Rating: 
Summary: Facinating, But Flawed
Review: "Boogie Man" is a fascinating portrait of a fascinating man. John Lee Hooker is arguably the greatest living blues man, a man whose life virtually spanned the entire 20th century, and this is the book he deserves. Based on extensive interviews with Hooker and many of his contemporaries, the reader experiences Hooker's life, his influences, his motivations, and, most important, his music as if one were sitting at his knee listening to him playing his guitar and telling stories. In addition, Charles Shaar Murray does a magnificent job of placing Hooker and his inimitable style within its historical, sociological, cultural, and musical context, including several interesting "sidebars" on the history of the blues, the nature of blues music, and that intangible something that makes Hooker so unique and so influential.However, the book has one major flaw that will keep many readers, especially those who are not blues aficionados, from completely enjoying it. It is written in the hep-cat, daddy-o style that music critics and biographers seem to be compelled to employ and that readers of music criticism and biography have come to know and hate. Because of this, the author himself is so prominently present on virtually every page of the book. "Boogie Man" ends up being not a biography of John Lee Hooker, but rather a book about Hooker as seen through the eyes of Charles Shaar Murray. Good biographers know how to make themselves disappear from the text, to the benefit of their subjects. Murray is so present here that after a while it proves very annoying. Worst of all, many times he writes in a faux ebonics style that he thinks mimics the way black people speak. It's annoying, embarrassing, and even disturbing. Murray also shares the bias that many Brits share of being convinced that America is a land seething with racism and racial prejudice, from the day the first Europeans landed here up to the present day. Granted, America is not a land of racial harmony, slavery was legal for he first 250 years of the country's existence, and it wasn't until a mere generation ago that blacks received the same treatment under law as whites. Still, Murray's prejudices against white Americans mars his point of view and clouds his perception of the facts surrounding Hooker and his life. Further (and, strictly speaking, this isn't really the author's fault), the book is very poorly edited. It was written over a period of many years, and reading the finished product makes it clear that no one went through the book from start to finish to check for consistency and flow. There are several points repeated many times, and even some of Hooker's quotes are repeated verbatim in different places. One small example: Every blues fan knows that there were two blues men named "Sonny Boy Williamson," and perhaps for the sake of non-fans this curiosity needs to be pointed out and the difference between the two explained, but not five or six times. In the end, despite its flaws, "Boogie Man" is a fascinating, informative, and insightful book, one that fans of John Lee Hooker, or blues in general will want to read -- provided they can overcome the author's style and point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Facinating, But Flawed
Review: "Boogie Man" is a fascinating portrait of a fascinating man. John Lee Hooker is arguably the greatest living blues man, a man whose life virtually spanned the entire 20th century, and this is the book he deserves. Based on extensive interviews with Hooker and many of his contemporaries, the reader experiences Hooker's life, his influences, his motivations, and, most important, his music as if one were sitting at his knee listening to him playing his guitar and telling stories. In addition, Charles Shaar Murray does a magnificent job of placing Hooker and his inimitable style within its historical, sociological, cultural, and musical context, including several interesting "sidebars" on the history of the blues, the nature of blues music, and that intangible something that makes Hooker so unique and so influential. However, the book has one major flaw that will keep many readers, especially those who are not blues aficionados, from completely enjoying it. It is written in the hep-cat, daddy-o style that music critics and biographers seem to be compelled to employ and that readers of music criticism and biography have come to know and hate. Because of this, the author himself is so prominently present on virtually every page of the book. "Boogie Man" ends up being not a biography of John Lee Hooker, but rather a book about Hooker as seen through the eyes of Charles Shaar Murray. Good biographers know how to make themselves disappear from the text, to the benefit of their subjects. Murray is so present here that after a while it proves very annoying. Worst of all, many times he writes in a faux ebonics style that he thinks mimics the way black people speak. It's annoying, embarrassing, and even disturbing. Murray also shares the bias that many Brits share of being convinced that America is a land seething with racism and racial prejudice, from the day the first Europeans landed here up to the present day. Granted, America is not a land of racial harmony, slavery was legal for he first 250 years of the country's existence, and it wasn't until a mere generation ago that blacks received the same treatment under law as whites. Still, Murray's prejudices against white Americans mars his point of view and clouds his perception of the facts surrounding Hooker and his life. Further (and, strictly speaking, this isn't really the author's fault), the book is very poorly edited. It was written over a period of many years, and reading the finished product makes it clear that no one went through the book from start to finish to check for consistency and flow. There are several points repeated many times, and even some of Hooker's quotes are repeated verbatim in different places. One small example: Every blues fan knows that there were two blues men named "Sonny Boy Williamson," and perhaps for the sake of non-fans this curiosity needs to be pointed out and the difference between the two explained, but not five or six times. In the end, despite its flaws, "Boogie Man" is a fascinating, informative, and insightful book, one that fans of John Lee Hooker, or blues in general will want to read -- provided they can overcome the author's style and point of view.
