Tweet Buster Keaton Biographies: Which one to buy?

I'm planning on buying "My Wonderful World of Slapstick", but I heard that was more about his films than his life. I went through Amazon to find a book about him, but I have no clue which ones are total bull and which ones are actually accurate. Which ones would you recommend?

I guess I'd go with KEATON by Tom Dardis, but you should probably still read his autobiography. You might also look for a copy of BUSTER KEATON INTERVIEWS.

I guess I'd go with KEATON by Tom Dardis, but you should probably still read his autobiography. You might also look for a copy of BUSTER KEATON INTERVIEWS.

Oh, I'm definitely getting the autobiography. Even if it doesn't focus on his life, I'd still like very much to read what he has to say about his work.

Do you know if there are any biographies which I should avoid at all costs?

This is interesting because I was recently thinking about this. When I first discovered Buster, I read his autobiography, the Rudi Blesh bio (which is very good), and the Tom Dardis bio. I remember finding interesting things in all of them. Strangely, Amazon lists the Dardis book as "co-written with Buster Keaton" though it was written long after Buster's death. Dardis did interview Buster's sister Louise and Louise Brooks, who knew Buster and had some interesting insights. There's also a lovely book by David Robinson which is purely devoted to Buster's silent work and is not a bio but it features great images so you might want to get it somewhere just for that reason. (Amazon has it used)

I see looking at Amazon that there are some more recent bios but I'm afraid I haven't read them. Hope this helps a little.

I'm planning on buying "My Wonderful World of Slapstick", but I heard that was more about his films than his life. I went through Amazon to find a book about him, but I have no clue which ones are total bull and which ones are actually accurate. Which ones would you recommend?

First, you should know that Buster's autobiography isn't really what that term implies: he didn't sit down and write a book. He told stories about his life to a writer named Charles Samuels, who typed while Buster spoke. Then Samuels cleaned up the prose and revised it; Buster would make changes and then okay the text. So there are passages that sound like Buster speaking into a tape-recorder (as when he describes pranks he would pull with Roscoe Arbuckle) and other passages that don't sound like Buster at all -- that's Mr. Samuels being a writer. Not all that much space is devoted to the making of the films, and there are strange digressions. But the biggest lapse of all concerns Buster's first marriage: for legal reasons this "autobiography" never mentions the name of Natalie Talmadge, to whom he was married for eleven years, and who was the mother of his two sons.

The first biography I ever read of B.K. was Rudi Blesh's book, which was very definitely an authorized work which Buster approved. (It came out just after he died.) While the book has its flaws I still think it's a great read, and most of the important information is there. The Tom Dardis book, which came out about ten years later, does offer additional info but has flaws of its own. Dardis believed that Buster's vaudeville childhood was a nightmare, and that he was an abused child. He hammers that theme relentlessly. Sure, Buster had a rough relationship with his father, but Dardis goes way overboard in this area. I don't much care for the Marion Meade book, which asserts, among other falsehoods, that Buster was illiterate. I can recommend the Jeffrey Vance "coffee table" volume (i.e. Buster Keaton Remembered), which is a fun read and beautifully illustrated. Eleanor Keaton, B.K.'s widow, contributed photos and text to that one. I can also recommend Imogen Sara Smith's book Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy, which covers both his career and (to a lesser extent) his life, and is perceptive and beautifully written.

I guess I'd go with KEATON by Tom Dardis, but you should probably still read his autobiography. You might also look for a copy of BUSTER KEATON INTERVIEWS.

Oh, I'm definitely getting the autobiography. Even if it doesn't focus on his life, I'd still like very much to read what he has to say about his work.

Do you know if there are any biographies which I should avoid at all costs?

I would avoid Buster: A Legend in Laughter by Larry Edwards.
It's out of print anyway, I think.

When I read it, I found so many errors in information and spelling, that those were
what I started to look for.

