I'm curious which parts of the book led you to this conclusion, Paul. Can you elaborate?Paul Wolfe wrote:Like I said, "IF" what was in the book is true, I lost a lot of respect. That said, I don't hold this thing as gospel as anyone who I personally have spoken to was conveniently left out of the book.Shockwave wrote:Would be good to know some of the stuff though that he did do
It read almost like there was an agenda to debunk the 'nice guy' image. My question is, what's wrong with people believing Randy was a good guy? Why go out of your way to make him look like a juvenile ass? Again "if" this portrayal was accurate, I'd say that the times he got his ass kicked by 'jocks', he probably deserved it for some stupid prank he pulled on them.
Until someone I know who knew Randy can verify the image this book portrays, I'll chalk it up to the Klein/Margolis attitude. If the documentary was like the book, I can see why it was canned.
I read it and also thought it brought down the "St. Rhoads" angle quite a bit, but, like yourself, I question the authors a bit as well. The bias is there, but not enough to detract me from liking the book a lot.
It's certainly one of the best Randy resources out there, no doubt. As with everything, though, corroborating "facts" is sometimes problematic, and ideally, two or three other sources saying something similar might lead one to believe that there might be some validity in what is being claimed. However, it certainly does pay to try and get to the bottom of facts, and at the same time, think critically about what you read. Usually, one side says one thing, another side says another, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I always tend to question things myself, as in, "what's the angle here?".
That being said, I stand by my comments of the book being a solid piece of work, and well worth owning for Randy fans. I don't think the book smears Randy's name in the least, but it does remind us that he had his issues, just like the rest of us. In that way, it's good at refuting the "official" "Randy was a saint" party line that we've been fed for years.
Rosen and Klein did some solid work here, but ABSOLUTELY we as readers should question it, as with any piece of writing.
Interesting that you cite Ace Frehley, Paul. I would also agree with you that he's a guy whose musical contributions were great, but he was a less than savoury character in other aspects. I think he rode the fame train, used it for what it was worth, and then was resentful that it ended with his firing from KISS. I don't know that I would consider Randy in the same way, but I get where you're coming from. I think they were at different levels on a similar, but not the same, spectrum. I don't think Randy was a saint by any means, but I don't think he achieved the Ace Frehley level of douchebaggery, either. It's a tough call.
Now I'm going to have to go back and read sections of the book again!