Curtesy of a piece in Crikey today I discovered a terrific writer.
I guess it won’t be news to many Troppodillians but in the course of making some ‘what is the world coming to’ comments about the media (to which I can only respond ‘what indeed, and what did you expect?’) she linked to Marx’s excellent piece about his alcoholism and his demonic portrait of AA. It’s probably a better piece of writing – because it’s so good – but the more engrossing piece many might have seen before. I hadn’t. A thoroughly engrossing and very candid portrait of his own seduction and ultimate betrayal by – and counter-betrayal of the very spooky Russell Crowe.
Thanks for this Nicholas, this is the first critique I’ve read of AA, Jack certainly has a good point about their evangelical zeal. AA and NA work well for some, but the final comment in his article is reavealing. I’ve been to one AA meeting, I went in support of someone, and remember sitting through the most harrowing story by a speaker who was pretty clearly beside herself. We sat their like stunned mullets until the woman finished and took her seat. “What hapens now?” I whispered, “Will she be alright?” “Oh we have coffee afterwards and someone will talk to her then”. The lack of anybody there who was wise enough, or educated enough to be able to counsel this woman troubled me greatly and as Jack says it is usually the most zealous in AA who put themselves forward as ‘sponsors’. I tried to work out why AA worked amost miraculously when their only tangible panacea was foremostly the attendance of many meetings and I think it has to do with people gathering in a sincere attempt to improve and change their lives, a small and concentrated critical mass of people who for a brief moment in time are would-do-if-they-could-do-betters, who for the length of time the meeting takes, attract by the nature of their intentions, a spiritual community of helpful higher order beings.
The piece he wrote about Russell is a total hackjob. He sounds like bitter lover scorned. I doubt it’s the whole truth. I wouldn’t give him much credibility after reading this reviews for his books:
http://www.lunakafe.com/moon34/au34b.php
http://billionbrads.home.att.net/swright.htm
http://www.milesago.com/Recommend/hard-road.htm
check those links it’s worth a read to keep a balance perspective.
Just a kurtesy call: who’s she?
AJ,
I’ve checked out the reviews. They’re very negative on Marx’s book on alcholic drug addict ex-pop star Stevie Wright. Maybe the negativity of the reviews is justified. I’ve not read the boom. But clearly what Marx was attempting was some reflection on Wright and he was very present in the text. That’s the way the journos do it these days – eg Helen Garner. Especially the ones with pretentions to writerliness.
If it’s done well, it’s fine. The reviews you’ve pointed us to seem to be more concerned with what Marx’s book isn’t – ie a normal biography in which the author’s presence is low key. Well the book was obviously not intended that way.
Paragraphs like this one in the first review make it pretty clear that the reviewer is not too sophisticated a reader.
“The only thing that Marx has achieved is to depict himself as a very unlikeable, morally bankrupt leech. He displays for us the huge chip on his shoulder. In his own words: “I hate every pop star’s guts. I was a pop musician once. I didn’t make it. I’m not bitter – Jesus, no. I was … ahead of my time”. His tone here is merely trying to disguise his bitterness over the world’s failure to see his star qualities.”
Hello? That’s not trying to disguise bitterness – it highlights it and sends it up. The next review does the same with the same quote. I think these guys had irony proof vests on when they read the book.
“Marx establishes the condescending tone of the book early on by stating that pop stars are retarded and that they’re not to be trusted. ‘I hate every pop star’s guts’ he says, noting that he was once a pop musician himself but didn’t make it because ‘I was ahead of my time.'”
Still, you might be right – but the reviews are weak evidence of it.
AA is a truly grass roots organisation with no central structure so it is pretty hard to criticise it, because it is not clear what “it”
Tony T,
Margaret Simons – who in my opinion is a nice person (I met her for the first time and had lunch with her today and we spoke of this and much else besides!)
[…] never subscribed to my colleague Nicholas Gruen’s high opinion of SMH journo and “blogger” Jack Marx.