I have read the article now. I do not get the vitriole, and I disagree with what I perceive your criticisms of the article to be. In your second post, there's a moment where you say you found yourself annoyed halfway through, thinking it was maybe taking you more time to read it than it took him to write it - this sounds like a more comprehensible and understandable criticism to me, and on a much more reasonable intensity level than the first post. There is a throwaway feeling to the article, I will meet you there, but for me, it was also a pretty candy-corn read, so I didn't really find that annoying, but I can see how you could, I reckon.

I found the beginning a little silly and slightly annoying in a way that I sometimes find snippets of things richard writes, and yet it is endearing to me somehow. I'm specifically referring to the long thing about why he didn't really give a real hang about Bangs back in '76, but how now he misses him - it's reminiscent of some other posthumous (to the subjects, of course) comments richard's made; it kind of makes me laugh and shake my head at what comes off as a uniquely richard mix of narcissism and genuine sentimentality or care. Perhaps that could be construed as banal, but I think it's just richard's head, and I like it.

Like he says in the article, we like writers for the company they give us, ultimately, and I liked this article specifically for the mind and thinking behind it, even though I will never agree with Richard on the quality of Patti Smith's writing, for example. I tended to agree with his opinions of Bangs, though I haven't read as extensively as I probably ought to form a SUPER-informed opinion, I have read enough to know that my sense of him is about what Richard reports.

I don't find this writing a lot different to a lot of what I've read of Hell. I don't see any kind of overarching need to be transgressive in his stuff. The point I see when I read him is that he's authentic to himself, and I personally find his opinions and analysis respectable when the topics interest me. Finally, I don't get what the beef was with the last comment on the book being more miles davis and rolling stones... ? Just because it was off-the-cuff and an easy reference? What? I just don't have any issues with an article like this being kind of broadly accessible...

So, Lalu: what do you call it when two idiots have rectal intercourse??

banal sex, for sure. Please don't hit me.