Rick

Jeffrey Vance and Eleanor Keaton: Buster Keaton Remembered
Rudi Blesh: Keaton

Both cover both the life and the work pretty well, though Blesh spends as little time as possible on the post-20s films.

Buster Keaton & Charles Samuels: My Wonderful World of Slapstick

Even though it's an "as told to" job, this is still essential for being Buster's own words, and his childhood memories especially are charming. It's true that Keaton's and Samuels' "voices" don't always blend smoothly, though.

Tom Dardis: Buster Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down

This seemed an important work at the time, but somehow I don't find myself returning to it half as much as those mentioned above.

Marion Meade: Buster Keaton: Cut To The Chase
Agree that this one's mostly awful, with much unsubstantiated conjecture. Its main asset is having more info on Buster's sons than the previous books.

And if you can find it, the 3-part TV documentary Buster Keaton: A Hard Act to Follow by Brownlow & Gill is a marvel. Released on region 2 DVD, but not as yet region 1, I believe.

FYI, Eleanor and Keaton's family really hate the Meade bio and say that it doesn't resemble at all the information that they provided.

greta

I'd say Dardis book is the best to start. Then MWWOS and Blesh's (and the documentary by Brownlow & Gill). And after that, you will see what's wrong with Meade's book. On the films there's THE FILMS OF BUSTER KEATON by Jim Kline, which has lots of information and if you are very familiar with the films you should buy, rent or steal SILENT ECHOES by John Bengtson.

[Mike Gebert]

The overall account of his life in the Dardis book is clear and well presented. I agree, though, that where for a long time I bought Dardis' view of his abusive childhood, eventually I realized that there's just no support for it in Keaton's own recollections of his life or the degree to which he involved his family in his work. I can accept that Joe was probably a rough character who was tough to like in life (that detail about going up to people and grabbing their coffee cups with his thumb in their coffee is bizarrely telling), he seems to be one of those guys who sooner or later alienated everybody, but Buster certainly seemed to have loved his childhood on stage, compared to alternatives like, say, working 12 hours a day in a factory.

Rollo Treadway wrote:

And if you can find it, the 3-part TV documentary Buster Keaton: A Hard Act to Follow by Brownlow & Gill is a marvel. Released on region 2 DVD, but not as yet region 1, I believe.

Absolutely. I still have the VHS tape I recorded from the PBS broadcast. This, like HAROLD LLOYD: THE THIRD GENIUS, needs a DVD release, hopefully with extras, like UNKNOWN CHAPLIN.

After you have read a few of the biographies, I would like to suggest reading "Arbuckle And Keaton: Their 14 Film Collaborations" by James L. Neibaur. This books gives some good insights to Keaton's early development in his film work, and also has a lot of good info on Roscoe Arbuckle. The book also has the most info on Al St. John that I have read, and I really enjoyed learning more about him. A good book about the films, how they were made and how Keaton's and Arbuckle's working relationship developed.

Cheers,
Maureen

Dear Mr. Gebert,
I think that Dardis goes as far as one can possible go in dealing with the problem of Keaton's childhood. And after that Meade goes on the same direction and loses it completely. But I truly believe that Dardis had a point when he stated that, because it was a genuine effort of taking some perspective on the matter, at a time when nobody thought of it.
Keaton may have loved it but I think that when you have to work as hard and violently as he did, with an alcoholic father, something is bound to remain with you the rest of your life. Even if that something is the kind of stoic attitude that Keaton built into his character. And I'm not refering only to his face. It was surely something very personal and subtle. That's why I think that Dardis got it and Meade blew it.
Please forgive me if I don't express myself correctly in English.
Best,
Fernando

The presentation of Buster's childhood is not the only problem with the Dardis book. One aspect I found very interesting when I first read it was the financial information, i.e. the box office grosses of Buster's silent features and his MGM talkies. But years later a series of articles (or was it a pair of articles?) in the Damfinos quarterly cast serious doubts on the figures Dardis came up with, and proved that the totals he reported were considerably lower than they should have been. It suggested, at the very least, that he hadn't properly done his homework.

