And finally, regarding whether or not we accept the “seduction” premise, well – so what? The piece is basically a personal essay – of course it’s simply the author’s take on the situation. It doesn’t claim to be anything else. The whole style of the article is so clearly personal – it’s hardly as though Marx is trying to pass himself off as anything but subjective. It’s an article, something put into the public arena for people to interpret and evaluate as they will. Marx isn’t, by publishing his take on the situation, somehow forcing you to accept it at face-value as a “bona fide”, objective tale.

In the meantime I read Marx on Steve Irwin. That seemed fair enough too, but it would have been better to hold off for a month or two rather than say it in the middle of the funeral.

I think it’s fair comment that my attitude to Marx’s article on Russell Crowe is coloured by my reaction to his earlier book on Stevie Wright, which was radically unethical in my view.

The Crowe situation is more ambiguous, in that (a) he is a powerful current public figure (unlike the pathetic Wright, who simply wasn’t fair game), isn’t drug-addled as far as we know, and therefore presumably knew what he was doing in dealing with a journalist like Marx; (b) as you say, at least on Marx’s account, Crowe didn’t (explicitly at least) require any undertaking of confidentiality from Marx.

The key to our differing reactions is your statement “If you take Marx

…even a moment

Good point, David. Henry would definitely have identified with the Marx persona propensity for [too obviously] hanging out in late night bars on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams…

I also agree Ken that the Crowe piece could have done with a fairly strong edit job, but I still found it an interesting read – and others it appears couldn’t get enough.

He’s a blindingly good writer – without peer in his specialist niche – and I thought his piece on Crowe was very deserving of the Walkley. It was an interesting insight into Crowe (whose almost sociopathic self-importance wasn’t really news). More importantly, it was an interesting insight into the seduction of those who would seek to be “objective” in interpreting the star phenomenon. That this involved Marx revealing that he could be just as grovelling as the next PR flack was, I thought, quite gutsy and it made for a fascinating read.

I remember the piece on Stevie Wright but I guess I have a different take on it than you do, Ken.

His Valentine’s Day piece is bloody beautiful.

He was though – I concede – a total arsehole about poor Steve Irwin :)

However, believe it or not, I didn