I've been thinking a lot about books lately. I can't imagine why. So many people have talked about John's book and comparing it to Andy's book that I started trying to remember back to what Andy had written. We've never properly tackled Andy's book here on the blog, so I decided to take it out, dust it off and give it another good look. Andy's book Wild Boy was published in 2008. It's been quite a highway I've been traveling on since that time. I'm curious how my eyes and brain will process his book now as opposed to four years back. So, if you are inclined and have some time, pull Andy's book off of the shelf and read along with me. My plan is simple: I'm going to read a few chapters at a time and discuss them here on the blog. We have four weeks until John's book is released here in the US, and we'll finish Andy's book during that time. Chances are, I'll discuss the chapters in Andy's book on Mondays - just as we'll do with John's book. However, I want to stress: I am not comparing the two books. We can certainly do that on a blog if need be after we've finished both books, but for now, we're reading each book on its own merit. (Which really, that's the way it should be. The truth is not the same for everyone.) So for this week, I'm reading from the prologue through chapter three. 77 pages. We can do this!
**********************************************
There has been a little chatter about some of the questions and comments that John has been fielding during his Q&A sessions. Most of the questions have been great, but there always seems to be one that makes me scratch my head and wince, and some even make me blush! (If you know me, you know this isn't really that difficult to do...) I just have to wonder why it is that some people seem to have absolutely no filter for the things that should be asked verses the things that should honestly be kept in one's brain. I'm not talking about the slightly cheeky questions that get asked - I'm no prude, and I laugh as easily as anyone else. I'm talking about the really off-color comments that would make nearly anyone wince. I recognize that John is likely an expert at navigating slightly unnerving questions these days. I am pretty sure that things that make me want to squirm in my chair are probably topics he handles without batting a single eyelash. My question to all of you though is "Why does that make it OK to ask those questions or make those comments?" Yes, I realize that in some cases these comments will get a laugh out of the audience, or even out of John. (honestly - what is he going to really do otherwise? Throw the person out? Call them names? Get angry? Of course not. He's going to be a gentleman because in all honestly - he HAS to be if he wants people to like him and buy his products. It's part of the deal.) I maintain - why does any of that make it OK?
This is the same topic we've discussed before, in different wrapping. These guys are still human, aren't they? I know we joke about Nick being alien, but I think he has more than proved that yes - he's really still human! In the same way that I would expect people to treat me with respect and kindness - I suppose I expect the same for the band. Why is that so unusual? Admittedly, I'm incredulous when people respond (and they always do when this topic comes up) that they're celebrities and they should be "used to that" by now. Being used to it and knowing how to handle it doesn't mean the band gives any of us the "permission" to be rude or make off-color statements at the onset, does it? I see it over and over again, and if I'm not right there to hear it - I get told about it much later. People will be at a bar or pub after a show, a band member will show up, and fans will think it's perfectly acceptable to go up to that person and pet them as though they were an animal, or make comments as though they've been lovers for quite a while. It's bizarre and uncomfortable to witness for me, and I can't imagine how it must feel to the band themselves.
There is a fine line here that is incredibly difficult to walk even under the best of circumstances. We all want them to know we're fans and we support them. We also want them to know that (most of the time), we're pretty sane. I know that *I* would prefer them to walk away thinking that I'm respectful, and in return, I'm worthy of a little return respect. I wouldn't want them talking to me as though I was to be their next nightly conquest. (I realize that not everyone agrees - some really do WANT to be the nightly conquest and to you I say "More power to ya". I need to be able to look myself in the mirror and my children in the face in the morning, and for me - I couldn't do that if I were just looking for a one-nighter.) I guess for me, it comes down to simple respect. I believe the same could be said for the majority of my fellow fans out there.
-R
**********************************************
There has been a little chatter about some of the questions and comments that John has been fielding during his Q&A sessions. Most of the questions have been great, but there always seems to be one that makes me scratch my head and wince, and some even make me blush! (If you know me, you know this isn't really that difficult to do...) I just have to wonder why it is that some people seem to have absolutely no filter for the things that should be asked verses the things that should honestly be kept in one's brain. I'm not talking about the slightly cheeky questions that get asked - I'm no prude, and I laugh as easily as anyone else. I'm talking about the really off-color comments that would make nearly anyone wince. I recognize that John is likely an expert at navigating slightly unnerving questions these days. I am pretty sure that things that make me want to squirm in my chair are probably topics he handles without batting a single eyelash. My question to all of you though is "Why does that make it OK to ask those questions or make those comments?" Yes, I realize that in some cases these comments will get a laugh out of the audience, or even out of John. (honestly - what is he going to really do otherwise? Throw the person out? Call them names? Get angry? Of course not. He's going to be a gentleman because in all honestly - he HAS to be if he wants people to like him and buy his products. It's part of the deal.) I maintain - why does any of that make it OK?
