The Jesus and Mary Chain: Barbed Wire Kisses

I hate to be that one person who leaves the one-star review, but this really was an utter disappointment. First off, what is a complete JAMC biography without William's input? The author attempts to iron out this problem by digging up and compiling quotes from whatever he had said in interviews over the years. Thus William's only voice throughout the book comes from quotes out of previously published material. Apparently, Howe did converse with Jim, Douglas and others, but including those interviews, alongside William's older ones, start to sound uneven and forced at times. Even aside from this problem, however, this book is still essentially a large construction of endless mixtures of cut and paste quotes from magazines and YouTube videos, all interwoven into big paragraphs with very little depth, at times even using quotes to describe simple facts that could've easily been paraphrased. The author herself hardly explains the quotes or gives any analysis to add substance, and the writing is too shallow and unclear to keep you focused or interested. It ends up reading like a bad student research paper.Personally, I think, with such heavy use of quotes, this book may have worked out better if it had been written in an interview-only storytelling format like "Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk." However, in contrast to the quotes in such a lively and fun book, the quotes in this one are given such little color and life. Howe's boring, dry writing filled with sporadic bursts of unnecessary, big word puffery, sadly sucks the life out of them.What bothers me even more, is how oftentimes Howe writes her own claims about what the band meant, what Jim thought of this, how William felt about that, etc- but without any evidence to back them up. These are the claims that need quotes! It's as if she puts words in their mouths but doesn't use the quotes when necessary.Amongst the flood of my complaints, there's one significant point that still irks me, one that made me lose any ounce of respect I had for the author. It's when she writes about Darklands in comparison to Psychocandy: "...There was a distinct lack of white noise - perhaps a sign that the Reids were becoming more assured in their voices and their playing. They no longer had to hide behind an opaque wall of protective distortion, like a roaring sea separating themselves and the listener" (131).Is this what she really thinks of Psychocandy? That they weren't assured? That they were HIDING behind the distortion??Psychocandy is arguably one of the most assured, assertive, and confident albums ever made. The distortion is more an assault, rather than a defense. Anybody is free to argue otherwise - BUT the thing is, all the way up until she writes this, Howe states repeatedly that Jim and William, despite all their shyness, were extremely confident about their music and firmly believed in what they were doing. She even includes a quote when Jim said, with their music, he wanted to "grab people by the throat" (44). So why now all of a sudden she claims out of nowhere that they had some need to be protected behind distortion? She does this kind of thing time and again throughout the book - says one thing here, then proceeds to say something contrary there.That said, there's something about this book that feels defensive as a whole - something that keeps the characters from being exposed, something about the way it's written that lacks a vulnerability that lets you in. I think it's how Howe constantly glides on the surface of events and relationships, but never actually penetrates into them; there's too much effort put into trying to keep things general and play it safe. The casual touching of descriptions of events reads like a long magazine article that gives you facts, but leaves you unfulfilled as to the workings behind them. It doesn't invite the reader to hang out with the characters, to get to know them as people, to take you deeper into their minds and their world while they lived it. It neither provokes thoughts nor arouses empathy, and gives you nothing to ponder or look forward to. Throughout the entire book, you're left outside an inoperable door, only to be looking through a dusty window, barely hearing the characters talk about their memories. You're kept from being able to fully become immersed as one of the characters in the life of the story, which is, to me, one of the real enjoyments of reading biographies of bands I love.Aspects of the content that leaves me with a void of dissatisfaction include, amongst others, a lack of talk concerning William's gear. I feel like Howe doesn't know a thing about guitars, pedals or amps, and doesn't care to know. I wish there was more talk about the Reids' musical beginnings, their background, more about how they figured out how to play and write songs. There is a sore lack of insight into the makings of the songs and albums (seems like most of the details are spent on Psychocandy, but after Darklands, hardly any time is spent talking about the music.) I wish there was more of an analysis of the creativity and intelligence of their music and lyrics. I also wish that more obscure interviews and material had been dug up, not just a flurry of those widespread ones most of us already know about or own. Additionally, there are no pictures. None. With all Howe's talk about how the band emphasized aesthetics, how they were always taking photos in the studio, and with a great many people coming and going throughout the band's career - it would've been nice to see some pictures.And