Now listen, chaps.
I know that it's a book you all love, and you've never given me the least encouragement, but there's no denying I've been a bit snippy about Joe Adamson's Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Sometimes Zeppo on this site.
My comments were made in the spirit of an ineffectual David taking on a Goliath with a pea-shooter, and it is only because the book is so overwhelmingly regarded as the single best and most important book about the Brothers ever written that I spoke with such impunity.
But the thing is, Joe Adamson's got in touch, and he's mighty p.o-ed, as who would not be under the circumstances.
I have spoken unguardedly about the book in the past because to do so seemed to me likely to cause about as much offence - or effect of any kind - as taking a pop at Abraham Lincoln.
Some reputations, I felt, are sufficiently ironclad to not even feel the occasional pygmy dart.
But we must remember that even award-winning authors/comedy film-makers/academics have feelings, and so I am happy to state here that to give personal offence to the big man was never my intention, and had I thought for a second that I would have done I'd have been more careful.
Apologies unreservedly offered.
I've outlined the genuine reasons why I am not mad keen on the book in my specific response to Mr A's missive, but I'm not mad keen to annoy or upset anyone either, so if you ever catch me again calling it Adamson, Adamson, Adamson and Sometimes The Marx Brothers, or saying anything else unduly sarky about the book, give me a sharp rap across the knuckles with your ruler.
20 comments:
He contacted you? Must be nice to be noticed. I'm almost surprised his attitude wasn't any publicity is good publicity. Anyway, why would he care what someone thinks who believes Duck Soup was their worst film at Paramount?
I've always considered his book to be the one against which all others had to be measured (and generally come up short). But more than that, there was a time when if you thirsted for knowledge of the team, this was exactly what you wished for. What else could come close? Kyle Crichton? Allan Eyles?
Sure, Groucho and Harpo wrote about their lives, but working with their brothers was only part of their books. Then there was the Richard Anobile stuff nibbling at the edges. There was a huge gap in Marx studies and Adamson filled it.
There have a number of books since, sometimes with deeper research, but none have ever been as significant or timely.
Not to imply I didn't notice the little Duck Soup dig there, but yes I agree: first, I didn't think he'd ever come across the site in a million years, and second, I thought that anything I said would be soup off a duck's back. But I pissed him off and it's not a happy feeling.
I've always conceded there was some invaluable research in the book. My point was that its tone of voice put me off.
But anyway, I was naughty to be so forthright and so I shall say no more!
He could've started a rival blog and slagged off "The Marx Brothers Coniam of Britain"!
Perhaps I'm to blame for Joe finding this site, as I posted as link to your great "A Day at the Race" writeup on a Facebook Marx Brothers group that Admason frequents...
Sorry for all the spelling mistakes in the above post...no, I didn't have stroke.
Ah, Gassel, eh?
I might have known. Had you down as a troublemaker the first day you arrived here...
Only joking. Nobody's fault but my own.
Watch out I have it on good authority that Simon Louvish is sending some goons down your way next week.
Louvish is sending goons but they're Popeye's goons, I wouldn't worry about them. Meanwhile if the Adamson book has been the "high water mark" by which all others were to be measured, it has been superceded by the brilliant work in progress that Matthew Coniam is providing for free online, and which I hope to see published one day soon. W.C. Fields was right, nobody appreciates a free show, in this case it's a free book, because this site provides the best insight on Marxian comedy I've ever read...it's stimulating reading, everytime...
Hmm, have I really missed anything, not having read Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Sometimes Zeppo? I mean I like Groucho and Me and Harpo Speaks - so uhm, yeah. Is Groucho, Harpo, Chico and sometimes Zeppo worth reading?
What can I say? As I told Matthew, Many people have thot so -- so many I sometimes find it overwhelming -- (Caveat: It was written in the 1960s!)
Does anybody want to buy a lead pencil?
I'll wrestle anybody in the crowd for five dollars.
The auction. :)
One seemingly strange moment was when Groucho said "Keep Winnie the Pooh out of here", referring to Chico. Seems so random. Then again, Winnie the Pooh is a bear with a very small brain. Or something like that.
To AntiiJ --
I feel the book is absolutely worth reading. It remains my favorite book on film of all time (Walter Kerr's "The Silent Clowns" comes in second). It's a fun read, chock full of great opinions, and truly seems to capture the chaotic energy that went into the making of their best films. I purchased my first edition at age thirteen and have read and re-read dozens of times. It was a huge help when I wrote my term paper on "Monkey Business" in my senior year.
I was even lucky enough to have it autographed when I saw Adamson speak on Warner Brothers animation in the early nineties. When I walked towards him holding the book, he smiled and said, "Wherever I go, somebody shows up up with a copy....". I found him to be quite charming.
So, I implore you to read the book. But you can't have mine. My family has instructions to bury it with me when my reel comes to an end...
Bob Stilson
Buffalo, NY
Nobody has said anything nasty about my book yet. Then again, nobody has read the bloody thing.
I have, and it's excellent - the first Marx book in ten years that actually tells you something new.
Everyone who comes here should buy it - and if you want to know more about it, stay tuned for our next post...
The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I mean, I know it was my choice to read, but I actually thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you could fix if you werent too busy looking for attention.
Let me know the next time you read a blog: I'm a sucker for science experiments.
And what have you got against apostrophes anyway?
It's the Marx Brothers book I have read most. I bought my treasured, well thumbed copy some time in the 1970s and still enjoy it to this day. It's obvious it's written by a real fan rather an attempt to be scholarly, yet it still has plenty of hard fact. The only book to come anywhere near it is "Raised eyebrows" by Steven Stoliar.
I am reading my 99p ebay copy of this book at the moment and it does have some interesting stories that I hadn't read before. This is A Good Thing. Adamson is obviously a fan who doesn't want to gush too much. This is probably admirable too - I certainly couldn't manage it. However, the writing style wears thin very quickly (I wonder who he thinks he is?). And I strongly disagree with his evaluation of the merits and relative merits of the films (no matter who he thinks he is). It's still well worth every penny.
Just happened upon your site. Yep, as a much younger kid, his writing turned me off. He seemed to be attempting to channel Groucho - and not necessarily succeeding (Barbara Frietchie!) - the thing that's always meant the most to me about the tome is the lost or unused material. A lot of the background/bio stuff has been said before and repeated since, but his research into ex-scripts and such (save, alas, K&R's "Go West") made it a keeper. Eyles was a little too heady for a teen. Crichton seemed, and was, distant even in the 70's. Look on it as brie...sometimes you have to put up with the rind to get the taste you want.
Post a Comment