|
Post by scousette on Dec 4, 2013 18:10:44 GMT -5
I stalked Lewisohn on two continents. My super-duper edition came on November 21. In the same outfit! (rofl)At least I'm not like that astronaut who stalked her romantic rival and drove 950 miles wearing Depends so she wouldn't have to stop for bathroom breaks!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 4, 2013 19:14:15 GMT -5
Is there an icon for opening your mouth to say something and then stopping with it still open because you realise you can't actually think of anything to say? Because that's the icon I would like now, please.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 4, 2013 19:14:29 GMT -5
double post
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 4, 2013 20:42:36 GMT -5
Flipping through all the photographs in the Lewisohn extended version this evening that I got in the mail today. With this double book ahead of me to read, I am reminded tonite of 1964 when I bought the Capitol album called "The Beatles Story" which was a two LP set that told us all about the band and their history. I was 9 years old and I played those two records over and over, and over again because I wanted to know everything there was to know about this new band from England that sounded so good and looked so cool. After about 50 plays I had the entire double LP memorized and showed off to my parents and other kids in the neighborhood how much I knew about The Beatles. I look at this two book set in front of me now, almost 50 years later, and its 1000+ pages only cover the band up through their first #1 hit in 1962. Have to say I feel some of the same excitement I felt 50 years ago at knowing I am going to find out a lot more about this group than I ever thought I would. It's like it was getting a new Beatles album and hearing the songs for the first time. That band that disbanded 43 years ago still does it's magic on me even now..... Chapter One.....
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 5, 2013 23:29:31 GMT -5
My copy of the deluxe edition arrived today.
And I don't have THE BEATLES STORY, but I downloaded it from WinMx or some other such service a few years ago. I played it once as a curiosity, but by that time, I'd read all the major works and been on bulletin boards for 15 years. I bet it was something for the new fan to devour in its time.
JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 5, 2013 23:44:52 GMT -5
In 1964 in America, The Beatles Story double LP Capitol album was an opportunity to learn who these four Brits were and where they came from. Their history at that point was brief and America knew very little about British rock bands. But we were enamoured by The Beatles and soon after bands like the Stones, Animals, Herman' s Hermits, and others. The Beatles Story was quite popular at that moment in time.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 20, 2013 16:40:34 GMT -5
I'm about 200 pages or so into the deluxe edition, and am constantly amazed at what Mark has learned. I have gone into this book with a different attitude than I have any others since Allan Kozinn's in the mid-90's--I believe everything in it without questioning it. So when he tells us that Lennon took a road trip on the bus to Scotland when he was about 14, and played his harmonica for the other passengers, including the name of one of the songs he played, I believe it. I didn't see a footnote for that particular story, but while it would be a curiosity as to how Mark found that out, the details in this are what sets it miles above what I've seen so far.
I wish him health and wealth as he writes the next two, because I don't know anyone else that COULD write the story the way he is; certainly, no one else HAS done so.
JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 20, 2013 18:23:32 GMT -5
I'm about 200 pages or so into the deluxe edition, and am constantly amazed at what Mark has learned. I have gone into this book with a different attitude than I have any others since Allan Kozinn's in the mid-90's--I believe everything in it without questioning it. So when he tells us that Lennon took a road trip on the bus to Scotland when he was about 14, and played his harmonica for the other passengers, including the name of one of the songs he played, I believe it. I didn't see a footnote for that particular story, but while it would be a curiosity as to how Mark found that out, the details in this are what sets it miles above what I've seen so far. I wish him health and wealth as he writes the next two, because I don't know anyone else that COULD write the story the way he is; certainly, no one else HAS done so. JcS I concur with you Joey 100%. The book is just incredible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2013 1:37:08 GMT -5
Scousette,
You have both versions of this book, can you tell me what the differences are, is the story the same but the deluxe has more pictures ?
Details please.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Dec 21, 2013 13:20:32 GMT -5
Story is the same but in the expanded edition, Lewisohn provides a lot more detail. There are also more anecdotes (all properly sourced) that aren't strictly necessary for the shorter version but add a layer of depth to the story.
