Goldman
F. George
on John Lennon. His book on John Lennon was supposed to be a tell all book
about how he was a junkie and a women abuser. Hell, John Lennon admitted in
Playboy those two subjects.
I read three pages in the Elvis book and it was about his death, and it
was just too morbid for words. Of course, many people trash it, so was there
anything factual in there?
F George
MARTY
"F. George" <fgeor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41ccfa8e$1...@alt.athenanews.com...
if you are talking about his big book then yes there was much factual.
People didn't like it because of the manner in which he wrote it and the
negative tone he set. His personal observations in the book were wrong and
negative.
Marty
>
>
IWMackay
>was just too morbid for words. Of course, many people trash it, so was there
>anything factual in there?
I must admit that I didn't read it. I hadn't read many Elvis books at that
time. His interviews and excerpts from the book now fit into place as the
archetypal North-East US view of white southerners. Prior to coming to live
here, I hadn't realised the snobbery that existed and still exists.
After people have kown you for a couple of months here, they are completely
stunned when you say you are an Elvis fan around NYC. I feel Goldman's view
of Elvis is still alive and well, as are his readership amd constituency.
Elvis was just a symbol of the way the US was polarized then and continues to
be so, as demonstrated by the recent election.
I understand that Goldman used that fact that Elvis was not circumcised as some
type of indication as his lack of culture. I don't know how many overseas
fans know that %75 of american males are circumcised at birth. Goldman used
that fact to poke fun at Elvis. I assume John Lennon was not and Goldman
objected to him not having any skin in the game.
His book is still readily available in my local library but they still have the
'Read' Elvis poster on the wall.
We're not the public
.
Keeping Elvis #1
Ian
(remove 'Naespam' from address for email)
Fred
my politics, but I listen to Elvis. I am a Frank Sinatra fan. I love Larry
the Cable guy, but also adore Richard Pryor's work. The harsh reality that
people have the right to their opinions, but sometimes I like to see these
people who trash Elvis get into the same type of life. I didn't know Elvis,
but I know his personality is kind of like mine, and with that in mind, I
kind of understand. Kind of, but never truly understand the reasoning for
his downfall.
Broadway
>time. His interviews and excerpts from the book now fit into place as the
>archetypal North-East US view of white southerners. Prior to coming to
>live
>here, I hadn't realised the snobbery that existed and still exists.
>
>After people have kown you for a couple of months here, they are completely
>stunned when you say you are an Elvis fan around NYC. I feel Goldman's view
>of Elvis is still alive and well, as are his readership amd constituency.
>
Oh yes, completely stunned..
What are you talking about and what kind of dimwits find themselves so easily
stunned?
Stop talking to people like that.
Goldman's view of Elvis and the imbeciles that share it with him are a small
variety of pseudo intellectual ninnies. The same ones who share the imaginary
and flimsy 'Elvis robbed the black man' argument.
A miniscule variety of self-exiled posers that mostly ran from their hometowns.
They're hip in this zip code.
They own one downloaded Elvis 'record' and take the word of their favorite
'counter culture' ninnies beyond that.
Sheep and posers; big cities are loaded with 'em.
>Elvis was just a symbol of the way the US was polarized then and continues to
>be so, as demonstrated by the recent election.
>
Pull yourself together, man- that's a pretty weak parallel.
If morons keep telling themselves that a democratic election served to
'polarize', they may actually banish the possibility of any rational thought
polluting their neat little worlds.
We all saw the same election, the people elected one guy and sent the other guy
packing, the way the framers wanted it- why would you latch on to the
ninnyistic buzz word 'polarize' to characterize the results of a democratic
election?
Don't buy into the bullshit.
>I understand that Goldman used that fact that Elvis was not circumcised as
>some
>type of indication as his lack of culture. I don't know how many overseas
>fans know that %75 of american males are circumcised at birth. Goldman used
>that fact to poke fun at Elvis. I assume John Lennon was not and Goldman
>objected to him not having any skin in the game.
>
Goldman wasn't any kind of visionary. Foreskins are in vogue again.
_________________________________________________