to go on a bit of an aside here, oh what is that futile waste of 20 pages of a so-called Timeline in the back? It's intent is supposedly to put the band's story into a larger cultural context, but fails to include the rise of UK82 punk bands (which I believe is an important factor to consider the riotous nature of the JAMC's early shows. Though from Edinburgh, The Exploited is also Scottish - I wonder if the two bands ever crossed paths and what they thought of each other?) In the book the author mentions that people mistook the JAMC for goth when they used to wear all black, yet the Timeline mainly ignores post-punk and goth; there's a part where she talks about themes of death and existentialism in pop music thanks to the JAMC's output, yet she completely forgets about The Cure. Howe talks a bit about the influence of the acid house scene, but the Timeline breezes over The Prodigy as just a topic for controversy, not music. Also there's a part in the book that bashes Guns n' Roses, yet the Timeline completely snubs them. All this, while laughably including Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, and the Spice Girls! So much for putting the JAMC in a "broader cultural context" indeed. If a band is important enough to bash, I'd think it's worth noting that it's a significant part of shaping the cultural context.Speaking of context, this book feels immature and one-dimensional, and one reason I think is because of how it seems to portray the music world as existing in a bubble outside of the economy and politics. If something exists within a cultural context, it is always because it's inherently connected to, and affected by the economy and politics. I recently had the pleasure of reading Lol Tolhurst's memoir, "Cured: The Tale of Two Imaginary Boys," and one aspect I enjoyed is the way he quickly frames various events with a bit of social, political and/or economic history. It helps the reader get a real sense of the worldview of existing at that point in time and place.Howe does mention Thatcher on the very first page. But she doesn't quite proceed to connect that economic and political climate in the Thatcher era in the U.K., and how it affected people, and thus the musicians who marched into the music world. I'm not saying she had to get into all the bloody details but it would have added so much more substance to briefly explain here and there throughout the book, of what was going on in the world around the band, and maybe an analysis of the band's success in that world. It is so unfulfilling how Howe throws facts in your face, but then never goes on to make relationships between that information. For instance, instead of presenting sets of distinct facts in her ever so lukewarm manner, if she had only expanded a bit on the implications of what it meant to be Scottish and working class during this era, and better connected it to the story of how Jim and William took advantage of being on the dole (and made use of their dad's redundancy payout!) and rose out of their factory fate the way they did through their music... Jim and William's story could've been conveyed with more conviction and strength, felt more deeply by the reader, and more passionately understood as all the more subversive, as the ultimate "F--You" to the system, to all of society, politics, and the economy.However, sadly, in this book Jim and William are rendered more like "anybodies" from "any suburb" at "anytime." (That idea might be appealing to the Reids themselves, but it doesn't mean that they really were "anybodies." Just because many people continue to relate to them and that they did inspire countless other people to start a band, doesn't mean that they **are** indistinguishable from everybody else, and they certainly shouldn't be considered as such when discussing them in the context of a biography.) Howe fails to connect them with the rest of the world at large, and neglects to give their historical and geographical identity a specific significance. Consequently, their greatness and uniqueness is never effectively distinguished from any other band, and the book fails to prove how remarkable they were, in their specific time and place.Now, let's talk about the inclusion of Laurence, Jim's then longtime girlfriend who later on worked with Alan McGee, as the PR for Creation. I do understand that she was heavily involved with the JAMC especially in their early days, but I feel like there's a little too much of her in this book. Towards the middle, it seems like she's quoted in every single paragraph, more than any band member. Several chapters feel like it was dedicated just to her nostalgia trip, and I almost wanted to tell her to go write her own book about her days with Jim. And the thing is, this book is so strange because it's Laurence everywhere, until you hear about her pulling away from the JAMC when she started working for Creation, and then... she disappears altogether. Suddenly you hear about Jim and his wife Julie. You never even hear a mention about when he and Laurence broke up. Is Howe suggesting that Laurence's involvement with Creation had something to do with it?We don't need the gossip, but geez if Laurence is used as such a major character in a third of the book, it would've been informative to at least let us know when they broke up, just for logical storytelling purposes. (Not to mention it would've been more polite to Laurence if she hadn't just been dropped off the face of the earth.) Howe leaves many loose ends hanging throughout, and this is an example of how annoying she is when she tepidly implies something