Julie Kavanagh's Nureyev Biography

[bart]

Three of Bentley's criticisms made direct hits:

-- "The book reads more like a biography of a celebrity than an artist, and they are not the same thing."

-- "Kavanagh's fondness for unattributed quotations make for awkward reading. In addition to forcing readers to keep one thumb embedded in the end notes, the practice undermines her authorial voice." I used post-its in different colors instead of my thumb, but the effect was just as cumbersome. To top it off, the end notes themselves area minimal, often requiring you to turn to an entirely separate list of abbreviations to make sense of them.

-- The book cuts off at Nureyev's death and burial. Bentley points out that his family's legal disputes over the estate, the auction of his properties, and several other ongoing stories are left out. I confess that I wondered whether the printer or binder had left something out. On the other hand, a brief note desscribing the work of the Rudolf Nureyev Foundation and the Rudolf Nureyev Dance Foundation can be found on page 704.

[dirac]

Three of Bentley's criticisms made direct hits:

-- "The book reads more like a biography of a celebrity than an artist, and they are not the same thing."

Without having read the book, I’d say that in a biography of Nureyev, celebrity and artistry would intersect and at times be inseparable (Gottlieb made a related point in this direction when talking about the significance of the Fonteyn-Nureyev partnership on the Rose show), and this is inevitable given the nature of his career. No, they are not the same thing, but he was both.

[Ray]

Three of Bentley's criticisms made direct hits:

-- "The book reads more like a biography of a celebrity than an artist, and they are not the same thing."

Without having read the book, I’d say that in a biography of Nureyev, celebrity and artistry would intersect and at times be inseparable (Gottlieb made a related point in this direction when talking about the significance of the Fonteyn-Nureyev partnership on the Rose show), and this is inevitable given the nature of his career. No, they are not the same thing, but he was both.

Absolutely. And, judging from critical response, he often performed celebrity better than dancing, choreographing, or running a dance company. (Of course, one of the paradoxes of Nureyev is that he attended class as regularly as the bath houses.) Bentley's comment feeds a romantic fantasy of the absolute separation of artist from celebrity--even though, ironically, romantic artists can be said to have been the first "celebrity" writers, composers, and musicians.

[dirac]

I didn't see the show, and so was even more grateful for bart's summary. I wanted to comment on one thing:]

Acocella makes some interesting comparisons between Nureyev and Baryshnikov. To the suggestion that Nureyev was open to learning new kinds of dance (Graham, Cunningham, etc.), she says that Nureyev wanted to experience but would not stay to do waht was necessary to learn completely. He could not accept for long situations which he could not command. Graham and others, she implies, let Nureyev do pretty much what he wanted to do. Baryshnikov, on the other hand, seemed most happy in precisely those dance situations in which he had to strive to learn. It was when he had achieved all that he could that he tended to lose interest.

That was not the view at the time. It was rather the opposite. Baryshnikov's hunger to dance everything (which was totally understandable) made him "rush through the repertory like a kid in a candy store," as one critic wrote about his first seasons at ABT. He would do role after role once or twice, then move on. It was one of the issues that Kirkland (who wanted to rehearse everything A LOT) has mentioned. [editing to add: I think this may have changed as he matured, but his tenure with Graham was quite short, as I remember it. During the White Oak period, however, I remember reading and hearing that he was totally committed to that project and those works. Careers have different phases.]

As for Nureyev, Paul Taylor wrote that Nureyev would try out "Aureole" in the wings, years before he danced it. I also remember reading, at the time, how hard he worked with Graham and Murray Louis. [Editing to add: He worked with Graham over several seasons, dancing repertory roles as well as several creations.] And in his early years at the Royal Ballet, he would take small roles in new choreography, and work quite hard on them. Perhaps Alymer or John P (if they see this) might comment, since they were there.

Graham and others, she implies, let Nureyev do pretty much what he wanted to do.

I think she said it straight out, more or less. Anyone new to the discussion would assume that Nureyev just showed up on a modern choreographer's doorstep and did his own thing.

In "I Remember Balanchine," Helgi Tomasson says something to the effect that Nureyev, more than anyone else, made an effort to understand new dance styles and explore them. "What respect I have for that man!"

[Cygnet]

Three of Bentley's criticisms made direct hits:

-- "The book reads more like a biography of a celebrity than an artist, and they are not the same thing."

-- "Kavanagh's fondness for unattributed quotations make for awkward reading. In addition to forcing readers to keep one thumb embedded in the end notes, the practice undermines her authorial voice." I used post-its in different colors instead of my thumb, but the effect was just as cumbersome. To top it off, the end notes themselves area minimal, often requiring you to turn to an entirely separate list of abbreviations to make sense of them.

