But what I report about him and Mary is set in the proper context. I never sensationalize, and this fact has been noted by everybody from Billboard magazine to respected UK journalist Tony Byworth, who have credited me with avoiding tabloid-style writing.
Believe me, if I wanted to fill my book with smut, I had plenty to draw from. But I avoided that.
I also defend Jim vigorously against unfounded allegations (such as that he was the cause of the fiasco that unfolded on the Irish tour). I have also defended Jim on the 2 CD, 144-minute documentary, "Jim Reeves: The New Recordings" and I defended him repeatedly on the BBC, hour-long broadcast which aired twice, including this past July 31, 2014. (I disputed the notion he was ill-tempered, etc.)
But in my book I lay it all out there for the readers to make up their own minds about various situations, including instances in which there were conflicting eyewitness reports.
I don't think the people who have attacked me for destroying Jim's "image" are very literate or understand what a biography even is. It's NOT a fan club journal. It's NOT a PR release or puff piece. I doubt they have read many biographies in the past. They are in denial about the reality of so many things. They live in a fantasy world of their own making.
If you don't want to really get to know this artist, DON'T BUY MY BOOK ON JIM. There are plenty of others who will.
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »
TO RETURN TO THE JIM REEVES WAY, CLICK ON JIM'S NAME AT TOP OF PAGE