If it's in your budget I highly recommend super duper.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 21, 2013 14:14:25 GMT -5
I want to become the Mark Lewisohn of Tony Hicks, lead guitarist of The Hollies. Mind you, not The Hollies but just Tony Hicks. I want to leave no stone unturned as to Tony!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Dec 22, 2013 0:00:38 GMT -5
Can I be your researcher?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2013 6:49:07 GMT -5
My girlfriend bought me Mark's TUNE IN book as part of my Christmas gifts, and I am really happy about it. When I originally heard about the book I was pretty indifferent, because I figured there are only so many times you can tell The Beatles Story and have it fresh or with new information. Well, I have seen interviews on YouTube with Mark Lewisohn and I really like the man and enjoy hearing him speak as well as the way he writes, whenever I checked out some samples online from his book. I spent about a half hour on Christmas morning just reading through some chapters, and I think I am really going to enjoy this. I think it's true that every old Beatles book we've ever owned or read can now be disregarded, at least when it comes to biographies.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 27, 2013 13:07:04 GMT -5
My girlfriend bought me Mark's TUNE IN book as part of my Christmas gifts, and I am really happy about it. When I originally heard about the book I was pretty indifferent, because I figured there are only so many times you can tell The Beatles Story and have it fresh or with new information. Well, I have seen interviews on YouTube with Mark Lewisohn and I really like the man and enjoy hearing him speak as well as the way he writes, whenever I checked out some samples online from his book. I spent about a half hour on Christmas morning just reading through some chapters, and I think I am really going to enjoy this. I think it's true that every old Beatles book we've ever owned or read can now be disregarded, at least when it comes to biographies. Welcome aboard Joe. I'm on the chapter where Paul and John meet in 1957. That chapter alone is blowing my mind with the detail of that one day. I agree; toss out all the other Beatle biographies, except for the Anthology. This one is going to be the gold standard. Looking forward to hearing Paul (and Ringo, and Pete Best, and George Martin's) comments once they have read it. Should be interesting. (Yes, Paul will read it; he'll have to at some point even if he never admits it publicly...
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 28, 2013 22:48:01 GMT -5
I'm on the chapter where Paul and John meet in 1957. That chapter alone is blowing my mind with the detail of that one day. I agree; toss out all the other Beatle biographies, except for the Anthology. This one is going to be the gold standard. Looking forward to hearing Paul (and Ringo, and Pete Best, and George Martin's) comments once they have read it. Should be interesting. (Yes, Paul will read it; he'll have to at some point even if he never admits it publicly... I'm not quite as far into it; I am in the second half of 1956 at the moment. I'm constantly amazed at the detail that Mark has turned up, but wish there were even more footnotes. For example, he gives the name of the woman with who John lost his virginity, and some details about what Lennon had said about it twenty years later (although the quote from Lennon was discrete about the name of the girl). He states, matter of factly, where it took place, and that John used the withdrawal method of birth control when he couldn't get condoms. Now, I don't believe Mark would write a word that he didn't believe to be true, but there was no footnote for that information, and that is something that today I would greatly question if some 70+ year old woman started telling the tale of what happened when she shagged John Lennon. And it's not just that, but also other things Mark is telling as true without sourcing it. I've said before that I'm reading this book with a different approach than I have any Beatles book since Allan Kozinn's book from the mid-90s (well, I don't recall when the BEATLES CHRONICLES came out, maybe that was after Allan's book). I go into any other writer's work with an eye to find what is wrong--not just what is being told differently than I've previously heard, but what is flat-out wrong and can be proved to be so. With Mark, and Allan's new GOT THAT SOMETHING ebook, I am not reading it to find errors (or what I think are mistakes), I am just enjoying it but still wondering about the detail. One detail that keeps popping up is just how well--or poorly--the boys were doing in school. I don't think my high school would release my permanent records to a biographer or researcher, yet Mark has clearly seen them all. Must be different rules over there for such. I've not looked at the book from the mid-90's, THE DAY JOHN MET PAUL, since shortly after it came out. I remember it containing quite a bit of detail, but it was also suspect in what the writer was supposing what people were thinking. JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 29, 2013 11:31:19 GMT -5
