So is mine! :blush: :laugh:
Printable View
:rofl: That's still on my wish list ......... atm. :hilarious: :hilarious:
I'll add my counterpoint to this: even with Henley's cooperation, I actually thought the book didn't portray him in the best light. Some of the comments the author made seemed unnecessarily b*tchy in my personal opinion! Don's contributions are always referenced as "according to Henley" (i.e. implying "this is just Don's memory/viewpoint and take it with a grain of salt if you wish) however comments from others are presented as facts.
I agree that it talks very little about Glenn, and certainly doesn't do his talents justice. Indeed the overall impression I got was that the author was looking for "Dirty Laundry" rather than trying to tell the story of the band's creativity and music.
Well, that's probably because at the end, Henley turned against the author, threatened lawsuits, and tried to sabotage the book's sales. At least, that's what the author claims in the addendum to the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by EaglesKiwi
Personally, though, I like it when an author says "according to..." when using information from a source. The tendency to present opinion as fact is one of the reasons why these biographies can be so misleading.Quote:
Don's contributions are always referenced as "according to Henley" (i.e. implying "this is just Don's memory/viewpoint and take it with a grain of salt if you wish) however comments from others are presented as facts.
Oh, I missed that bit! :nahnah:. I wonder if he had read any of it at that stage.
I like it too - I just think it should be consistently applied to ALL a biographer's sources. If it's an ex-girlfriend's story or another's musician's opinion or somebody else's quote then it's still just personal opinion and can still be misleading.
Welcome, Topkat!
There's an uncorrected proof version of To the Limit of Ebay. I wonder if anything is different between this and the final version.
I doubt it - at that point it's usually about correcting typos. However, I guess you never know!
Yes, Don had read it. That was the problem. According to the author, Don had agreed to cooperate only if the author didn't go on about Don's trouble with the law in 1980. While the author glossed over the incident, he did indeed mention it, and Don was enraged.