torts's review
2.0
I'm no Clash scholar, so I skimmed over most of the debunking of the "Clash Myth." Which was, to be fair, pretty much all of it. My skimming aside, I didn't really like the way this book sat with me. The way it was organized was hectic. While I appreciated the thematic-grouping attempt (and the cute appropriation of Clash song titles which went along with it), I think some more chronological organization might have been in order. Or at least more explicit, clear statements of when events occurred in relation to another. I was frequently confused, and Gray's tone was unhelpful. He was too busy making his argument against that "Clash Myth" to really present what that myth was or where it came from in a coherent way. I seldom knew who or what he was talking about. And the newspaper-editor in me flinched at his usage of first names to refer to people (particularly when key people have names like "Joe").
That said, there are interesting tidbits to be mined for the uninitiated-into-punk/Clash (like me). And the argument against the "Clash Myth" might interest the initiated. Or those who have the patience to read about 500 pages of disorienting Clashiness.
That said, there are interesting tidbits to be mined for the uninitiated-into-punk/Clash (like me). And the argument against the "Clash Myth" might interest the initiated. Or those who have the patience to read about 500 pages of disorienting Clashiness.
More...