I'm on the chapter where Paul and John meet in 1957. That chapter alone is blowing my mind with the detail of that one day. I agree; toss out all the other Beatle biographies, except for the Anthology. This one is going to be the gold standard. Looking forward to hearing Paul (and Ringo, and Pete Best, and George Martin's) comments once they have read it. Should be interesting. (Yes, Paul will read it; he'll have to at some point even if he never admits it publicly... I'm not quite as far into it; I am in the second half of 1956 at the moment. I'm constantly amazed at the detail that Mark has turned up, but wish there were even more footnotes. For example, he gives the name of the woman with who John lost his virginity, and some details about what Lennon had said about it twenty years later (although the quote from Lennon was discrete about the name of the girl). He states, matter of factly, where it took place, and that John used the withdrawal method of birth control when he couldn't get condoms. Now, I don't believe Mark would write a word that he didn't believe to be true, but there was no footnote for that information, and that is something that today I would greatly question if some 70+ year old woman started telling the tale of what happened when she shagged John Lennon. And it's not just that, but also other things Mark is telling as true without sourcing it. I've said before that I'm reading this book with a different approach than I have any Beatles book since Allan Kozinn's book from the mid-90s (well, I don't recall when the BEATLES CHRONICLES came out, maybe that was after Allan's book). I go into any other writer's work with an eye to find what is wrong--not just what is being told differently than I've previously heard, but what is flat-out wrong and can be proved to be so. With Mark, and Allan's new GOT THAT SOMETHING ebook, I am not reading it to find errors (or what I think are mistakes), I am just enjoying it but still wondering about the detail. One detail that keeps popping up is just how well--or poorly--the boys were doing in school. I don't think my high school would release my permanent records to a biographer or researcher, yet Mark has clearly seen them all. Must be different rules over there for such. I've not looked at the book from the mid-90's, THE DAY JOHN MET PAUL, since shortly after it came out. I remember it containing quite a bit of detail, but it was also suspect in what the writer was supposing what people were thinking. JcS Since clearly Mark Lewisohn did not "witness" just about everything he writes about The Fabs in their formative years, you would practically have to footnote every sentence in the book relating to his telling what they did. I do have to say this book has more footnotes than just about any other biography book I have ever read. In fact, in the extended version I have, the numerous footnotes listed in the back of the book practically form their own book and story line on their own. I am amazed at the time and effort he put into re-creating and re-telling the music history and styles of the times that the Fabs were exposed to as they were growing up. As to the absolute accuracy of the facts, we still have Paul, Ringo, & Pete Best, as well as George Martin, and John's best friend Pete Shotton, albeit all in their 70's or 80's with memories reflecting that age, but it would be nice to get their reactions to the events as described as best they recall them. As to John's first "lay", clearly it would have to come from either the girl who had the "honor" of sharing that event on the gravestone in the cemetery in the churchyard where it supposedly occurred, or perhaps from the memory of Pete Shotton, who is still with us, and surely was given a blow by blow account of the event by his best friend. Guys, since the beginning of time I imagine, are always bragging to their best friends about that once-in-a-lifetime event. (Boy, that church and the churchyard certainly has it's share of "firsts" in the history of The Beatles, eh? Wonder if the gravestone John used will become a Beatle "icon" now as well... There is a nice article in yesterday's NY Times (12/28/2013) with Allan Kozinn interviewing Lewisohn on the book. Lewisohn seems to always make the point in his interviews of this book, that his primary objective was to not put anything in the book he could not document from a source he considered valid, so you have to, at some point, take his word on that when a footnote is absent that you wished was there.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 29, 2013 14:43:56 GMT -5
As to the absolute accuracy of the facts, we still have Paul, Ringo, & Pete Best, as well as George Martin, and John's best friend Pete Shotton, albeit all in their 70's or 80's with memories reflecting that age, but it would be nice to get their reactions to the events as described as best they recall them. True, but sometimes it seems as though there are conflicting memories. And in some cases, the stories which have stood as facts for so many decades now seem to have a personal slant on them, depending on who's telling the tale. We are learning that some things did not happen as George Martin has always described them, for instance (no offense, as I love ol' GM).