-- The book cuts off at Nureyev's death and burial. Bentley points out that his family's legal disputes over the estate, the auction of his properties, and several other ongoing stories are left out. I confess that I wondered whether the printer or binder had left something out. On the other hand, a brief note desscribing the work of the Rudolf Nureyev Foundation and the Rudolf Nureyev Dance Foundation can be found on page 704.

Thanks Bart for zeroing in on these three points. For me, Kavanagh's "voice" continuously gets lost in the text, and when that happens it reads like Cliff Notes. In comparison, I think Daneman (Margot's biographer), did a better job of separating the celebrity from the artist, therefore spinning a better tale than Kavanagh. Apparently, Kavanagh simply chose not to close the circle where the story began - with his family, or deal with the distribution of his estate. If she had done so, that might have been Volume 2.

[kfw]

Bentley's comment feeds a romantic fantasy of the absolute separation of artist from celebrity

Bentley quite likely just wanted a former dancer turned biographer to give insight into Nureyev's art -- the reason he was a celebrity in the first place, and the only reason, celebrities being a dime a dozen, his biography is worth reading.

[Ray]

Bentley's comment feeds a romantic fantasy of the absolute separation of artist from celebrity

Bentley quite likely just wanted a former dancer turned biographer to give insight into Nureyev's art -- the reason he was a celebrity in the first place, and the only reason, celebrities being a dime a dozen, his biography is worth reading.

I completely disagree. Celebrities and their stories may be a dime a dozen now, but a Soviet defector male ballet dancer-as-celebrity was an unparalled cultural phenomenon in the 1960s--he was and remains, in fact, a cultural icon. (And would we say that Elvis was a celebrity icon only because of his singing? Or Marilyn Monroe only because of her acting?) Even as a former dancer and avid dance viewer, I'm really more interested in the rich and complex story of how Nureyev became an icon than in the less layered (but still significant) story of his development as a dancer. I think that Kavanagh is trying to deliver both stories.

[Helene]

I think Nureyev's celebrity is key to two issues in his life: would he have been as influential on the style of ballet dancers in the West had he not had the celebrity or exposure -- would fellow dancers have flocked to see him in Lausanne or Birmingham or Vienna or San Francisco and have tried to emulate him? -- and how much did celebrity help or hinder what he wanted to accomplish in his own dancing?

[kfw]

I completely disagree. Celebrities and their stories may be a dime a dozen now, but a Soviet defector male ballet dancer-as-celebrity was an unparalled cultural phenomenon in the 1960s--he was and remains, in fact, a cultural icon. (And would we say that Elvis was a celebrity icon only because of his singing? Or Marilyn Monroe only because of her acting?) Even as a former dancer and avid dance viewer, I'm really more interested in the rich and complex story of how Nureyev became an icon than in the less layered (but still significant) story of his development as a dancer. I think that Kavanagh is trying to deliver both stories.

Point taken, Ray, but neither Elvis nor Marilyn would have been celebrated in the first place without their art. Celebrity takes on a life of its own, but I think that life, that phenomenon, is as much about us and what we're fascinated by and attracted to as it is, in this case, about Nureyev. And I also think that while art is enobling, celebrity often degrades both the celebrated and the celebrators by placing the superficial and the lamentable (Nureyev's tantrum's) on the same level as the praiseworthy (his art). Nureyev would not be a household name today if he hadn't gone on to have a great career as a dancer or in some other field after he defected. His art was the foundation for his celebrity, and that's presumably why we're all reading about Nureyev and not Paris Hilton. In any case, my sense from the reviews and from what I've read here is that a lot of people agree with Bentley, and would have preferred less sex and more ballet.

[papeetepatrick]

Celebrity takes on a life of its own, but I think that life, that phenomenon, is as much about us and what we're fascinated by and attracted to as it is, in this case, about Nureyev. And I also think that while art is enobling, celebrity often degrades both the celebrated and the celebrators by placing the superficial and the lamentable (Nureyev's tantrum's) on the same level as the praiseworthy (his art).

A biography is supposed to be journalism, not primarily concerned with matters of what is ennobling or degrading. Otherwise, you just need a 'Nureyev's Time as a Ballet Worker'. And, while this book doesn't interest me because I am tired of hearing about Nureyev's life for 35 years or more, a biography does place, if it is at all capable of objectivity, all the elements out there. Art does not necessarily ennoble an artist anyway (or its ennobling doesn't cancel out the rest of it, as in the case of Picasso I pointed out much earlier, nor does it in the case of Marilyn and Elvis). The artist allows the art to be the ennobled, and he is partially ennobled by it as well, but it is not exclusively his production, as it emerges from specific times and places and people milieux that the artist was dependent on, he had not invented those ideal conditions himself. He is the custodian of the art, and as such, gets most of the credit and deservedly so. Even so, there was much that was admirable about Nureyev the man, and if people don't want to know about his sex life, they don't want to know about a major part of who he was, because this was a sexual creature among other things.

