Favorite books by dancers
Posted 09 May 2002 - 08:13 PM
I like almost everything on your list -- I'm not a big fan of Private Domain. I know what he was aiming for, but I don't think the half-fantasy half-memoir structure works. (But it must be awful to have to write an autobiography.)
I'd add Kschessinska's Memoires. Karsavina was a much better person, I'm sure, but Kschessinska's memoirs have an undercurrent of viciousness and EGO that I love.
One of the most interesting and well-written, for me, is Sona Osato's "Distant Dances" -- great title, too. If MOrris Neighbor is reading this, Osato's description of a youth spent dancing with the Ballets Russes will give you a good idea of what your mother was spared by not running away and joining them!
Shame Tudor didn't write an autobiography. He would have been a perfect candidate for it.
Posted 12 May 2002 - 01:18 PM
Paul's list of Gelsey's real demons is right on, I think. Many dancers have some of the same, of course, to varying degrees, but her striving for perfectionism, her insistence on perfectionism, and the very fine microscope with which she viewed her own dancing must have been intolerable. I think she was, or could have been, a very great artist. The saddest thing about her very sad appearance on LA Law more than a decade ago was that you could still see the genius in the bits of dancing they showed, and that she wanted to be seen dancing Giselle -- off pointe, but Giselle, nonetheless, a magnificent Giselle. It's one of the saddest stories in dance history, I think, right up there with Emma Livry's.
Posted 14 May 2002 - 08:39 AM
Originally posted by BalletNut
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was the most widely read dancer's autobiography in the mainstream. It has all the ingredients for a bestseller, and it reaffirms most people's general distaste for everything ballet. It certainly seems to be the sole source for all the anti-ballet and anti-Balanchine venom I read and hear all over the place.
You're right on -- I speak from experience When I was pitching my manuscript to publishers, they all cited Kirkland's biography as the hit. They wanted dirt, er, "intimate revelations." I also think there's something -- whether in American readers, or just editors -- that loves the "Ballet done me wrong!" story. After "Dancing on My Grave" I think the most popular one is the Edward Stierle book, which was sold as "Just because he didn't have the perfect body no ballet company wanted him." Ballet is an alien art form, still. It is off-putting to many in this country, and they prefer to reinforce the stereotypes and ideas they already have.
Back to books by dancers, what about Plisetskaya's Memoirs -- I have it but haven't had a chance to read it yet. Everything I've heard is, flawed, but fascinating.
Posted 14 May 2002 - 10:19 AM
Exceptions, as always, of course, the major one for many blessed years was Robert Gottlieb at Knopf. Check any of our threads on great or favorite books and one notices how many were Knopf books.
Posted 10 May 2002 - 12:02 PM
I also enjoyed Edward Warburg's reminiscences about Balanchine's early years in America, and Lucia Davidova had interesting things to say. Not everyone represented in the volume is so enlightening, unfortunately.
I would also put in a good word for Distant Dances in addition to those already given above. Very interesting and intelligent book.
Posted 13 May 2002 - 10:51 AM
I think what Paul said about drugs being a release for Kirkland is right on the money. I felt torn reading her book -- she's intellectually curious, independent, talented, all wonderful qualities mitigated by those terrible insecurities. Not to mention lousy copy editing -- I will forever cherish the reference to "fulsome breasts." (I'd add that "The Shape of Love," although very different in tone and content, shows a Kirkland very similar in key respects to the one on display in the first volume.)
Also, Paul, not all the ballerinas were that discreet -- check out Melissa Hayden. I wish she'd write a book!
Posted 14 May 2002 - 11:13 AM
Posted 15 May 2002 - 09:30 AM
Posted 10 May 2002 - 06:59 PM
Posted 10 May 2002 - 11:14 AM
[B]But as the brilliant documentary Dancemaker suggests, Taylor is more appealing as a dancer and dancemaker than as a person.
I happen to disagree with this for any number of reasons. (Just for instance: 1.You cannot separate the dancer and dancemaker from the person. 2.All that whining about him in the movie didn't make him less appealing to me. Etc.What could be more appealing than Esplanade? Diggity? Et.al.? Or Taylor at curtain? )The book--Private Domain-- is just as much a made up thing as the dances--maybe that's why it seems so truthful. Well, there you have it. I really do love Paul Taylor.
I read a whole stack of dancer books, several years ago. Most fell into the category of Too Much Information. But Moira Shearer was a real sleeper.
Posted 12 May 2002 - 08:00 AM
Thanks in advance!
I wonder what happened to my copy of Christopher d'Amboise's book about his first year or so with NYCB. The passage where he's taking NYCB class, suddenly realizes he's surrounded by scores of gorgeous women, and then trades a silent, knowing glance with his father, is really priceless.
Posted 14 May 2002 - 12:06 PM
I only read Kirkland's book fairly recently, and it was quite interesting to get the "real" or somewhat-real scoop on events I'd experienced as a member of the audience or dance press. I remember waiting for hours and hours at Studio 54 (after it was no longer a cool place) for Kirkland to arrive for a press conference/reception, at which she never arrived, or only long after I'd given up and gone home. I certainly never dreamed at the time that her new "manager" at that time was actually more of a drug connection (according to her book!). And here I had been feeling sorry for the poor guy having to manage such a notoriously flaky charge.
However much one might say Kirkland's problems were of her own making, and deplore her for not pointing the finger at herself, some of the episodes related were harrowing enough to make me feel sympathetic for her regardless of the "blame." And let's not forget that she was one of the finest dancers to ever tread onstage -- even in the blurry, silent, bootlegged films of her you can see only at the Dance Research Collection, her amazing artistry is unmistakeable.
Posted 14 May 2002 - 05:56 AM
Posted 14 May 2002 - 10:04 AM
This wasn't true in the 70s, during the "dance boom." I think people sensed then that ballet was a vital art form and that this was where it was all happening, as we said back then. Nowadays, people (quite rightly) perceive the opposite. Hence the distaste and derision.
Originally posted by at:
Ballet is an alien art form, still. It is off-putting to many in this country, and they prefer to reinforce the stereotypes and ideas they already have.
The "ballet is unfair because it discriminates against those of us without perfect bodies" feeling is always going to be there, because it's true. It only becomes an evil in the minds of nonballetomanes when there seems to be no reason to dance, or watch, ballet.
Posted 17 May 2002 - 05:32 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):