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 29, 2013 23:28:05 GMT -5
Since clearly Mark Lewisohn did not "witness" just about everything he writes about The Fabs in their formative years, you would practically have to footnote every sentence in the book relating to his telling what they did. I do have to say this book has more footnotes than just about any other biography book I have ever read. In fact, in the extended version I have, the numerous footnotes listed in the back of the book practically form their own book and story line on their own. .. There is a nice article in yesterday's NY Times (12/28/2013) with Allan Kozinn interviewing Lewisohn on the book. Lewisohn seems to always make the point in his interviews of this book, that his primary objective was to not put anything in the book he could not document from a source he considered valid, so you have to, at some point, take his word on that when a footnote is absent that you wished was there. True, just about every sentence would need a footnote, and with just about any writer on this subject besides Mark (and Allan, for that matter), I would be suspicious that these tales couldn't be substantiated. The source for one I mentioned about John's first sexual encounter MAY well have been the other one there, and Mark left that out at her request. I'd considered Pete or Nigel also may have been the source, but that would assume that Lennon didn't lie to them about his first time--guys HAVE been known to do that! (I also read in the credits that Neil Aspinall talked to Mark at length after he left Apple, and I don't discount him as a secondary source, a "Lennon told me ...." kind of thing.) The part I'm enjoying the most is the tale of teenaged Richy; I've never read a biography on him, and the various jobs he had after his schooling went by the boards is all new to me. He comes into the Beatles' tale late in most tellings--and rightly so--but I'm getting a picture of the fellow shaking his head behind the drum kit that is different than what I had in mind for him. Well, actually, I didn't have much in mind beside he was sick a lot as a child and didn't go too far in school. I knew he came from a rough area of Liverpool, but had no idea just how bad it was. JcS
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on Dec 30, 2013 11:33:49 GMT -5
I gave this book to us for Christmas and have started reading it- really enjoying it so far! My sis-in-law was purging her bookshelves and gave me a copy of The Beatles Up To Date published in 1964 by Lancer Books - fun! I too have fond memories of listening to a The Beatles Story over and over and over
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 1, 2014 21:39:23 GMT -5
I got the last copy on Amazon Japan (standard edition) and they delivered it to my door within 30 hours. Reading it now, and enjoying it, although I certainly don't feel I'd need the 'deluxe' edition as there's more than enough detail, presented at a slow pace, to chew on.
(I was a little disappointed that Lewisohn got the titles of both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass wrong, but you can't have everything I guess.)
Since I've never read a Lewisohn book before, I've no idea how he will handle musical analysis, but quite looking forward to finding out...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 6, 2014 9:59:21 GMT -5
Up to page 329 and continuing to enjoy this singular and wonderful book. I've just read the section about poet Royston Ellis, a 2-page anecdote in their history but a very fascinating one!
Anyway, unprecedentedly great as this book is, I have two issues with my current chapter, "May 31 -- August 15 1960":
1) page 319: "Rock was missing at the corporate level, but the robust, vitally unconventional independent labels across the States -- the bravura blend of two immigrant classes, blacks and Jews -- continued to pump out great new R&R, R&B and more."
I've no issue with the point he's making, but the term "immigrant classes" to describe "blacks" strikes me as an obvious error. (It's probably correct in reference to Jews.) Needless to say, the vast majority of American blacks in the 1950s/60s were not themselves immigrants or the descendants of immigrants (unless one stretches the term "immigrant" to include those brought by chattel slavery, which itself is trivializing slavery). Indeed, blacks lived in what is now the USA before English-speaking whites did. This is an error, if only a semantic and minor one.
2) page 329: "John always recalled the Benzedrine event with enthusiasm... George was keen too... But Paul was reticent."
"Reticent" does not mean "reluctant"! Even given that many people nowadays mis-use this word, and given the casual nature of some of the grammar in this book (I've noticed some dangling modifiers as well), I do think this is an error with a capital 'E'.