One biography that hasn't been mentioned here is Edward McPherson's Tempest in a Flat Hat. (Or, as I call it, "Buster 101.") For those of us who've read a lot about B.K. this book has little to offer, mainly because the author appears to have done no original research whatsoever. I didn't find one tidbit of info in that book I hadn't already seen someplace else. Still, it's a decent starter bio for newcomers, one that synthesizes material from all the earlier bios and avoids most of the mistakes. But the author doesn't show any genuine feeling for Buster's era, nor does he have a discernible voice of his own.

Rudi Blesh writes with flair, and color. He's a storyteller, and he seems to have understood the people he was writing about. In my opinion his book is still the undefeated champ.

I find David Robinson's 'Buster Keaton' a good one to keep close at hand. It's a good, concise read and a useful reference, although it doesn't cover the several shorts that were still missing at the time of its publication, or 'Spite Marriage' in any depth as the author admits he hasn't seen it. I understand it's quite hard to get hold of nowadays.

I never had much trouble accepting Dardis' theories, or some more subtle version of them (not every case of child abuse is as clear cut as 'Broken Blossoms', after all). For his whole life, Buster seemed to associate self-worth and approval with how much hurt he could take without showing it. There's something not right about that.

The Dardis book literally has hundreds of factual errors -- according to Eleanor Keaton, nearly one on every page.

There are also some lulus regarding the Keaton film grosses, which have been screwing up film historians for three decades.

For example, Dardis claims that The General only grossed about $475,000, but neglected to say that he was only including the Western Hemisphere grosses, as to the Worldwide grosses Dardis presented for Keaton's MGM silents. A more likely gross for the The General appears to have been in the $900,000 range -- but it still probably lost money anyway.

Dardis also obscesses on Keaton's drinking problems between 1929 and 1935. That takes up about half the book.

I would avoid Buster: A Legend in Laughter by Larry Edwards.
It's out of print anyway, I think.

When I read it, I found so many errors in information and spelling, that those were
what I started to look for.

Rick

But ... but ... but ... this book is hilariously horrible. A glassy gem of the Bad Bio genre. Positively macabre in its awfulness. If ever a book deserved to be out of print. Or out of the galaxy.

I keep trying to give it away. But they keep giving it back.

I can also recommend Imogen Sara Smith's book Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy, which covers both his career and (to a lesser extent) his life, and is perceptive and beautifully written.

I second that. Smith's book is also an overview of the critical literature and biographies on Keaton, and perhaps the most sophisticated book on Keaton of its kind. However, for someone just starting out, it might be best saved for last.
None of the Keaton biographies is without its flaws and errors. My advice would be to read all of them, though I realize that's not the most time-saving solution. But it's what ended happening to me--once you get into Buster, you start reading everything you can on him.

FYI, Eleanor and Keaton's family really hate the Meade bio and say that it doesn't resemble at all the information that they provided.

greta

Similarly, Eleanor did not think much of Tom Dardis, or the book he wrote.

I noticed no one mentioned The Look of Buster Keaton by Robert Benayoun yet. I'll admit I haven't even read it yet, but I've heard good things about it. The book is out of print, but I have the chance to purchase a copy that's in decent shape at a reasonable price. Can anyone recommend this book? Many thanks!

I noticed no one mentioned The Look of Buster Keaton by Robert Benayoun yet. I'll admit I haven't even read it yet, but I've heard good things about it. The book is out of print, but I have the chance to purchase a copy that's in decent shape at a reasonable price. Can anyone recommend this book? Many thanks!

For Keaton fans it's definitely worth buying for the pictures alone. The text is on the academic side, but generally accessible and often thought-provoking. If you can get this book at a reasonable price you should snap it up!

So what exactly is the problem with Marion Meade's book?

Summarizing comments made so far, the criticism really seems to amount to four things.