Nureyev would not be a household name today if he hadn't gone on to have a great career as a dancer or in some other field after he defected. His art was the foundation for his celebrity, and that's presumably why we're all reading about Nureyev and not Paris Hilton.

I don't want a whole book about her, but I liked reading about how she went to a country near India and spoke out for the prevention of drunkenness in Indian elephants in an AP article.

In any case, my sense from the reviews and from what I've read here is that a lot of people agree with Bentley, and would have preferred less sex and more ballet.

Is there a dearth of material about Nureyev? I think, somehow, that there isn't, and that that's why I'd rather stick with some videos of the dancing. But I think a lot of people want to read about this artist-celebrity's life in as much detail as possible, not least at all of which is that Ballet Celebrity is nonexistent by now, there is no such thing, and in the last half of the 20th century, even though there were a few ballet celebs, none was as flamboyant as Nureyev. His life cannot even be understood at all without enormous emphasis on his celebrity, so that in that way I don't think it is comparable to Marilyn and Elvis, because there have always been Movie Star Celebs and Rock Singer celebs, and there still are. They stand out from these, because they captured the public's interest, and they are both far more famous in terms of number than is even Nureyev.

[kfw]

papeetepatrick, I think a biographer can choose her subject and what she wants to focus on. In other words, she can focus on what she thinks is worthy of our attention, and leave out or de-emphasize the rest. Of course you're right that art isn't necessarily enobling. I should have said it's potentially enobling. I think of Farrell telling her students that they are servants of the dance (I think I have that right), which is to say in part that they are serving beauty. It's also true that work has dignity, and that Nureyev worked very hard at his art. As for the sexual details in the book, I don't remember anyone complaining that Kavanaugh wrote about that aspect of his life in the first place, and of course it was a big part of his life, so she could hardly have left it out entirely. Again, it's a matter of emphasis, and of what was left out because of that emphasis.

[Helene]

It's hard for me to imagine that Kavanagh decided in a very long book to include ten extra pages of Nureyev's sex life in lieu of the aftermath of his death. She had a lot of access that others didn't. She had a book to write, and it's hard to think that access had no price.

Despite the ego that can be read into "The Life" in the book's title -- although it can also be interpreted as a description of Nureyev -- I think the best we can do at this point is get a mosaic from many sources. Someone else will write about the aftermath, or perhaps eventually Kavanagh's will be like Taper's Balanchine bio, with a chapter added in subsequent editions. (Which, of course, would increase sales, as all of us who bought the hardback would have to buy the paperback for the additional material...) If not, then Kavanagh's book is a contribution to the picture.

[dirac]

I don't remember anyone complaining that Kavanaugh wrote about that aspect of his life in the first place,

I’ve seen complaints in the reviews and comments that Kavanagh made too much of his sex life, but as far as I can tell without dipping into the book she doesn’t ignore the artist.

a biography does place, if it is at all capable of objectivity, all the elements out there.

Certainly a biography with any claims to comprehensiveness does.

[Herman Stevens]

I don't remember anyone complaining that Kavanaugh wrote about that aspect of his life in the first place,

I’ve seen complaints in the reviews and comments that Kavanagh made too much of his sex life, but as far as I can tell without dipping into the book she doesn’t ignore the artist.

a biography does place, if it is at all capable of objectivity, all the elements out there.

Certainly a biography with any claims to comprehensiveness does.

It's just prudery. People want to read about it, but they want to complain about it, too.

Nureyev was a sex symbol, just like Nijinsky was - only in another era. It would have not made any sense to have ignored or glossed over his sex life.

I couldn't help but notice in the National Review piece discussed here that the reviewer would not have minded less of Nureyev's "multifarious homosexual encounters" (I'm quoting from memory here).

With that kind of language it's pretty clear what territory we're in.

The parts I thought were most intriguing were the quiet parts: Nureyev and these two London friends he spent a lot of time with, just sitting in the kitchen; Nureyev playing the Bach at night to himself. This was something I could not have imagined. It's not sexy or provocative, and so no one talks about it. And yet it is among the most illuminating stuff in the book.

[Ray]

It's just prudery. People want to read about it, but they want to complain about it.

