your fantasies about anyone else's nose are not amusing.

Wow, Do really need to explain that JOKE to you stonesrule. Because I will and because it IS funny. I guess humor is in the nose of the beholder. Lighten up. peace

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stonesrule
Oh Lem, I admire your posts tremendously.

I take it that "Life" is not the best book you ever read.

well thank you and truth be told i never read the book.

you wouldnt know it by following any of this but i actually like keith alot .the problem is that at this point he's become like an old uncle that tips the bottle a little too much.
you have him over to the house and its-"oh,god,he's going into one of his stories again" and you know its gonna be the 9th version of something he didnt remember very well in the first place.

the reason i didnt read his book is that if he went into ...say,that story about going to morocco with brian and anita in the car again.....oooh man

the funny part was when someone said "its his version of reality"that was great.i really got a laugh out of that and its cool.its not like he's trying to rewrite the history of world war 2 or something.its only rock and roll...

Hah, quite spot on I think, but also we miss those boozey old uncles when they are gone.

Keith goes in to some detail about the whole Brian - Anita - Keith thing and that car journey.

Quote
swiss


That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

-swiss

They should add this as a lil forward to the book.

Swiss ==>

I just wanted to take a second to say welcome back... Multiple times in the past few days I've read one of your posts (in multiple threads) and thought about giving you kudos. Won't go into specifics here but I did want to take a second to thank you for your recent contributions.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
swiss


That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

-swiss

They should add this as a lil forward to the book.

Ditto. Swiss, your prose is lovely!

Quote
memphiscats

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
swiss


That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

-swiss

They should add this as a lil forward to the book.

Ditto. Swiss, your prose is lovely!

Yes indeed. For me too. Damn glad to have you posting, swiss! peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
memphiscats

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
swiss


That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

-swiss

They should add this as a lil forward to the book.

Ditto. Swiss, your prose is lovely!

Yes indeed. For me too. Damn glad to have you posting, swiss! peace

Me too. Welcome back.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
memphiscats

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
swiss


That's why I say it's brave. I don't mean Robin Hood brave. But the task of telling the story of your life...we can rely on anecdotes, or we can rely on facts and "history," or we can attempt to take the messy nonlinear pile of meandering stuff that is our life and make it one neat narrative, OR we can accept the ambiguities and contradictions and ugliness and beauty and certainty and uncertainty---and allow it to appear thus on the page. That's what LIFE is. It is not pretty. And it is not tidy. And it hits vexingly discordant notes. And it can be excruciating when he busts his own myths-- ruthlessly, in not making himself out to be a sterling guy (and sometimes he does that with intention, and other times he seems completely unconscious of how despicably he's coming off). And at times he is someone you admire. Who is sterling and true-blue. But it doesn't make him look like other than the all-over-the place guy he is. Which includes---as it would for all of us---apparent contradictions in how he sees himself and what he want to say to the public about that. Or put another way, multiple views of the same "reality."

-swiss

They should add this as a lil forward to the book.

Ditto. Swiss, your prose is lovely!

Yes indeed. For me too. Damn glad to have you posting, swiss! peace

Me too. Welcome back.

Group hug for Swiss love fest.