1) The family claims she distorted their information.
Response: Eleanor didn't like ANY of the books about Buster except the one SHE helped to write with Jeffrey Vance. And it's always the case that people whose quotes come off in a negative way in print claim to have been misquoted.

Conclusion: This is not a valid criticism.

2) Meade claimed Keaton was probably illiterate.
Response: She does not claim he was illiterate; she suggests he found reading difficult and therefore he tried to avoid reading and writing. As someone who has worked extensively with functionally illiterate people for more than 30 years, and is the father of two adopted children with severe reading/writing disabilities, I can testify that the behaviour and habits she cites are very strong indicators that Buster was either functionally illiterate (which is NOT the same thing as being completely illiterate) or else dyslexic. I understand there exists samples of his handwriting; I would love to know if they have the transposed letters common to dyslexia; if not, then he was likely just functionally illiterate. He could read, he could write, but both were a chore for him, so it would be completely natural that he would avoid both.

Conclusion: This is not a valid criticism.

3) Meade revealed the dark side of Keaton, his lack of social graces, his self-absorption, and his self-destruction.
Response: So what? Isn't that what a good biographer is supposed to do -- give us all sides to their subject? And what exactly would be unsubstantiated about most of these dark points? He wasn't a socializer -- we have more than just Meade's word for that. He was self-absorbed -- who isn't? Especially, what genius isn't? He was no different from Chaplin in that regard. He was self-destructive -- everybody agrees on this point, it has been documented thoroughly in many sources, it's on the record that he was alcoholic and a spendthrift and a philanderer; why is Meade a liar for saying what is already common knowledge about the man? It doesn't diminish him. it makes him human.

Conclusion: This is not a valid criticism.

4) Meade wrote things that weren't true, or weren't substantiated, or distorted the truth.
Response: Well, come on, give us specific examples. So far the only example I've seen is that she said he was illiterate, which I've already dealt with. I have yet to see proof that Meade lied or fabricated anything.

Conclusion: I'm waiting for substantiation of this criticism.

For my part, I think Meade enjoyed the negative aspects of Buster's personality a little too much, and that she was off-base in her attempts to analyze his lack of social skills as some kind of ego defect (it was much more likely the result of his never having had the chance to develop socializing skills in childhood). But overall, she has given us the most fully-rounded portrait of Buster-the-person that we have.

Jim

So what exactly is the problem with Marion Meade's book?

2) Meade claimed Keaton was probably illiterate.
Response: She does not claim he was illiterate; she suggests he found reading difficult and therefore he tried to avoid reading and writing. As someone who has worked extensively with functionally illiterate people for more than 30 years, and is the father of two adopted children with severe reading/writing disabilities, I can testify that the behaviour and habits she cites are very strong indicators that Buster was either functionally illiterate (which is NOT the same thing as being completely illiterate) or else dyslexic. I understand there exists samples of his handwriting; I would love to know if they have the transposed letters common to dyslexia; if not, then he was likely just functionally illiterate. He could read, he could write, but both were a chore for him, so it would be completely natural that he would avoid both.

Conclusion: This is not a valid criticism.

I believe the charge of illiteracy, functional or otherwise, sticks in the craw of many readers of this book because of Meade's tone. Let's go to the text:

“After Keaton’s death, his business partner, Raymond Rohauer, expressed doubts about Keaton’s ability to read. Whenever Rohauer presented a document for Keaton’s signature, it was invariably returned unread . . . In 1962, touring West Germany with a revival of The General, Rohauer had to read the superlative press notices aloud to Keaton ‘because he never read a paper and he couldn’t understand.’ As an adult, he would sign his name in a spidery, hesitant script to various applications, fan pictures, and book jackets. However, there is nothing to indicate that he could compose more than a simple letter . . . MGM producer Lawrence Weingarten thought [Keaton] was shallow, ‘a child, with the mentality of a child.’ Weingarten questioned whether he was capable of functioning at all around educated people. Friends of Keaton suspected that he was more or less functionally illiterate, but they felt protective of him and kept quiet about it.”