that she never proceeds to clarify. And if she didn't want to clarify it because it's private, as the storyteller it was her job to figure out a way to effectively go on without leaking the private matter. In any case, I think it's all inconsiderate to William because Howe reveals details about his love life, as opposed to Jim's. I mean William's the one who didn't even participate in this book, and here the author is, talking about his love life while she barely mentions the personal aspects of Jim and Laurence's. If she was going to be so private about Jim's, she should've also left out William's personal life altogether.Finally, to go back to my complaint about the writing, I think perhaps the essential reason why this book comes across as so uninteresting and bland, is that there is no climax. Sure, it's a biography and biographies are structured differently from let's say a fiction. But good ones do have climax. When it's about a great band, you get to know each character's idiosyncrasies, you hear about their intimate moments; you understand the intricacies of their relationships, why they were so close. And then things start falling apart. You start to be led on a rollercoaster towards their ultimate breaking point. So when they break up, you feel torn in the tragedy with them. Yes, even when you already know that band's history and that they did break up, when you read a good biography, it's like getting to know them and their history all over again. You feel every aspect of it, but...Not in this book - You keep reading about Jim and William's bickering, yet you hardly hear about their moments of closeness. From the very beginning, Howe describes each tour as so hard and so long, and how everybody was falling apart. You hear about their struggles, but they're not written as struggles they went through together that tied them closer or made them stronger. They're written more as struggles that kept them falling apart over and over again, in the same level of dynamics from beginning to end. Relationships between the people are portrayed naively, almost staying high school-ish throughout; you never see them grow or change as people (the only time I truly felt the strength of Jim's character was towards the end when he chooses family over the bottle, and still remained resilient without drinking even when his close friend/bandmate Nick Sanderson died, an occasion in which Jim remembers, "I don't think I've ever wanted a drink so much in all of my life" [222].) Anyway, throughout the book, the author just keeps hinting that they're going to break up one day, and you can only imagine that this band was destined for doom from the start. You keep being reminded of their ultimate demise, so when they do finally break up, it's expected, so it doesn't even feel tragic.There's hardly any information about the JAMC's hiatus years, and when they do get back together, the writing is rushed. It's as if Howe wanted to just hurry up and finish writing the end, and that's exactly how it feels reading the rest of it. You just want to hurry up and get this bore of a book over with. And by that time you don't feel anything. Nothing in this book is visceral. And that, to me, is not how anything concerning the JAMC should be experienced.Maybe I find this book an utter disappointment because I expected more from it. Maybe I should cut Howe some slack. It does include some hilarious anecdotes, and does have its enjoyable and colorful moments. I did learn a few new things. But actually, no, I'm not going to cut her any slack. Although it reads like a bad student paper, the fact is that it's not. It's written by a supposedly established music writer. She totally let me down, to the extent that it hurts my feelings, because to me she also lets down the band. I've read that her motivation to write a biography on the JAMC roots from the fact that she thinks they're not well recognized, and thus she wanted to give them more praise. However, despite all her statements that the JAMC are so relevant, Howe hardly proves anything in the course of 225 flat, boring pages without an ounce of conviction or imagination. This book is possibly just good enough as a JAMC Chronology 101. And with its repeated descriptions of inebriation and shyness (and it seems that the stories are **only** about that) this book could only pass as mild entertainment on the level of a simpleminded teen fanzine, or forgettable airplane reading at best.The Jesus and Mary Chain are worthy of so much better than this book ever gives them. On the surface they may be cooler than the coolest of Warhol paintings, but they are human after all - in their music they convey more humanness than many of us can try to express in a lifetime - and it doesn't mean that their biography should merely glide on the surface and treat them as though they solely exist as personas, as if that's their only legacy. Honestly, to me, this book lacks heart and soul, devoid of granting Jim and William a truly human quality. It sadly fails as a respectable work of an artist biography to be cherished over time. I regret buying the hardcover version. The only thing worth keeping is the book jacket, but even that is horrible, as the beautiful photograph is covered almost entirely with the letters of an unusually large title (are the letters supposed to be protective, as if the photograph also needed to hide?) Also, marketing it as a book in which Jim and William are at last fully revealed, is deceptive. A lot of our questions about them are going to have to remain unanswered. But hey you know what? Beings of such