This is the same topic we've discussed before, in different wrapping. These guys are still human, aren't they? I know we joke about Nick being alien, but I think he has more than proved that yes - he's really still human! In the same way that I would expect people to treat me with respect and kindness - I suppose I expect the same for the band. Why is that so unusual? Admittedly, I'm incredulous when people respond (and they always do when this topic comes up) that they're celebrities and they should be "used to that" by now. Being used to it and knowing how to handle it doesn't mean the band gives any of us the "permission" to be rude or make off-color statements at the onset, does it? I see it over and over again, and if I'm not right there to hear it - I get told about it much later. People will be at a bar or pub after a show, a band member will show up, and fans will think it's perfectly acceptable to go up to that person and pet them as though they were an animal, or make comments as though they've been lovers for quite a while. It's bizarre and uncomfortable to witness for me, and I can't imagine how it must feel to the band themselves.
There is a fine line here that is incredibly difficult to walk even under the best of circumstances. We all want them to know we're fans and we support them. We also want them to know that (most of the time), we're pretty sane. I know that *I* would prefer them to walk away thinking that I'm respectful, and in return, I'm worthy of a little return respect. I wouldn't want them talking to me as though I was to be their next nightly conquest. (I realize that not everyone agrees - some really do WANT to be the nightly conquest and to you I say "More power to ya". I need to be able to look myself in the mirror and my children in the face in the morning, and for me - I couldn't do that if I were just looking for a one-nighter.) I guess for me, it comes down to simple respect. I believe the same could be said for the majority of my fellow fans out there.
-R
I have no idea if this is connected...but here goes. I have to wonder if a fan's "tact" (or social filter) is connected to the degree of candidness in JT's book? I have not read his book, and I am actually going to stop reading reviews, because they are spoiling it WAY TOO MUCH for me. From what I have gathered, JT is rather candid. (I read the little story he told in the UK press about "little critters in parts unmentionable"...) so therefore, a fan thinks that if JT is going to admit stuff like THAT...then he might as well answer their crazy question.
ReplyDeleteIts a theory. Not a solid one ;)
What sort of questions really irked you? Was it in the SL video? (I must give that a whirl, but my internet is sketchy at best :P)
Looking forward to the Wild Boy discussion...I read it this summer, so should be fresh in my mind! :D
He's really not THAT candid, IMO. There are some tales in there, but nothing that was that intimate. John was very careful how he walked the line, and I applaud that.
DeleteNothing really upset me, just something I heard somewhere. It really isn't a matter of what was said, but that people have no sense of boundary whatsoever...and that would INCLUDE members of my family. (Short but semi-embarrassing/annoying story of a family member thinking it's OK to comment on page that I had previously made a comment on, with no regard to the fact that the page is viewed by thousands and that it wasn't just me reading her comment. I don't even think she realized she was commenting on a celebrity's page. I swear there are no boundaries in this world...) :P -R
Yeah, I read the book and tbh there is a lot left out. John is honest about his feelings relating to himself and his situation I think but there are a lot of details left out, which is strange to say for a 409 page book. :) There are details of what Birmingham was like when he was growing up, what it was like when they were forming the band, stuff about his family, I think the childhood/band to 1981 probably takes up the most room of any era in the book with the rest being the fame years to Coachella with the last 20 years taking up probably the least amount of space, there is very little dealing with the last 10 years.
DeleteI'm not saying I blame him for that, he has to live with these people after all. :) But it feels like there are a lot of details left out and there isn't much about his relationship with his bandmates. What he does say is all very nice but there isn't much of it, it's sketchy.
I don't want to get into detail here because we promised there would be no spoilers...but I just want to say two things:
Delete1. It's HIS story and it was his choice of what to share. As you said - he has to live with these people and I respect what he chose to do. It's more than *I* would have done, TBH.
2. The truth is not the same for everyone.
I don't know who you are or what you know or don't know as opposed to anyone else - so I'm having to respond from my own point of view, but the fact is - I was never IN a rehearsal room with any of these people, and I have no idea what transpired privately over the past 10 years, so I can't really say what is or isn't sketchy. Again, I can't go into the detail I wanted (in fact I typed something out and then deleted it because I promised no spoilers!!), but I respect the path he chose with this book and I *do* feel as though I have some further insight into how he is as a person. Do I know everything? Absolutely not, nor do I think I should.
-R