Re: Bush "fans"

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> Fred and Judy Vermerol (sp?) were on Radio 4's Midweek programme
> this morning. Fred, who wrote an unofficial "pop biog" on Kate Bush
> was described as an expert "on the fan in history".

Actually Fred wrote two unofficial biogs of Kate.  Kate and family
sued over the first one and it got pulled from the shelves.  The first
one was written pre-*Never for Ever* and was a scandal sheet sort of
affair -- containing photos of Kate's (alleged) first lover, etc.  In
this biography, he was highly critical of Kate.  The second biography
(done post-*The Dreaming*) was rather strange in light of the first
biography.  Instead of being critical, instead it seemed like the
author was masturbating extensively while writing every sentence.  It
covered the history of the Bush clan back through the dawn of time,
contained a photo of the very ditch that Kate's great grandfather
supposedly drowned in while walking home from the pub, etc.  When it
gets to Kate it goes on and and analyzing the symbology of Kate's lips
and nipples and does an analyses of her work with respect to David
Hockney and Post Structuralist theory, etc.

I could never quite figure out where this bizarre dude was coming
from.  More recently, he said that his biogs of Kate weren't really
biogs of Kate at all -- they were writing exercises.  For the first
one, he wanted to try his hand at writing a scandal sheet and Kate
seemed like as good a subject as any.  For the second biog, he wanted
to write a book from the point of view of a crazed professor obsessed
with a pop icon, and again he figured Kate was as good a subject as
any.  In light of this, it all makes sense.  Vermorel is a weird dude.

|>oug

"I is for IDA who drowned in a lake"