Forever Delayed - The Independent Manics Forum  

Go Back   Forever Delayed - The Independent Manics Forum > Manic Street Preachers > Manic Street Preachers Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #496  
Old 26-02-2019, 12:52
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
I enjoy how my user icon is basically always imbuing my posts with an unintended sipping air but this time it really needed drawing attention to.
__________________
I'll fax you an apology
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 26-02-2019, 12:58
wireobsessed's Avatar
wireobsessed wireobsessed is offline
I live to fall asleep
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: a once proud northern industrial town
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenvidg View Post
This book makes me feel physically ill. The people behind it are not only toxic, bitter and jealous, but also clearly completely delusional for thinking they can just push this kind of content out and call it the truth. Or, sorry "a fresh perspective"!

I've probably written this earlier, but I hope they get crushed. The authors and everyone else involved.

If (and I pray) this book is eventually cancelled, I dread to think what accusations they will spit out next, about how you get to read only what the band wants you to read.....
I feel just the same. I've said before that it just seems so wrong and unbelievably insensitive to be coming from Rachel. I know grief makes people feel and do really unpredictable and out of character things, I've been there! It's draining and suffocating and she's certainly had so much to deal with. I honestly don't know how she's still standing BUT, and this is the crux of things for me, she's experienced Richey going missing, walked through it for all this time, never knowing and then had to deal with the loss of both her parents. It's heartbreaking. But it means she should understand how grief feels for the band and everyone else that loved Richey. There's the management, other ppl at Hall or Nothing, extended family who have had to deal with his loss through Nicky, Sean and James. Why the hell now make the very public decision to bad mouth the band and Nicky? He's had more than enough to go through over the past couple of years, he's gone through the same loss as Rachel and she just can't see it. How the hell would she feel if the band had even once pointed the finger at her and Richey's family?
The thing is they wouldn't, and as loads of people have said, the band have only ever behaved in a totally dignified way and show their love and respect for Richey at every gig. I'm furious about this and cant even begin to think about how the band must feel, Nicky in particular. He must be devastated.
__________________
I know I believe in nothing but it is my nothing; wish I could Sparkle and Believe...
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 26-02-2019, 12:59
Velocitygirl's Avatar
Velocitygirl Velocitygirl is offline
Desire on its knees
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 982
Oh, wow! That settles it, then. This just gets weirder and weirder. (Referring to Granny Kezia here).
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 26-02-2019, 13:08
jenvidg's Avatar
jenvidg jenvidg is offline
An imitation of dignity
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Age: 35
Posts: 86
Sofarsideways, is there anything you can tell us about the bits with the antisemitic tone? Thank you.

Last edited by jenvidg; 26-02-2019 at 13:19.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 26-02-2019, 13:25
Bryter Layter Bryter Layter is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarsideways View Post
The only reason I can see for targeting Nicky is his and Richey’s closeness. Going in all guns blazing trying to discredit their relationship only shows that the attack is driven by jealousy and resentment, and proves that R&N are bulletproof. I hope Nicky feels that way.
I read a passage where this Jo woman apparently told Rachel that she couldn't explain why, but she thought Richey was in love with Nicky, but this speculation all seemed to arise from how he acted at Nicky's wedding which I don't think Jo was at (his alleged actions sounded more like he was jealous he wasn't in a serious relationship than anything else). What's being implied here? Richey's problems are Wire's fault because he couldn't love him like that? Why is this even relevant? If Richey did feel that way, he wasn't open about it so why is this speculation even being made public?

Quote:
Originally Posted by baleofhey View Post
Personal archive I (dumbly) presumed was ONLY going to be his art and thoughts on culture.
That's what I assumed too because I didn't think his sister would allow such personal items to be made public. Clearly I was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifuldistortion View Post
Yeah I get that people don't want to attack Rachel and I am not, I just want to know if there is something that led to an attack on the band, a catalyst for it?
I don't ever remember her saying anything bad about the band prior to the announcement that they were working on what would become JFPL. My guess is, she probably harbored ill will towards them for a while, but using the lyrics from the opulence binder put her over the edge for some reason and around this time, she found somebody that helped fan the flames.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarsideways View Post
Of general forum interest: did we know Richey’s grandmother was named Kezia?

