Popmartijn said:
I can't find these accusations so quickly in his article, but I think that McCormick faults Dunphy for failing to give importance to U2's music. For a rock band, this is quite important. They got famouf because of their music.
They're scattered throughout. The one about not discussing the classroom demo is about 2/3 through. Others relate to things that McCormick feels are important, but were not mentioned by Dunphy----many of them small issues, and many omitted quite possibly because they were never relayed to the author.
As for giving importance to U2's music, I have to say that Dunphy does that from the start with his enthralling depiction of Live Aid & the enormous impact of its ramifications on the band. He never fails to discuss the musical, lyrical, and political importance of the music. His description of the band's religious beliefs' impact on the making of October, on the relationships in the band, is well done. Even better is the depiction of the turmoil in Edge as he is the last to give up Shalom & then comes up with the searing guitar riffs of War as a result. Dunphy, IMO, does well in giving both personal and big-picture importance to the music.
But any person has roots. By not discussing them at all, you again leave out an important part of understanding the band. The Edge himself has said often through the years how much he had been influenced by Tom Verlaine of Television, by Rory Gallagher, etc. He may be a total original, but he did have his influences when he was young. By leaving them out, it seems as if The Edge stepped out of a vaccuum, which he didn't (and neither did Bono, Adam and Larry).
Good point. I must say, however, that this is not unique to Dunphy's book.
How unverifiable are all those errors McCormick noted?
Absolutely verifiable. Sure. But a mistake in what school someone from Hot Press went to, or what year a music writer graduated from college, isn't really what I'm after. Sure, it's important to the whole picture, shows respect to the band, the people involved, etc etc. But what I care about is the what I picked up the book to learn in the first place: the stories about the band. And from what I've read in interviews and books elsewhere, I haven't yet seen any of the stories presented disavowed by anyone in the band. On the contrary, the band have often repeated the same stories over and over in other books and interviews through the years. The meat of the book does not seem to be false in any way.
Was he really that jealous? And then why does writes himself out of the biography?
Absolutely. The entire premise of his recent book, "Killing Bono," is that Bono and U2 made it, while each of Neil's attempts at stardom fell through...though he got close (which made it worse!). The whole basis for the book is that jealousy. Sure, he now jokes about it and has learned from it, as shown by the rest of the book, but it was still there. Sure, he writes himself out of the book by saying he wasn't at that initial rehearsal. But he writes himself into the U2 story by spouting off his own stories about the band as if he were there every step of the way, which he wasn't. If he had no desire to glean what he could off of U2's stardom, he wouldn't have written the article in the first place.
Look. This is all I'm saying: "Unforgettable Fire" has gotten a bad rap over the years, mainly because of this one article, which was written by someone who (IMO) certainly has his own biases, and who was not there for nearly as much of the story as he makes out to have been. From the time of the article's printing on, many fans have taken McCormick's opinion--despite many of them having not even read the book--and failed to recognize the book's good aspects. Worse yet, the opinion has gotten so prevalent that now many people think of it as entirely error-ridden, when I truly don't believe it has many more errors than any other book, especially in the crucial stories it relates.
I have
read this book. I believe it does an excellent job of describing the beginnings of the band and those involved with it, as well as recognizing the band's and its music's importance in the world of music and the world in general. Despite its (mostly inconsequential) mistakes, I truly believe that it is a valuable resource, and I would not want to discourage other fans from reading it. That's all.