Rating: 
Summary: disappointing
Review: As a long time fan of John Lee I really looked forward to reading this book. Unfortunately the writer spent more time editoralizing about the sins of America in general and the south in particular and very little time on the actual subject of the book. The writers bias against the U.S. came across very clearly. There are sections in the book that go on for pages without even discussing John Lee or his music. If the author had stayed off his soapbox he could have covered the same material in 100 pages instead of the 480+ pages he required. All in all I found the book very boring and a chore to read. I was glad when it was over. I love John Lee but hated the book.
Rating: 
Summary: just tell the story
Review: I thank Mr Murray for writing a well researched biography and letting John Lee Hooker tell his own story. But I would offer him (or any other would-be biographers) the following suggestion: people are not interested in hearing how hip you are, they're interested in John Lee Hooker. Try to make yourself as inconspicuous as possible; don't get in the readers face with frequent references to "your correspondent"; use your own voice without inserting phrases in pseudo-Black English which only sound affected and draw attention to yourself instead of the subject matter (people writing on blues musicians often feel the need to sound hip and street-wise). Just tell the story.
Rating:
Summary: A disappointment
Review: The author seems to have been under the mistaken impression that those of us reading a biography about John Lee Hooker actually wanted to read a book about Charles Shaar Murray. This could have been so much better.
Rating:
Summary: The intellectual's Blues
Review: The blues is primal as this biography reminds us more than once. Scholar's have used more words than a presidential candidate in trying to explain the blues. This book succeeds when it directly discusses John Lee Hooker, his life and thus the blues. When it repeats Blues 101 information found in other books it fails. Many other works by Sam Charters, Pete Welding, Leroi Jones (Amiri Baraka) and others do it much better. Read works by these authors if the history and etiology of the blues is what you need. But if you want to know more about Hooker... this is the place! The author admits when the information he has conflicts with the various sources, yet lets you know where the truth may be found. An Hooker's words are worth the price alone! Read and then listen to the Man to find a answer to the question "What is the Blues?"
Rating:
Summary: John didnt like it
Review: This book came as a surprise. Right or wrong biographies of musicians are in a different category from other biographies in my mind. This book was delightful. It was articulate, engaging, well organized and researched. I found the tone personable. It gave me an appreciation for a man and for a musician that I did not know well. It also gave me an insight into the musical tradition of the blues with its Delta and African roots. This book felt like a fascinating conversation, over a period of weeks, with an insightful, appreciative and knowledgeable music and blues lover, somebody I would have loved to talk to over coffee and whose record collection it would be great to be introduced to and guided through. John Lee Hooker comes across as a good person who cares for others despite the fact he had a hard life and could have become bitter after been abused consistently by record companies. At times the final chapter is a bit over the top, but heck, there is nothing wrong with wanting the world to be healed. Good job Mr. Charles Shaar Murray!
Rating: 
Summary: Good As It Gets
Review: This is the book John Lee deserved, written by someone who, thank heaven, gets it. If any blues artist has ever been the subject of a better biography, I haven't come across it. I began the book with great respect for Hooker as an artist. I finished it loving him as a human being, and convinced that although I have adored his music for more than 40 years, ever since a radio station that wouldn't play his records gave some of them to me, I have if anything underestimated his achievement. I wouldn't have believed Murray could teach me anything about how to listen to John Lee, but he did, he did.
Rating:
Summary: Better than nothing but...
Review: When someone does that other book, I trust their research will be more thorough. Murray goes on for a long paragraph about Hooker's birth year. A quick simple search of the 1920 Census, available years before this book was published, showed John Lee was seven then. Murray doesn't even give 1913 among the 4 years he listed. For our few pages about Hooker in Dedicated Dads: Stepfathers of Famous People (available amazon.com), our author found some interesting anecdotes on a CD liner--Murray missed them, too. And I agree that Murray went on and on and injected himself too much.
Rating:
Summary: Better than nothing but...
Review: When someone does that other book, I trust their research will be more thorough. Murray goes on for a long paragraph about Hooker's birth year. A quick simple search of the 1920 Census, available years before this book was published, showed John Lee was seven then. Murray doesn't even give 1913 among the 4 years he listed. For our few pages about Hooker in Dedicated Dads: Stepfathers of Famous People (available amazon.com), our author found some interesting anecdotes on a CD liner--Murray missed them, too. And I agree that Murray went on and on and injected himself too much.
|
