Originally Posted by Cryogenic
Back to the original question...
Nash and Goldman - same breed? YES.
Although I've not read either "Elvis" by Goldman or "The Colonel" by Nash, I have read various extracts and much discourse ABOUT them both. I can only reach one conclusion: at best, both authors are disingenous; at worst, they come from the gutter. In some ways, Goldman may be more tolerable simply because his vitriol is constant and overt; there's no doubt he hated the people he wrote about. By contrast, Nash dressed her writing on the Colonel up as honest journalism. In both cases, their two books were essentially billed as firsts of their kind; the "definitive" word on Elvis and The Colonel. It's enough to make you hurl.
Nash might have been able to keep up the image of sincere journalist - but now she's exposed her true colours and ruined her credibility. The claims in this Playboy article are spurious and insulting; they lack any sense of taste, tact or truth. I ask you: If Guralnick was the one peddling this crap, would you continue to see him the same way? I certainly wouldn't. Well done, Nash: you're officially a pariah, a liar, a shark, a snake, a *****, a bum. You can NEVER AGAIN be trusted in the Elvis World. Be gone!
P.S. Anyone that thinks Elvis was a "dumb hillbilly" needs to seriously re-consider their fandom and the way they express opinions and use epithets on the Internet.