--from Buster Keaton: Cut to the Chase (pp.38-9).

Now here is Imogen Smith on the same subject:

“Buster never went to school and did not learn to read until he was eight, but it’s not true that he was illiterate. Growing up, he kept the family accounts and a log of their travels; in the army he studied map-reading and Morse code; later in life he enjoyed detective novels and read bridge manuals. He learned dialogue for hundreds of plays, movies and television shows--including dialogue in other languages, which he memorized phonetically from cards. Some observers probably mistook Buster’s indifference to business matters for inability to comprehend them, and his refusal to pretend to any greater learning than he had for illiteracy.”

--from Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy (p. 39).

Which author shows more respect for her subject? In this and other instances I get the sense that Meade looked down on Keaton (and on his family, and on Roscoe Arbuckle). Her passages on the films seem perfunctory to me, as if she felt obligated to say something about them before returning to the stuff she could sink her teeth into: Keaton's emotional problems, his marital problems, his alcoholism. The juicy stuff. Oh, and she made a point of telling us about the sexual peccadillos of Raymond Rohauer and Joe Schenck, though it wasn't clear to me what light this information might shed on the life of Buster Keaton. I agree with you that it's the job of a good biographer to give us all sides of his or her subject, but for me that's where Meade's book falls short: she was far more interested in the dark side -- not just somewhat, in my reading. Her book lacks balance and compassion.

William, many thanks for your thoughtful post.

I note that Meade, in the excerpt you quoted, was in fact quoting other people. The only exception was the line, "However, there is nothing to indicate that he could compose more than a simple letter." I'm not sure Meade is wrong in that regard. He did not, in fact, seem to have written much.

The examples Smith cites are nearly all about reading, not writing, and some of the examples aren't even about reading per se. Map-reading and Morse code are not proof of literacy, nor is accounting. He didn't use scripts until he joined MGM. He was a gag-writer, but that doesn't mean he actually wrote gags; more likely he verbally suggested them. Eleanor rehearsed scripts with him, so it could be speculated that she read his lines out to him until he memorized them.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that Buster couldn't read or write. I also agree with you that Meade's handling of the literacy question is slanted. But I don't see that it's false.


Jim

Putting the Meade Bullsh*t to bed:

Having actually seen samples of Keaton's handwriting (there is actually quite a bit of it in the MGM files housed at the Academy, mostly gags and work he did on various scenarios in the 1940's), lets us say that it is a very precise and extremely readable cursive, that is written in an precise,absolutely straight line that couldn't be straighter if he used a ruler, and his grammar and syntax is actually pretty flawless. Not only was Keaton NOT illiterate in any way, shape, or form, his penmanship and usage of the english language is probably better than most of us here.

There is also a recording of Keaton having a script and story conference with his friend Bill Cox over a proposed, but never made, episode of WAGON TRAIN that shows just how sharp Keaton's mind is about things like story construction, history, and general creativity that is an eyeopener to anyone who has any idea that Keaton was in any way a sort of cultural philistine. It's a Keaton few who didn't know or work with him ever saw.

The Meade book is crap. Period.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

There is also a recording of Keaton having a script and story conference with his friend Bill Cox over a proposed, but never made, episode of WAGON TRAIN that shows just how sharp Keaton's mind is about things like story construction, history, and general creativity that is an eyeopener to anyone who has any idea that Keaton was in any way a sort of cultural philistine. It's a Keaton few who didn't know or work with him ever saw.

Isn't that the extra on the Go West Blu ray?

There is also a recording of Keaton having a script and story conference with his friend Bill Cox over a proposed, but never made, episode of WAGON TRAIN that shows just how sharp Keaton's mind is about things like story construction, history, and general creativity that is an eyeopener to anyone who has any idea that Keaton was in any way a sort of cultural philistine. It's a Keaton few who didn't know or work with him ever saw.