*casually sips tea*
You don't say? Lol!
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 26-02-2019, 14:08
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryter Layter View Post
I read a passage where this Jo woman apparently told Rachel that she couldn't explain why, but she thought Richey was in love with Nicky, but this speculation all seemed to arise from how he acted at Nicky's wedding which I don't think Jo was at (his alleged actions sounded more like he was jealous he wasn't in a serious relationship than anything else). What's being implied here? Richey's problems are Wire's fault because he couldn't love him like that? Why is this even relevant? If Richey did feel that way, he wasn't open about it so why is this speculation even being made public?
Jo said this to Rachel after Richey went missing, when exactly is not clear (frequently the case). The wedding anecdote is separate but related I guess. Honestly for me this is like having had a lifelong passionately held theory everyone dismissed as flat earth, but then NASA confirms it - only now you’re not sure you can trust NASA?! This is the only mention this idea is given and considering the implications of it I’m amazed - that they mentioned it at all, sure, but then so passingly. The authors are too eager to push the Jo angle.

They also neglect to mention his first (traumatic) sexual experience, having gotten ex girlfriends to open up about everything prior to that, and dismiss his groupie-ing as ‘occasional dalliances’. He really wanted to be with Jo, look at all this proof!... which suggests he didn’t at all. It’s like this constantly. They try to make Nicky look bad and Jo perfect, and end up pointing to all the conclusions they don’t want you to come to by trying to twist things. This, I hasten to make clear, is my reading and may not be others’, for sure. But I ain’t picking up what’s not there, you know? I guess people will see for themselves (unless the book goes under). I think it’s obvious without having anything in mind, but.

Jo is treated as the oracle in this book, what she says is fact even though the latest her contributions are dated (they’re letters or recalled conversations) is 1998, I think. When she would have been 23. We have to keep how young she was in mind, and that she was dealing with trauma, was obviously biased, etc. That said, if she is, as the book keeps insisting, ‘the closest person to Richey’ and his confidante, the conclusion she came to is pretty something, yet it’s given basically no screen time. Instead we hear about the entire two weeks her and Richey were officially together this one time, her turning down his proposal and him basically shrugging and leaving, etc. Also it’s casually mentioned that they knew each other for four years, so they met when she was 15. Make of that what you will.

They don’t paint this as Nicky’s big wrong-doing, anyway, because that would involve taking it seriously. It’s more his entire character/existence they have a problem with.

Regardless of anything, as you say, if Richey had such feelings, he did NOT want them made public. That’s always been my concern with voicing such opinions, but team Withdrawn Traces don’t seem to give a shit. So now it’s out there. As are tonnes of other things that shouldn’t be.
__________________
I'll fax you an apology

Last edited by sofarsideways; 26-02-2019 at 15:19.
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 26-02-2019, 14:18
Routine Builder's Avatar
Routine Builder Routine Builder is offline
Bored of being bored
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,801
Here's a theory, is the aforementioned legal trouble between the authors of the book and Rachel? It's perfectly plausible that the authors went further in their remit than they explained to Rachel I.e. off record conversations becoming on record conversations . This is speculation on my part, but it could be that Rachel only recently looked at the finished product and balked.
__________________


Stand back, I have political powers!

Last edited by Routine Builder; 26-02-2019 at 14:22.
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 26-02-2019, 14:26
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Routine Builder View Post
Here's a theory, is the aforementioned legal trouble between the authors of the book and Rachel? It's perfectly plausible that the authors went further in their remit than they explained to Rachel I.e. off record conversations becoming on record conversations . This is speculation on my part, but it could be that Rachel only recently looked at the finished product and balked.
I very much doubt it. The whole thing is written as kind of a conversation with Rachel linked by narrative. Half the words in this book are hers, directly quoted. I would think she knows exactly what’s in the final version.
__________________
I'll fax you an apology
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 26-02-2019, 14:42
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
A thing. There is a list of the box contents ‘from memory, in a letter from Jo to Rachel’. Again when the letter is from is unclear. Why would it be from memory in a letter? She also forgets several things we know were in it, such as the tape of Naked and, oddly, the ‘I Love You’ note. Now. Later on, a Spider-Man notebook of Richey’s is mentioned, on which he has drawn a speech bubble saying ‘I love you’, which the authors then for some reason point out is ‘the same as the message he apparently left for Jo’. Apparently? I thought it was meant to be very clearly for her?