Nureyev was a sex symbol, just like Nijinsky was - only in another era. It would have not made any sense to have ignored or glossed over his sex life.

I couldn't help but notice in the National Review piece discussed here that the reviewer would not have minded less of Nureyev's "multifarious homosexual encounters" (I'm quoting from memory here).

With that kind of language it's pretty clear what territory we're in.

Thank you, Herman!

[dirac]

I couldn't help but notice in the National Review piece discussed here that the reviewer would not have minded less of Nureyev's "multifarious homosexual encounters" (I'm quoting from memory here).

With that kind of language it's pretty clear what territory we're in.

I believe Homans also said 'sordid' (although I note she said it in the pages of The New Republic, not National Review).

The parts I thought were most intriguing were the quiet parts: Nureyev and these two London friends he spent a lot of time with, just sitting in the kitchen; Nureyev playing the Bach at night to himself. This was something I could not have imagined. It's not sexy or provocative, and so no one talks about it. And yet it is among the most illuminating stuff in the book.

There's a story in Meredith Daneman's book - don't know if Kavanagh mentions it too - where Fonteyn is putting Nureyev up for a short while. The former had no great interest in music outside a professional context and Nureyev couldn’t get accustomed to hearing no music around the house.

[bart]

The parts I thought were most intriguing were the quiet parts: Nureyev and these two London friends he spent a lot of time with, just sitting in the kitchen; Nureyev playing the Bach at night to himself. This was something I could not have imagined. It's not sexy or provocative, and so no one talks about it. And yet it is among the most illuminating stuff in the book.

I'm glad you mention this, which is overlooked in every review I've glanced at.

One of the discoveries of Kavanagh's biography is just how complex he was (in terms of interests, intimacies, and how he spent his time). Who knew?

Like it or not, we DO know now. This is a credit to the doggedness of Kavanagh the researcher, and her knack of drawing out personal memories from so many of his friends and associates.

[kfw]

I couldn't help but notice in the National Review piece discussed here that the reviewer would not have minded less of Nureyev's "multifarious homosexual encounters" (I'm quoting from memory here).

With that kind of language it's pretty clear what territory we're in.

What's clear is that the language is descriptive and accurate. Anything else we can only guess at. I'm sorry this discussion has turned to crude catchall stereotypes. Bentley is the author of a memoir about her obsession with anal sex, so I don't think she's prudish.

[dirac]

This is a credit to the doggedness of Kavanagh the researcher, and her knack of drawing out personal memories from so many of his friends and associates.

Very true. Is there anything else in the book about Nureyev's musical tastes?

[bart]

Is there anything else in the book about Nureyev's musical tastes?

Not a lot, but the many small bits scattered here and there build to a fairly plausible picture of someone who was passionate about classical music, had his obsessions -- Bach was one -- and depended on the kindness of certain experts for encouragement and for a certain amount of guidance, some of which he ignored.

One of the pluses of the book is an excellent full index so you can look up almost any topic. There you'll find references to "musicality of," "piano playing of," and " orchestral conducting of" lining up alongside topics like "hair and hair styles of," "rudeness and foul language of," "arrogance and narcissism of", and "Kindness and generosity of."

[Quiggin]

Here's another review--if everyone doesn't have review fatigue by now--and if it hasn't been posted before. From James Davidson at the London Review of Books at www.lrb.co.uk, to subscribers only (worth subscribing).

"No Beast More Refined: How Good Was Nureyev"

Three snippets:

For there is something else about this biography that reminded me of books about Alexander the Great: the question of Nureyev’s ‘greatness’, which is often hopelessly mixed up with questions about his goodness as a human being and his technical ability. If Nureyev really was ‘one of the greatest artists the world has ever known’ [:Jane Hermann] then we might be happy to put him alongside any number of men and women who behaved appallingly but are nevertheless admired for their cultural impact, Alexander among them. What is most extraordinary about Kavanagh’s biography, however, is that she doesn’t really seem to share Hermann’s opinion about the man on whom she has spent ten years of her life.

* * *

But Kavanagh’s technical knowledge also means that she is too attentive to the not infrequent deficiencies of Nureyev’s technique, as if she were constantly grading him for an exam. Other dancers are often said to be as good as or better than him; indeed, reading the biography one gets the impression that the second half of the 20th century was chock-full of wonderful male dancers, although it is always a good idea to check her more flattering assessments against the list of names in the acknowledgments; and there does seem to be a tendency for London-based dancers to get more frequent and more effusive praise than, say, Parisians.