Needless to say, this is also likely the best book ever written about The Beatles. Lack of personal agenda + meticulous research + good writing = WIN.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jan 6, 2014 11:27:11 GMT -5
I got this book for Christmas and am up to 1956.
Time to do more reading!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jan 6, 2014 12:45:21 GMT -5
I got this book for Christmas and am up to 1956. Time to do more reading! Did you get the US edition, or the UK expanded one? I too am in 1956, and I too need to get back to it--and will, as soon as there are fewer football games competing for my leisure time. Until there are more basketball games that interest me. And baseball season starts. It never ends... JcS
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jan 7, 2014 11:46:22 GMT -5
I got this book for Christmas and am up to 1956. Time to do more reading! Did you get the US edition, or the UK expanded one? I too am in 1956, and I too need to get back to it--and will, as soon as there are fewer football games competing for my leisure time. Until there are more basketball games that interest me. And baseball season starts. It never ends... JcS I assume I have a US edition. Can't imagine what more an expanded edition would have though. One thing for sure, this is NOT the book for a "newbie". They would be overwhelmed. My first choice for a novice Beatles fan would be Nicholas Schafner's BEATLES FOREVER. This book is for, well-people like "us" on this board. I am very much enjoying it and the unbiased (so far) story. I'm into 1958 now. Julia has just died. I don't think I ever knew just how little performing Paul had done before joining the Quarrymen!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jan 7, 2014 12:21:09 GMT -5
If you didn't get it shipped to you from the UK, you have the abridged US edition. Mark said they wanted 250,000 words, he wrote 750,000. The deal was struck to make the standard edition around 400,000, so the UK deluxe edition is the "author's cut" in the way we get a director's cut on DVD.
Since I have the deluxe, I did a spot check one day when I was in a book store to see how much had been excised to meet the demands of the publishers. I was on page 151 in the deluxe, a story about Alf Lennon being put in jail in London, I think it was. The same story was being told on page 62 in the standard. Assuming the print is the same size--and I think it was--that means 90 pages of information before that point had been left on the floor. I can see how much of the biographies of the parents and grandparents could be left out and the story still seem to be rich and full, but it dawned on me that "only" 60% of the full story had been cut to that point. For the rest of the book, I'm guessing it will be a third of what is left in the deluxe edition won't be in the standard.
One of these days--and it may have already happened and I just don't know it--someone is going to do a list of the omitted stories, and the truncated parts of stories that are there. I mean, Mark may have left out a few sentences of a paragraph, and thus it will still tell what he wanted told, but without a few minor details.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jan 7, 2014 12:31:20 GMT -5
The two reader comments to lowbasso's link to Mojo are Paul fans bitter about the review, that's for sure! I think the reviewer sees what he wants to see. The book also highlights that until Paul joined the Quarrymen, they were just a collection of John's friends. They didn't really become much of a musical group until Paul joined. The reviewer could just as easily have pointed this out. My take on Lesisohn so far is that he is the most unbiased of any Beatles writer I have encountered thus far. He is very careful to document who said what and will often mention two (or more) different accounts of the same event. We can make of it what we want.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 7, 2014 13:18:19 GMT -5
The two reader comments to lowbasso's link to Mojo are Paul fans bitter about the review, that's for sure! I think the reviewer sees what he wants to see. The book also highlights that until Paul joined the Quarrymen, they were just a collection of John's friends. They didn't really become much of a musical group until Paul joined. The reviewer could just as easily have pointed this out. My take on Lesisohn so far is that he is the most unbiased of any Beatles writer I have encountered thus far. He is very careful to document who said what and will often mention two (or more) different accounts of the same event. We can make of it what we want. No one is saying Lewisohn slanted the story in favor of John, hardly. However, as I noted in that passage you quoted, two Macca Mad Hatters responding to that MOJO review are mad that Lewisohn's book isn't called Paul McCartney Superstar(that would be a good musical!). It is quite refreshing in light of recent spins on Beatles' history that John is at least restored to one of the prominent roles and not a mere sideman. But Paul says Lewisohn wasn't there in those early days so Macca doesn't see how ML can remember when he wasn't where it was at.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 7, 2014 22:11:13 GMT -5
