A "Hello" as well as a request for book information

[jbrooks]

I think you guys really mean "puff piece" ("a newspaper article, book, public-relations film, etc., whose purpose is to praise or flatter"). I could be behind the times, but I don't think "fluff piece" is correct. But "fluff" ("light or superficial entertainment") can be used as a near synonym in certain contexts.

I wouldn't call Leaming's book fluff by any stretch. It's a serious, well-written study of Welles. It just also happens to be an entertaining read. It does take Welles' side on almost all issues of contention and it tends to downplay his flaws, so calling it (in part) a puff piece is a bit more fair. But I don't think it's any more of a puff piece than most "authorized" biographies. I think it's a great place to start for someone interested in Welles, because it is imbued with his personality. And Leaming likes Welles so much that the reader can't help but like him too.

[Joshua]

I'm absolutely amazed at this statement in the last sentence especially from somebody working in a library. Does that mean that one should not make the effort to readin close detail everything about a subject one issupposedly interested in due to an impression concerning "what their points are"! Bret Wood engaged in detailed research when he wrote his bio-bibliography.

Research into the significance of Orson Welles can not be confined to a "Cliff Notes" approach.

Whoa, calm down my friend. This is my personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to. I have a very limited time to read books for pleasure, only during the summer. I have full time work and full time college here in about a month, only full time work right now. I have read 3 O.W. biographies this summer, including other books about his movies and other works, and I'm trying to read to what the very knowledgeable people here on this forum say are good and fair representations of the subject that I am interested in since I don't have time to read 15-20+ books currently. I'm not however interested in the rehashing and elongating of the general public perceptions of Orson--I'm well aware of that crap. Which means that books like Road to Xanadu (which quite a few members here say is overly critical and factually incorrect in many places) are not on the top of my list. I'm sure I'll get to many more bios eventually, but this summer? No. Can't read 'em all--have to prioritize. In addition, I have neither the time nor interest in reading B.S. I don't care if it concerns a subject I'm interested in or not. Why would you want to "readin [sic] close detail" details which are incorrect? I've only been a fan of Orson for about 3 years, seriously for a little over a year, and thanks to this great place and many literary sources, I'm learning just a few more details than contained in those little yellow books used for cheating. I wouldn't be much of an Orson fan if I wanted to cheat myself out of (accurate) information about him would I? I also enjoyed the Lemming Bio, however I tend to lean towards a book such as Citizen Welles as more fair and accurate, and again, my opinion is that the Lemming book is one that is both interesting and worth reading--as I have said since my first post about it. I just feel that more than anything she wanted to make sure that Orson would approve of the book. I can't recall more than one or two occasions in the entire book that she claims Orson actually made a mistake. She even states in the book on more than one occasion that she knew that he was charming her as he did his actors, and that it was working too. So, that to me is one extreme, the other being the general public opinion of Orson. Not written in stone, just my opinion. Sorry you don't agree, but there is no reason for you to insult me as a Librarian or a student (i.e. still learning) of Orson Welles simply because of that. I have no idea about the Wood book--that's why I was asking about it a few posts ago. I have posted no opinion about it—just testing the waters as, once again, I don’t currently have time and will never have interest in reading garbage.

[Joshua]

It's a serious, well-written study of Welles. It just also happens to be an entertaining read. It does take Welles' side on almost all issues of contention and it tends to downplay his flaws, so calling it (in part) a puff piece is a bit more fair. But I don't think it's any more of a puff piece than most "authorized" biographies. I think it's a great place to start for someone interested in Welles, because it is imbued with his personality. And Leaming likes Welles so much that the reader can't help but like him too.

I personally, and perhaps incorrectly, use "fluff" and "puff" interchangeably--and I agree 100% with what you wrote above.

[Joshua]

I have just read Christopher's posts of excerpts from the autobiography that Welles abandonned. Here is the link, for anyone who has not read them: http://wellesnet.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

In all the millions of words spilled on Welles over the years, nothing is as poignant as this.

WOW! Thanks alot to you (and the poster Christopher) for that--I've never had the pleasure of reading it.

[mido505]

I am feeling a little catty this evening, so I am going to propose a thought experiment, apropos the Wellesian biographical conundrum; ; i.e., whose word are we to take as truthful regarding Welles' life and art; Our hero (irony here) John Houseman has stated the up-until-recently standard and popular viewpoint very succinctly: "If there was a downfall, then it was entirely of his own doing. I mean, nobody stopped him from producing more CITIZEN KANES."

Here is the thought experiment. Ponder these sentences:

Nobody stopped Herman J. Mankiewicz from writing more CITIZEN KANES (but he never did, although he won an Oscar for KANE, and lived another 12 years).

Nobody stopped John Houseman from producing more CITIZEN KANES (Houseman was a powerful and respected figure in Hollywood for a long time after his association with Welles. He had access, and pull. So why no more KANES from him?)

Nobody stopped Robert Wise from producing more CITIZEN KANES (Wise went on after the Mercury to have a very successful directorial career in Hollywood. His films made money and the studios loved him. So why not another KANE?)

Nobody stopped Gregg Toland from photographing more CITIZEN KANES (Toland, although he died young, lived nine more years after photographing KANE. So why didn't any of the subsequent films ever even remotely look like that?

I am not going to bring up Bernard Herrman, because he went on to have a great career after CITIZEN KANE, his scores growing more innovative and unforgettable with each outing. Interestingly, he is the one Welles collaborator who is known to have had a personality even more difficult and irrascible than Orson's. Go figure.

I suspect that, had a number of authors taken the time to formulate and ponder these sentences, we would have been spared a lot of bad biography.

[tonyw]

Joshua, Fair enough. I take the point about limited time and thanks for the full explanation. But you've really been asking questions that have often been fully explored on this site which is one of the best resources on the internet moderated by a really great person with comments from very informed people.

I teach next week and trying to get an article written before assignments arrive. However, I'm on several Web sites and can recommend something which may be of use. When I join sites, I usually take 14 days to go through the archives, pursue interesting leads, download what I find valuable, and then put the information into files. This goes into my teaching where I refer students to posts by members of this group and I'm often advising students not only to access wellesnet.com but exolore uo-to-date information which this site is very good at doing. Welles history and scholarship is being re-written, mostly thanks to this site and the people who contribute. Thus, although exploting archives takes time, it is well worth the effort.

[Joshua]

And to you Tony, fair enough as well. I have spend quite alot of time looking around the forum archives--but not nearly as much as I would like of course. Good luck with your class. I'm not sure if I read your post right, you actually teach a class on Orson? Where do I sign up? That would be unbelievable. Nothing like that at my college.

[garycurtis]

Milo, when you compare Houseman, Wise, Toland and other to Welles for not coming up with another Citizen Kane following the original, remember that they are not writers. Maybe Houseman is.

What Welles did on paper, and again on the Magnificent Ambersons, is humanly beyond the range of most people. Maybe Welles simply wasn't as strong at the typewriter (yeah, he didn't type) when he passed his mid-20s. And the script is the genesis of the movie.

Through friends, and because of my wife's job at the studios, I read close to 100 scripts before the movie a was made of them. (and perhaps 400 more that were dead ends. Generally speaking, within the first 3 paragraphs, and always in the first 10 pages, you can see greatness. My point is, that brilliant writing is quite rare, and aside from what Welles did as director, or with the editing, or the camera-work, was built on a foundation of that script. Awesome scripts are a fleeting phenomena, even for awesome writers.


Gary Curtis