* * *

So I, who was born three years after Nureyev’s defection and never saw him at his best, still think that Nureyev was probably without peer, not as a teacher, but as a dancer, and that he will remain without peer for many more, though hopefully not too many more, years to come. Such a combination of grace, fire and strangeness, tiger, wolf and stallion, King Kong and a Stradivarius, is not likely to be repeated any time soon, and certainly not by today’s managed and sensible professionals. When the channels were fully functional, as quite often they were, the music and the role would fill Nureyev, Nureyev would fill his body and his body would fill the stage.

[ngitanjali]

Well, I just checked out the book from the library. If it's enthralling as most seem to say, I'll look into buying it. I haven't started yet, since I have finals, and then my wisdom teeth are coming out on New Years Eve (), so I decided to use Rudik as a distractor from the pain. I will definetly post a detailed review up, since I'm really excited about reading it.

Otherwise, I checked the price of the book on Barnes and Noble, which is about $27.00. (I could go cheaper somewhere else, I"m sure, but I have a membership with BN). For that price, I could get one, if not two, DVDs of Nureyev. Which is worth the money? Nureyev in print or Nureyev on film? What do you think?

[bart]

On the whole, I've been one of the defenders of the Kavanagh book on this thread. But I also know that -- amidst all the detail and commentary -- there was something troubling, something possibly a bit mean-spirited and overly negative.

So it was good to open up the new issue of DanceView (Winter 2008) and find a review by the dean of British ballet critics, John Percival. Percival puts his finger on something that troubled me about Kavanagh:

Now the curious thing is not to find delight in Kavanagh's book

Percival begins by telling us that his own favorite among the books about Nureyev is the volume of memoirs by his St. Petersburg friends, in Pushkinsy Fond, Rudolf Nuryev: Three Years in the Kirov Theater (1995).

... the most striking thing is the way none of the writers can avoid revealing how much they admired him (yes, even though they find fault with some of his activities) and how much they liked him too.

That is something which I found lacking in Jlie Kavanagh's newly published biography ... I kept asking myself, didn't she like him or his dancing. It's fair enough to note (many of us did) that he bumped a bit in landing from jumps when he first arrived in London, because he went so high and was on an unfamilliar and unraked stage. But how strange to find her claiming a decline in his dtechnique only six years later. And what a lot of supposed faults she manages to find and quote from reviews by, for instance, Arlene Croce in The New Yorker.

There's lots more. Percival corrects some errors (several of which have also been mentioned on this thread), fills in where there are omissions, and adjusts imbalances in which Kavanagh seems to have focused only on the negative. It's a good and thoughtful piece.

Percival also provides a long, beautifully balanced article on the late Maurice Bejart and his work.

DanceView is not online, but subscription information can be found here:

http://www.danceview.org/

[cubanmiamiboy]

I also know that -- amidst all the detail and commentary -- there was something troubling, something possibly a bit mean-spirited and overly negative.

...like what's the purpose of the over detailed descriptions of the sex activities going on on sexpots, clubs or bath houses..even if that was part of Rudik's life...? It made me feel like she didn't know what else to add. Sometimes they would be just pernicious descriptions of situations and places in which Rudolf wasn't even being mentioned, so what's up with that...? I certainly don't find that all those details reveal anything of significance to the narrative, other than adding some cheap thrill . I found it vulgar, strange, driven by morbid curiosity and totally out of place. At the end, the places still exist, personalities still frequent them, and that doesn't really make any news...at least to me...

(Edited to add: I just noticed that somebody mentioned all this already , but i didn't see the post 'till now, and still, i wanted to express my own feelings.)

[Herman Stevens]

I also know that -- amidst all the detail and commentary -- there was something troubling, something possibly a bit mean-spirited and overly negative.

...like what's the purpose of the over detailed descriptions of the sex activities going on on sexpots, clubs or bath houses..even if that was part of Rudik's life...? It made me feel like she didn't know what else to add. Sometimes they would be just pernicious descriptions of situations and places in which Rudolf wasn't even being mentioned, so what's up with that...? I certainly don't find that all those details reveal anything of significance to the narrative, other than adding some cheap thrill . I found it vulgar, strange, driven by morbid curiosity and totally out of place. At the end, the places still exist, personalities still frequent them, and that doesn't really make any news...at least to me...

(Edited to add: I just noticed that somebody mentioned all this already , but i didn't see the post 'till now, and still, i wanted to express my own feelings.)

It's called contextualizing. Kavananagh actually does a pretty brilliant job at this.

The problem is, if one thinks descriptions of non-romantic sexual activity are "pernicious", even though these activities were a substantial part of RN's life, this is not a book to read.