"Furious Cool, Richard Pryor and the World That Made Him"

[Loveabull]

Written by brothers David and Joe Henry, this biography of comic legend Richard Pryor falls flat. To do it's subject justice would have required more research, more interviews, perhaps an audio companion and a much bigger book. Instead the authors present very little of Pryor's actual words and too much of their own overreaching, bleak perspective. In the first chapter they reveal that they were little more than preteens when Pryor's career had reached it's end. This might point out to the reader that perhaps these young men, while decent writers might have taken on a bigger subject than they were prepared to handle.

Like Lenny Bruce the decade before, Richard Pryor was a gifted intelligent performer, unrepentant addict, and alternatingly charming and abusive to those around him. A more effective means of writing a biography is through oral history. Author Greg Prato has used this technique effectively in several books with subjects as diverse as the New York Jets to musician Tommy Bolin. In "Touched by Magic", Prato interviewed family, friend's and dozens of other musicians who had even passing connection to Bolin's life. He also weaves significant and carefully cited interviews with Bolin himself into the text. The resulting book presented the many sides of a complicated persona.

An oral history by the many people who knew Richard Pryor would have been far preferable than this depressing volume. Better still, find an old vinyl of "That Niggas Crazy" or go on YouTube and see Richard doing stand up at his finest, then you can truly appreciate what he brought to a performance. The only thing I agree with in "Terrifying Cool"... none of the movies ever did him justice.

[FNAWrite]

"..,. they were little more than preteens when Pryor's career had reached it's end.This might point out to the reader that perhaps these young men, while decent writers might have taken on a bigger subject than they were prepared to handle."

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that one can assume that histories or biographies by writers who were not contemporaneous with their subject should be mistrusted?

There is so little about the book or the subject of the book in this review. In your second paragraph, you give one sentence to the subject. in this review. The rest of the paragraph is about a different subject by a different author which is germane to the subject of your review only in that you describe the type of biographical writing you prefer.

You should have made this a teview of "Touched by Magic" which you actually describe and review - which doesn't help much in a review of a book by different authors on a different subject.

Other than the fact that you personally did not like it, I know nothing more about "Furious Cool" than I did before I read your review.

[Loveabull]

You do make valid points and I know at least one journalism prof that would have demanded ten rewrites of that posting. I guess my major criticism of this book is how sketchy it is. The basic backstory of Richard Pryor is that he was raised in Peoria in his grandmother's brothel. It's suggested in this book that he watched his mother work there as well. This would suggest he had a traumatizing childhood.

Then that would predictably explain his future drug use...ho hum.

He played the "chitlin' circuit" and eventually rose to the new medium of television. But like other new comics of the era he discovered blue material was what created controversy meaning popularity. Obscenity laws had changed overnight and even if he or George Carlin were busted for the words you couldn't say on television, hey even more people would show up in their next audience. Likewise the racial tension of the 1960's. The two extremes were Bill Cosby and his mainstream folksy humor then on the opposite end were the "party records" that had an underground following in the black community. Richard discovered the more he outraged the more popular he became. Unfortunate that his drug use was something that would stay out of his control, even after a freebasing accident almost killed him. By his death he was a broken shell of himself.

The authors could have taken the basic story in so many different directions. Perhaps some parallels to Pryor's contemporary George Carlin. Examining what kind of a statement was really being made about race. Considering the vastly different standards of obscenity in the present day. What would a comedian have to do to have shock value in today's culture? Is it even possible to shock people anymore? The authors did interview family and a few of Richard's contemporaries but much of the book seems to be researched from books, articles and recordings.

And in some cases yes it can be significant to compare the age of an author in relation to subject. Could someone born in 1990 write a definitive biography of Lenny Bruce? Yes it could be done. Would it be more likely that someone who was a contemporary of Lenny and had been able to interview people close to Bruce within five or ten years after his death be able to paint a more accurate picture than someone relying on transcripts and their own notes? Actually Lenny himself presented the best memoir with "How to Talk Dirty and Influence People".

And the Henry brothers do finish the acknowledgement page with "Our books defects and shortcomings are entirely our own and stand here despite his (Chuck Adams, their editor) better judgment."

[FNAWrite]

"And in some cases yes it can be significant to compare the age of an author in relation to subject. Could someone born in 1990 write a definitive biography of Lenny Bruce? Yes it could be done."

So which is it? You say it "can be significant", then go on to cite to an example of it not being significant.

You continue the question suggesting 'wouldn't it have been better' , then fail to answer it again, which of course anyone must as we cannot say whether the non-existant thing would have been better.

You want to defend your previous statement but is it really defensible? It is like maintaining that the most reliable biographies of Wshington and Jefferson were written pretty much by the end of the War of 1812. Should we read no one but Aristotle and Aristoxenes on Pythagoras?

You also suggest that the authors reporting or speculating that as a child pryor seeing his grandmother and mother work in prostitution may have influenced his behavior in later life is just some "ho hum" reporting. This seems to carry your dismissiveness of this volume to undeserved heights. Isn't this what biographers should do?

As to the authors acknowledging "defects and shortcomings are entirely our own", I'd criticise this as cliched. Certainly have read this or its equivalent numerous times. Do you find it somehow telling as to the quality of the work?

[Loveabull]

And perhaps we don't have to go that deep. As a minor review I would say for people who know little or nothing of Richard Pryor and aren't expecting much this can be an enjoyable read...the end

[FNAWrite]

First review: the book "falls flat"

Second review, same reviewer: the book is "enjoyable read".

On sites such as Amazon it is asked "Was this review helpful?" What do you think?