Isn't that the extra on the Go West Blu ray?

I believe it may be on there, I don't know if it is complete. I've had a copy of it for a number of years.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Putting the Meade Bullsh*t to bed:

Having actually seen samples of Keaton's handwriting (there is actually quite a bit of it in the MGM files housed at the Academy, mostly gags and work he did on various scenarios in the 1940's), lets us say that it is a very precise and extremely readable cursive, that is written in an precise,absolutely straight line that couldn't be straighter if he used a ruler, and his grammar and syntax is actually pretty flawless. Not only was Keaton NOT illiterate in any way, shape, or form, his penmanship and usage of the english language is probably better than most of us here.

There is also a recording of Keaton having a script and story conference with his friend Bill Cox over a proposed, but never made, episode of WAGON TRAIN that shows just how sharp Keaton's mind is about things like story construction, history, and general creativity that is an eyeopener to anyone who has any idea that Keaton was in any way a sort of cultural philistine. It's a Keaton few who didn't know or work with him ever saw.

The Meade book is crap. Period.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Thank you for letting us know about what's in the files. I don't think I've seen anyone write about them.

Rick

Hey, thanks Richard for the info about the Keaton writing samples in the files. That helps a bit. (I said "a bit". Don't want you to get a swelled head.)

I don't think anyone suggested Keaton was incapable of story construction or general creativity. Stuff like The General couldn't have been made by a dope. Just like Lloyd and everybody else in silent comedy, Keaton had a team that worked with him; insinuations that they didn't get the credit they deserved are probably correct, but it was correct of everybody in the business. Every Chaplin biography I've read mentions that his team quickly learned they had to plant their ideas into his head in such a way that he could believe he came up with them himself and could claim credit for them. Keaton, if anything, did the reverse: gave credit for his own work to people like Arbuckle and Cline and Bruckman.

So the illiteracy claim seems to be groundless. But what other falsehoods are in the book? Not just stuff the fans didn't like the tone of, but actual fabrications. Any examples of that?


Jim

In terms of factual error, I think Meade was the one who took at face value Louise Brook's claim that Keaton had forgotten all about Dorothy Sebastian by the time of her death. This is readily contradicted by the fact that Keaton mentioned her in his autobiography. He did not mention her by name, but it's clear from his description of her that it could not be anyone else.

With regards to her insinuations of Keaton's illiteracy, she took two quotes from people who had at best ambiguous relationships with Keaton and twisted them to suit her hypothesis. In the case of the Larry Weingarten quote, she took that quote grossly out of context. Weingarten was talking about what it was like to work with Keaton in general, and trying to account for why his career flamed out so spectacularly at MGM. He was trying to deflect blame from himself by putting Keaton down. Weingarten also talked about, in the context of that same quote, how hard he tried to fix Keaton's movies by bringing in more writers, never aknowledging that somehow Keaton had no problem developing story ideas his own way when he made all those films at his own studio. And there was the general snobbishness of a college educated person condescending to someone who didn't have the oppurtunity to have a formal education like himself. In the case of Rohauer, I think it's a matter of Rohauer really incapable of understanding how Keaton thought about things. Rohauer was obsessed with money, Keaton loved to spend money but was otherwise indifferent about it. Keaton's disinclication to reading contracts was consistent with how he dealt with such matters in general. His studio was founded on nothing other than a handshake. He hated dealing with money matters or legal matters. He was more than content with the 50/50 share he got when Rohauer got the rights to his movies though I think a lot of people in his situation would have insisted on more. His third wife talked about how he didn't even like to handle money. Just because he was far less interested in reading contracts doesn't mean he was not able to read them. I mean, does Keaton's refusal to show up to court when his 1st and 2nd wives sued him for divorce mean he was incapable of showing up to court? To draw the conclusion that he was incpable of reading because he was not interested in reading contracts works more or less along the same lack of logic. And there are other evidence that he is perfectly capable of reading. Remember, when he did the foreign language versions of the MGM talkies, he was reading phonetically off cue cards. If he had no problem doing that, why wouldn't he be able to read stuff written in his own language? Also Alan Schneider, the director of Samuel Beckett's film, mentioned that Keaton spent his downtime in his dressing room reading the newspaper, and there are photographs of him reading the paper from that time. Schneider's impression of Keaton was that, while he was game for whatever they asked of him, he was not particularly in awe of Beckett like a lot of people around Beckett tend to be. So what motivation would Keaton have for pretending to know how to read at that time? It's more sensible to conclude that he was seen reading the newspaper because he was capable of reading.