depth, uniqueness, intelligence, genuineness and greatness are, perhaps, better kept shrouded in mystery somewhat... at least for a little while longer. With their new album (and plans for another one!) and a whole bunch of new interviews and tours, there's so much more to expand on now. I'll keep waiting for a more thorough and knowledgeable, engrossing and stimulating, and more passionately and better written JAMC biography that they deserve.ADDITIONAL ANNOYANCES:1.Another significant point of no return when I could no longer stand the carelessness of Howe's writing, is on page 128 when she talks about the aftermath of the JAMC sacking McGee. They wanted to go on on their own, and Laurence was an "invaluable support" who immensely helped them at this time. However, the music press seemed to have exaggerated some things and mistook her as stepping up as their new manager. Howe quotes Jim saying:"There was a classic thing in the music papers saying, 'In true Spinal Tap tradition, the Mary Chain have sacked their manager and got the singer's girlfriend in.' I thought it was quite funny. I think Laurence laughed." Howe immediately follows this quote with just a curt, "She didn't." Then she proceeds with a quote by Laurence countering, "I was really offended by that..."What vexes me greatly is the way Howe makes memories act like facts set in stone. Memories are complex. Everyone remembers things differently - even the same event is often remembered differently by all the parties involved - and I believe it's important that when writing about a history, that the writer validate every person's memory, especially one that involves feeling. The memory of how you felt about something in the past, can certainly change over time. Sometimes you believe all these years that you felt a certain way about something that happened when you were young, but actually that may not have been how you **really** felt when it **first** happened. In the same way, sometimes the other people who were there when it happened remember it differently - for example, they may remember it like you were happy when actually deep inside you felt sad, because at first perhaps you may have come across as happy; maybe at that time you felt too vulnerable to effectively convey your sadness openly around them. And that goes especially in situations when your lover is involved.That said, I strongly believe that Howe should've written this incident out in a different manner. The way she writes coldly invalidates Jim. She could've simply offered another perception, saying that Laurence remembers it differently, instead of making it sound like Laurence's memory is the only truth. At this time now, Laurence may believe that she was offended right from the start - but in the very beginning, possibly it may have had actually taken her a little while to set in to her that she was offended. Maybe she laughed in front of Jim at first, because at first Jim thought it was funny. Maybe they shared a moment of humor, and that's what Jim has kept as his memory of it. Who knows what transpired between them. But Howe makes the situation look extremely one-dimensional, as if time never changed each person's perceptions of their memories. Consequently, it makes Jim look like an insensitive prick of a boyfriend who shrugged off his girlfriend's feelings and to this day still remembers only his side. And I'm sure whether he was or wasn't that kind of boyfriend, that Howe probably didn't want to make him come across that way. It's an instance of a short passage, but it does make an impact on the portrayal of the inner character of her subject. Her writing makes relationships between people look naive; it makes people look flat and transparent, and even if inadvertent, it often makes them look bad.2.Howe makes some small errors, such as the year of their Smash Hits cover, which was in 1986, not in 1987 as she says, if she means the one from 16 July 1986 (and I'm sure she did because she says the cover scrawled "loud, spotty, and weird" underneath the band name.) They graced covers everywhere in 1987, including the cover of Number One in the 16 May 1987 issue, and on the covers of the 25 April 1987, and 19 September 1987 issues of Melody Maker, if she may have wanted to talk about those. Also, if you look at page 89, while Howe is talking about the JAMC's first trip to NYC in April 1985, she states that Laurence was "by now Jim's girlfriend." Yet, on page 170, she states that Laurence "had been at Jim's side since 1986..." The way she presents simple facts sometimes makes no sense. It offends me so much that this book just seems so hurriedly published, with little editing or proofreading.3.People come and go without explanation, and Laurence isn't the only one. Although there's an explanation of how the band met every other passing member, Richard Thomas sticks out like a sore thumb as the one who never gets any introduction. Although he's actually not severely unimportant, he suddenly appears and quickly goes. Moreover, Hope Sandoval is used as a major turning point in William's life, and in the brothers' relationship, but she's never properly introduced. Howe should've at last mentioned that the band met her when touring with Opal (pre-Mazzy Star) several years prior - again, so that the story flows more smoothly and makes more sense as a whole.4.No thanks, we REALLY didn't need Howe to give us the definition of an 8ball (page 180.) How innocent does she think her readers and JAMC fans are?? At least she spared flatly defining to us exactly what the "dripping beehive" is supposed to mean!