My take on Lesisohn so far is that he is the most unbiased of any Beatles writer I have encountered thus far. He is very careful to document who said what and will often mention two (or more) different accounts of the same event. We can make of it what we want. I totally agree with you. I tire -- and so does Lewisohn, according to comments he's made in recent interviews -- of reading Beatle-related bios by people with too-limited knowledge to say anything, or with axes to grind (or both). Then there are the biographers who manage to talk to one or two people no one else has, and then they use the (totally non-objective, based on false memory, axes to grind) accounts of these one or two as the framework of their entire story. Then there are the idiots like Larry Kane, who -- after writing and publishing his Lennon book -- was still saying in interviews that Eric Clapton played on the Imagine album, etc. Then there are the Paul get-a-lifes, the Lennon-is-God tribe (Jann Wenner, for example), the anti-George brigade (Philip Norman, whose latest Lennon book is riddled with basic factual errors easily 'checkable' on Google), the 'make-shit-up-to-get-sales' crowd (Albert Goldman), etc., etc. I don't know if anyone here likes Prince (maybe not, on a Beatles forum), but I do, and Prince has a biographer called Per Nielsen, who is kind of like Mark Lewihsohn in a Prince-context. Neilsen had a bio (of Prince's first ten years) called Dance, Music, Sex, Romance, which is rather great, BUT is actually objective and fact-filled to a fault. What I mean is, his book completely lacks any and all authorial voice and critical perspective. It's too dry. Lewisohn doesn't fall into that trap -- of simply presenting facts and letting them stand. He does have some critical faculties on the music that he shares, but it's all done nicely in context and without hyperbole or savagery. And yes, I like how when three people who witnessed something all disagree (as often happens), Lewisohn points this out and says "those are the opinions, so we'll never know for sure", but then also sometimes makes a case for what is the most likely scenario based on the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 17, 2014 8:45:34 GMT -5
I finished the Lewisohn book last week (I had a lot of time to read over the holidays) and yes, I was left hugely impressed. This review (of 3 Beatle books, but mainly of Tune In): www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-beatles-books/2014/01/10/e50fe61a-6655-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.htmlpoints out a couple of interesting minor faults with the book that I also noticed. In particular, Lewisohn's tendency to mix disparate quotes together into one (and to compress quotes), while seamlessly done, is of debatable scholarly intent. Is that a fair way to quote someone? Likewise, while I applaud his energy in tracking down hitherto voiceless observers of certain things, it's occasionally hard to tell why he trusted certain people so much (apparently). One example is the guy who witnessed John's parents meeting north of Liverpool to decide who would take him. Lewisohn basically debunks the myth that John had to choose between his parents. All well and good, but I was left wondering -- "Why does the author so completely trust the account by the man in Australia that he tracked down?" We all know that certain Beatle-related witnesses have spouted B.S. on occasion. Anyway, overall it still stands as the #1 Beatle bio of the early years, and if he keeps this up for two more volumes it'll be the #1 bio of them all.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jan 17, 2014 9:44:36 GMT -5
I haven't finished the deluxe edition yet--I'm around page 400 of the first volume (Paul and John have just played together on stage as the Quarry Men for the first time, and Paul froze on the solo to "Guitar Boogie"). I had the same question about why Mark thought that one guy was so trustworthy so as to refute the oft-told tale of how that whole thing between Alf and Julia went down. I can surmise that in the oral history of the family, the story wasn't told the way John relayed it, and Mark went about trying to nail it down. But it is only supposition on my part.
I can't think of an example of the "quote compression" that you speak of, and if you have one, please point it out to me. I may do an email interview with Mark like I did with Allan Kozinn after I read all of this volume. I already had in mind the question about the meeting between the parents, and might throw in a question about the methodology of putting to different quotes together to look like one. Me, I'd like even MORE footnotes--I trust Mark's scholarship, and am reading this with the approach that it is right until proven wrong, but I find myself turning back and reading the endnotes frequently, and wishing that there were even more citations.
JcS
|
|