This made me think. Richey actually wrote ‘I love you’ on quite a lot of stuff. If I recall it’s on some of the artwork in the JFPL booklet, for instance. So was this ‘I love you’ actually part of the box artwork, which would explain why Jo didn’t list it when it’s meant to be A Big Thing, and would also potentially completely change the implication of it.

We are meant to believe Jo is who Richey is talking about in his final interview - which already doesn’t make sense, he hadn’t ‘only kissed her once or twice’ - but in WT there are letters to Jo in which Richey says ‘I love you’. So that was not the big tragic THE WORDS HE COULDN’T SAY!! we were told it was, and makes what he was saying in his last interview make even less sense.

Yes yes I’ve gone all in what do you want
__________________
I'll fax you an apology

Last edited by sofarsideways; 26-02-2019 at 21:49.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 26-02-2019, 15:41
Velocitygirl's Avatar
Velocitygirl Velocitygirl is offline
Desire on its knees
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Routine Builder View Post
Here's a theory, is the aforementioned legal trouble between the authors of the book and Rachel? It's perfectly plausible that the authors went further in their remit than they explained to Rachel I.e. off record conversations becoming on record conversations . This is speculation on my part, but it could be that Rachel only recently looked at the finished product and balked.

That briefly crossed my mind, too. But it's sounding more and more like wishful thinking. Besides, if the band aren't suing the ever-loving shite out of the authors, they should be.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 26-02-2019, 15:51
Routine Builder's Avatar
Routine Builder Routine Builder is offline
Bored of being bored
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,801
If anything the band or their management, are probably attempting to have bits of the book cut out. They are probably trying to avoid a media headline like "The Manic Street Preachers sueing Richie Manic's sister for telling the truth".

I've been keeping an eye on the page count on Amazon to see if it shifts with the changing release date.

Sofa, what's the page count on your copy?
__________________


Stand back, I have political powers!
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 26-02-2019, 16:01
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Routine Builder View Post
Sofa, what's the page count on your copy?
336 officially (including end pages etc), 322 numbered.
__________________
I'll fax you an apology
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 26-02-2019, 16:06
Routine Builder's Avatar
Routine Builder Routine Builder is offline
Bored of being bored
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,801
Well that smells funny then, maybe a clerical error but it does seem like it's being cut in places.

I suppose there's none of Richey's creative work in there?
__________________


Stand back, I have political powers!
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 26-02-2019, 16:10
Bryter Layter Bryter Layter is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarsideways View Post
They also neglect to mention his first (traumatic) sexual experience, having gotten ex girlfriends to open up about everything prior to that, and dismiss his groupie-ing as ‘occasional dalliances’.
So he did have girlfriends? I'm so confused! So he was downplaying his relationship issues to the press?

Of course they dismiss his groupie ways! That's one bit of info I'm not surprised by. Lol! Also, ewww to her being 15 when they met! Did this guy hang out with any females above the age of 20...that he didn't work with? So gross!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarsideways View Post
We are meant to believe Jo is who Richey is talking about in his final interview - which already doesn’t make sense, he hadn’t ‘only kissed her once or twice’ - but in WT there are letters to Jo in which Richey says ‘I love you’. So that was not the big tragic THE WORDS HE COULDN’T SAY!! we were told it was, and makes what he was saying in his last interview make even less sense.
I think he probably had decided he was going to split by the time of this interview so it's likely a lot of his responses were designed to paint a heavily orchestrated picture. As I mentioned previously, he had told Simon Price she was the only person he slept with in 1993 (clearly lies as we all know. LOL!). I doubt he had a platonic relationship with her which is why her being 15 when they first started hanging out, is creepy. That's not a slight in anyway against her. He was an adult, she was a kid.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 26-02-2019, 16:10
sofarsideways's Avatar
sofarsideways sofarsideways is offline
Winterlover
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Routine Builder View Post
I suppose there's none of Richey's creative work in there?
Some collages of photos of uni friends which seem intended as evidence in the The Band Were Not His Real Friends case, some doodles. It’s mostly childhood/teenage writing in which - ZOMG - he uses some of the same words he would later use in lyrics?! Le gasp
__________________
I'll fax you an apology
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.