38 replies to this topic

[Phaedra392]

Hello -- I'm delurking to announce that I finally managed to get Farrar Strauss & Giroux to answer my question about Arlene Croce's long-awaited book on Balanchine's ballets.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that it has been delayed -- again -- and is now scheduled to be published in February 2007.  That's right, 2007.  I have been waiting for years for this book, and I know many of you out there have been waiting too.  Who knows if this latest date will actually pan out, but here's hoping.  I don't know how I'm going to wait another year.  

[Farrell Fan]

This is akin to new clues turning up in the disappearance of Judge Crater, or a progress report on Second Avenue Subway construction. I don't mean to deride your post, Phaedra392, and I congratulate you for keeping after the publisher to provide a date, however fanciful. I admit that a little flicker of hope has arisen in me on reading this that publication might yet occur during my lifetime. So thank you.

[Natalia]

Thank you for the update on "THE BOOK," as several of us have named this project.  I'm still maintaining an open-spot for it on my shelf.

[dirac]

Thank you for the update and for delurking, Phaedra392. I'm not holding my breath.  We have an older thread on this topic, also:


http://ballettalk.in...showtopic=12513

[Helene]

That thread was started in 2003, with an update in June 2004.  We've been waiting for this book for a very long time.

[perky]

Phaedra392, on Dec 7 2005, 10:01 AM, said:

   The bad news is that it has been delayed -- again -- and is now scheduled to be published in February 2007.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that stinks.


I'm wishing for a support group somewhere for those of us frustrated and impatient for this book.

[Farrell Fan]

Stinks? That implies that somebody's doing something wrong deliberately. I like to make jokes about it, but I don't think that. I just assume the many delays have been caused by a quest for getting it done right. I think it's admirable that Farrar Strauss & Giroux continues to have the book on its publishing list after all this time.

[perky]

Farrell Fan, on Dec 8 2005, 10:30 AM, said:

Stinks? That implies that somebody's doing something wrong deliberately. I like to make jokes about it, but I don't think that. I just assume the many delays have been caused by a quest for getting it done right. I think it's admirable that Farrar Strauss & Giroux continues to have the book on its publishing list after all this time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually that wasn't my intention at all, sorry if you got that impression. I'm not implying that the delays are ANYONE'S fault, just that for me the delays stink on a purely personal level as I am so anxious to read this book by my favorite dance critic on by favorite choreographer. Simple as that.  

[canbelto]

I hope this book comes out at all, because it sure would be an improvement over the Bernard Taper biography. The Taper biography is long but IMO contains very little substance and very little idea of who Mr. B was. It was also extremely hagiographical. I mean, Mr. B had many admirable qualities, but he also did some very unpleasant things (for example, driving Suzanne Farrell to the point of contemplating suicide, leaving Tanny LeClercq in a quickie Mexican divorce, his rudeness to Erik Bruhn). I'm assuming the Croce biography will be much more balanced.

[Quiggin]

But is it a biography, and would a biography from Arlene Croce be that interesting? And sometimes biographies take decades longer than projected as more and more material presents itself. Maybe she is structuring it ballet by ballet, or genre of ballet by ballet? (The working title at somepoint--reported in another thread--was Ballet and Balanchine.) Croce has always comfortably written with the upper crusty tone of a New Yorker writer, and now she has to recast all her thinking on Balanchine into a different form. So it's a rather formidable task.

[Farrell Fan]

Croce's book is supposed to be about Balanchine's ballets, so unless one believes that Balanchine's life is all in the ballets, it won't really be a biography. Nevertheless, one hopes for more insight into Balanchine's life than was evident in Taper's biography, which, incidentally, began life circa 1960 as a New Yorker profile and was subsequently "revised and expanded," as they say.

[perky]

I believe the book is her analysis of the ballets. I least I hope it is. In her New Yorker articles back when she was there, she would sometimes take a Balanchine ballet like Jewels and devote the whole article to it. Filtering it through that remarkable brain and putting it to paper. If she can do that with the whole Balanchine catalog it would be like literary manna from heaven for me. Well worth the wait. (And I need to learn more patience.)

[dirac]

I'm not sure if we will see a definitive Balanchine biography any time soon.  And many crucial witnesses are already gone, alas.  

Obviously it's impossible to know what's delaying Croce's book.  Quiggin is correct to point out that a full length book -- which I don't think Croce has ever written, apart from the short book on Astaire and Rogers from many years ago -- is a significant undertaking.  Let's hope all is well.

[canbelto]

This is veering OT, but am I the only one who gets a real sense of frustration when reading the Taper book? Because I always think, this *could* have been a very good biography. But it seems like he just chooses to whitewash, or brush-off, things that were documented in very vivid detail in other memoirs related to Balanchine. For instance, I learned much more about Mr. B reading Tallchief's, Farrell's, and Kent's autobiographies than I learned from the Taper biography. It's like he made a conscious choice to simply skim the surface of a man who had a lot of depth. There are some good stories, some basic info, but I think that the Taper book is basically long in pages and short in substance.

[Leigh Witchel]

Actually, I prefer it.  Go figure.