but I can't say I'm surprised at your comments. I was given his John Peel biography by a well meaning relative shortly after it was published and my surprise at how quickly they'd got it into the bookshops, soon turned to contempt when I realised what a cut-and-paste cash-in on Peel's legacy it really was – Wikipedia is more involving! Than goodness for Margrave of the Marshes.

Sounds like a poor effort Shane. Anyone read Stephen Davis' Hammer of the Gods? It's one I've always meant to get round to...

..then Wall's or Richard Cole's hideous effort, which seems to be more about him.
I'd love someone like Jim Irvin or CSM to tackle it.
..In fact there are people on this board who could do a better job.

I've read Stephen Davis' Hammer of the Gods and I like it. To me it is the definitive book on the band. When I heard about Wall's book I thought to myself that it sounds like a waste of time. All he can do is retread the same material as Stephen Davis.

Also didn't Wall publish a Guns N' Roses book just a few months ago? I'm always suspicious of prolific writers, but doubly so when it comes to biographers. Surely a good biography takes years to write?

Hammer of the Gods can probably be found in Fopp for £3.

... unless a Tosches or a Stanley Booth wrote the thing.

They gave no interviews at their peak did they? There were no journos in the inner sanctum, and they seemed to actively ignore what was written about them, or at least not deny it. Given this lack of quantifiable information it makes life awkward for a writer coming after the events to reconstruct them unless the members cooperated. Of course if they did that some dull "official" biog could end up being the result.

And would Page allow some of the material Davis wrote in HOTG about his alleged partiality for young groupies appear in an official book written in this day and age? I doubt it.