so-so
As a lifelong fan of David Sylvian and to ease back into book reading for pleasure, I decided to finish the books I had started before the pandemic ate my brain. I didn't learn much. Young is journalist, not a literary critic. This is a well researched but somwhat shallow book that needed a professional editor, He is trying hard at exegesis, but he can't quite pull it off. He did not read Sylvian's main influences, so he misses things (next)
tournevis For example, he obviously never read Sartre, Cocteau or Radiguet, so his analysis of their influence on Sylvian's early solo career is just short of on the spot and shallow. The worse part is how repetitive it is. He foreshadows later points way to much, and the fault is not simply because he uses a chronological structure. His points are not that deep, so he makes them again and again. Glad I read it, but it's only for the most rabid fan. 4mo
Suet624 Ugh. Sounds tedious. 4mo
tournevis @Suet624 A bit. Though I tend to find all bios a bit tedious. I've always prefered the MA and PhD theses on Sylvian I've read over the years. Some are really insightful and more are deeply researched. There is another Sylvian bio out there that is reputed to be much worse. Sylvian has boasted to never have read it. 4mo
28 likes3 comments