A lot of other objections I have regarding Meade's biography are not so much hard facts, as the way that whenever possible, Meade would interprete things to present Keaton in the worst possible light, beyond what is reasonable.

In particular Meade's repeated inistence that Keaton was an unusally egotistical person. Notice whenever she makes this assertion, she never quotes anyone directly. That's because people close to Keaton would say the exact opposite, that he was an unusually un-egotistical person. Keaton's lack of ego is bourned out by lots of facts. During his revival in the 50's, he's always quick and eager to give credit to the people who worked with him (as opposed to some other giants of silent comedy... *cough*) and shrugged off people's insistence that he was some sort of genius. When he returned to work at MGM and reporters were needling him about how he felt regarding being re-hired at a tiny fraction of his original salary, he simply replied that he's just getting paid what he was worth. Meade seems to rarely aknowledge that almost everyone who knew Keaton, even those with whom he had difficult working relationships (such as Weingarten), agree that he was a really, really nice guy. She also does not really aknowledge that Keaton was a shy and reserved person (again, something mentioned by those close to Keaton), and tend to attribute behavior of his that are probably a sign of his shyness to egotism. One particular example of this is that she holds up an interview of Keaton shortly after his marriage to Natalie Talmadge as evidence of his egotism. I have read that interview (it's in the Buster Keaton Interviews book), and I don't see it the same way at all. In that interview, the interviewer was asking Keaton questions about what it's like to be married, and Keaton was palming off trite jokes of the "take my wife..." variety as answers. Considering how reluctant Keaton is to discuss his personal feeling with people, it's not surprising that he found the questions intrusive and tried to deflect them. What Meade sees as a sign of egotism I see as shyness and reserve. You can read that interview in its entirety in the book and judge for yourself. Meade seems to find reserve in a celebrity to be a sign of pathology, perhaps she would find the celebrities of today more platable to her tastes.

Another matter that I think Meade probably got entirely wrong was the repeated characterization of Keaton's mother as a cold person who did not even want to have a child. She holds up as evidence the number of accidents that she had while she was pregnant with Keaton as proof of her negligence. But considering Myra Keaton was travelling constantly during her pregnancy, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim that these accidents were a result of deliberate negligence. Meade's characterization of Myra Keaton as an unfeeling person does not at all square wth the fact that Keaton had an extremely closely relationship with his mother. He made the decision to break up the family act jointly with her. He asked her to join him as soon as he was settled into LA. During WWII he gave up his own house and moved in with her because he was concerned about her living alone. His wife mentioned how deeply saddened he was when she died. Would someone really have this kind of relationship with a mother who is completely devoid of affection as Meade claims? Meade even criticized Keaton for having fights with his younger brother and sister when he was young, which is just beyond ridiculous. If fighting with one's own siblings as a youngster is some sort of personal failing, I don't know how many of us with siblings can be considered innocent on that charge.

I don't think most Keaton fan's intense dislike of Meade's book is because he is portrayed as a flawed person. Anyone who is even a little bit familiar with Keaton's life is aware that some of his problems are at least partically self-inflicted, something that Keaton himself readily aknowledges. It's really the complete lack of sympathy and outright disdain she has for her subject that makes one really wonder why she even bother investing so much time and effort in researching a person she apparently has no respect for.