I have so much respect for the JAMC. I already loved their music, but this book helped me to see them as regular lads with dreams and ambitions and the steadfast determination to carve out their own paths instead of accepting a life confined to the factories (XTC's song "Making Plans for Nigel" comes to mind). Their story is an inspirational one of persistence, never giving up, and remaining true to one's self and values despite insurmountable societal pressure and demands. They did music their way, on their own terms, and without compromise. The poignant anecdotes about their humble upbringing, schooling, and fraternal struggles remind me of my own childhood. The fact that the music and the group still endure after all these years is a testament to the power of magical songwriting and the strength of familial bonds.

Strange book and rather shallow. Why taken special chapter for timeline instead of mixing it in the text. You never get any context or highligts of contemprary actions at time. On top there is no depth in stories which leaves it all shallow.

I was especially excited when I saw this book was about to be released. That is, until I saw who the author was. I had read Howe's bio of the Slits, "Typical Girls", with equal anticipation several years ago. Sadly, despite the exciting subject, that book fell somewhat flat. Not to excessively disparage the author, but her style is akin to reading an extremely long magazine article: rather lacking in dimension and any form of analysis. I had hoped that a few years and an especially dynamic subject would make for a more nuanced and in-depth probe into the life of such a fantastic band. And, this time, it almost does. Almost. But, that being said, the fact that this is an essentially, well, "factual", book (except when the author confuses the Seeds with the Saints) is not a bad thing by any means and is likely to be a great read for any and all JAMC fans. The fact that extensive contemporary interviews with Jim Reid, Bobby Gillespie and Alan McGee are fearured solidly throughout (although not William, sadly) makes this the (current) semi-official history of the band. So, to summarize, this is a modestly well-written book saved by a great band, fascinating personalities, excellent interviews and anecdotes straight from the insiders. Oh, and approximately 80 pages of timeline, discography, band member notes and index which make this seem a longer book than it actually is.

This is an amazing book. I love The Jesus and Mark Chain, but I'm always a little nervous about biographies. I've read some bad ones about some good bands. I think the saddest part was when I realized that the last 25% of the books was timelines and references. I wanted the story to keep going.Overall, well written, entertaining and a fast read. Even if you just have a passing interest in the band, this is a great read.

The tense and dense history of a band that makes it own way to sucess. I am devouring it.

Enjoyed this book about one of the most fascinating bands for the 90's...and beyond. My belief is that they are wildly underrated in their influence of future bands and this book made the point even more obvious.

What a fantastic job on this book. The author is clearly a fan , but remains objective. A great look into a great band.

One of my favourite authors writing about one of my favourite bands, wonderful! I've been enjoying Zoe Howe's perceptive and sharp music books since the great Slits biog, "Typical Girls?" a few years back, and this is every bit as good. Apart from the main text, there's a really well put together timeline of the JAMC era, & it really took me back to the mid-80's and the inane blandness of the dominant pop scene then.So it's amusing to find the little snippets I'd read in the NME about this strange new band from Scotland - who reckoned they'd already got their first three albums written in their shared bedroom at home & who played deranged 15 minute live sets generally resulting in riot and mayhem - were part of later Creation/Oasis mainman Alan McGee's desire to be the new Malcolm Maclaren. When put on to them by Bobby Gillespie, he reckoned he'd found his Sex Pistols.Zoe Howe describes all this in fascinating detail, with some great anecdotes, and enough humour to leaven some of the darker aspects of the story (violence, alcoholism, rip-offs, drugs). Probably the book's strongest point is how willingly all the main protagonists - bar one - have been to talk at length to her about the many twists and turns in the group's career. In the end though the book easily overcomes the lack of direct involvement from the older Reid brother, William. There's been some serious background research, which has turned up plenty of quotes which do enough to show some of the differences between him and Jim.That's an underlying theme which the author maintains throughout the book: the fact that however much the brothers fight, hate each other and fall out, neither is as good on his own and in the end they can't escape the symbiosis between them. Whether they like it or not, they need each other.Like one of the other reviewers here, my enjoyment was enhanced by digging out a stack of old JAMC tapes and discs. If in any doubt as to the validity of a book about a couple of weirdoes from East Kilbride, just listen to the astonishing "Darklands" album and be transported back to 1987 - and a time when we really did need a pair of black-clad loons with freaky hair emerging from a storm of feedback and distortion to fight against the Stock Aitken Waterman tide.Some more pictures would've been nice, but that's about my only gripe. Apart from the timeline and a handy "Where Are They Now?" feature (intriguing how many JAMC people have gone on to careers in design or graphic arts) there's a comprehensive JAMC discography too. This is a must-read for anyone interested in the formative days of the indie scene and anyone who's ever felt the timeless power of black leather and squalling feedback.

Bit lacking in real in-depth views on why they did what they did, and I personally would love more on how they recorded stuff but a good insight into their story... one of the finest bands ever IMHO, worth a read if you like music... always surprised that books like this don't come with QR codes or something that lets you play stuff (songs, interviews, videos) while reading them... music biogs need to be interactive.

Fascinating and well written book giving this old fans some new insights

Written with passion and an enervating eye for detail, this is a fine and robust rock biography which everyone should own.

Excellent