“Chan Marshall does not want you to read this book.” The opening line of A Good Woman says it all. Chan Marshall’s biography, written by Elizabeth Goodman, channels the life of one of the most elusive personalities in contemporary music. Marshall, once infamous for her on-stage breakdowns, shyness and unpredictability, was just as notorious for telling the media very selective truths about her past, which is riddled with alcohol, depression, hallucinations, and loneliness.
Goodman’s initial aim was to commemorate Marshall’s development as a musician and retell the moving story of her shaky childhood in Atlanta. Instead, she met with obstacles and traps, all set by Marshall.
Upon hearing of Goodman’s project, the musician went to great lengths to stop it: She called everyone she remotely knew, demanding that that they keep mum about her past. While Marshall was successful to some extent, she forgot to notify the most key members of her past — her family. Having tracked down multiple sources, Goodman has written a biography that exposes Marshall’s childhood, chronicles the troubling relationship with her schizophrenic mother, and reveals the events that catalyzed Marshall’s own fears onstage. You learn what eventually led to her breakdown, and how she regained her career. But I wanted to know more, so I sat down with Goodman to find out how she tracked down Marshall’s family, why Marshall was resistant to the book, and whether or not she’s actually read it.
Flavorpill: I love how you created a real double-sided Chan Marshall. You really managed to pry apart a very mysterious person.
Elizabeth Goodman: [Laughs] I’m glad you thought I was successful in doing that! Sometimes I wonder, you know? One of the themes in the book is the more you learn about her, the less you know. But, that having been said, I certainly feel I understand her better than I did when I started, which is a good thing, I guess.
FP: Chan went to great lengths to stop your book’s production. How did you manage to track down so many of her family members and one-time confidants?
EG: Well, honestly it just took some good research. Total doggedness, essentially. I mean part of what’s ironic about her resistance was that it forced me to be a better journalist. Because she wasn’t making herself available to me as the primary source on the major events that should have constituted her narrative, she forced me to find people who could be secondary sources. I had to dig and find out who else is around who could really tell her story… which is not to say that I wouldn’t have researched thoroughly had she been a participant in it. I had to go to extra lengths to find people because she wasn’t a participant in the book. Which is ironic (again) because that’s what she feared would happen.
Basically, there’s a lot of information out there. In this country you can find a lot of information about people just on things like, oh, the Internet… and housing records. Wherever we go we leave a virtual paper trail. So that was how I tracked down family members. Also, I’d say that part of the kind of research I’m talking about was showing up in Atlanta. I flew out to Atlanta and spent a little over a week there. I think that’s really the secret in terms of getting all of those people. Just showing up. In Atlanta, I was able to find the house Chan had lived in, in Cabbagetown. So I just went there, was kind of hanging out, and saw this woman who lived across the street. I asked her if she’d ever known Chan, and it turned out of course she’d been Chan’s landlord. That’s the kind of thing you could never have found out without just showing up and being there to find it.
FP: You literally tracked Chan’s youth. You were also able to create a real portrait of Chan’s New York surroundings in the early ’90s, back when the LES wasn’t a mall. How did you manage to do that?
EG: I had this conversation with a friend of mine who is a journalist but is also a fiction writer. I was talking to him about what book I would write next, and he asked if I ever thought about writing fiction. And I was like, “Oh no, I couldn’t write fiction, I’ve always been really interested in writing fact.” And he was like, “Well if you’re interested in fact, you should really write fiction!” We talked some more about it, and it’s really interesting but in fiction writing, you are able to create an entire world that is within your control. If you want to describe something and know that the entire truth is contained within your description, then you should really write fiction. That’s the only way you can know for sure that you’re getting every single detail right… whereas in nonfiction writing, you have to rely on a kind of inherently fractured perspective. Even if you could be your own primary source for a given event.
Take for example the first Cat Power show. Like, say I was there, (which I wasn’t), I still would remember it differently than other people would. There’s no such thing as real, undiluted, pure memory. So, the reason I say that to answer your question is that I kind of let myself pretend that I was there. I had a lot of amazing sources both on and off the record for that period of New York’s history, not to mention current history. I just pretended I was there and tried to kind of feel it: what would the air feel like; what would it smell like; what would I be doing on an average day? My friend told me that story about waiting in line for the Village Voice to come out so he could see what jobs were available. I thought that was really striking because it really wasn’t that long ago, and it’s so different from the way we do things today.
FP: What was the reaction like when the book came out? Did you hear from Chan or her lawyer again?
EG: You know what, I haven’t heard from her, and I haven’t heard from anyone in her camp, so to speak. I work with people at her label on other stuff all of the time… we just don’t really talk about it [laughs]… which is fine, because it was a contentious project for a long time. For reasons that are very clear in the book, that was not my desire. I really didn’t want it to be that way. But one of the things I’m most proud about in the book is the way that I approached it. The approach that I took to writing the book (with the exception of the introduction) was the same approach I would have taken had [Chan] cooperated. I told the story that was there to tell. I talked to everyone I could talk to, and that was my intention from the beginning. And then I wrote what I consider a synthesized version of what they told me. But it’s not like Chan became resistant and it became this total battle. I didn’t want the book to be like that. That’s just not the story.
It occurred to me in some of the more heated moments of her freaking out, that she might be pretty disappointed if she ever read it to discover that there’s really not any “white whale” of her story in the book that she was so afraid would be written. It always made me laugh to think of that. Like, what if Chan actually read it and said “That’s it? Damn! What was I so afraid of?” Which is not to say that her story is uninteresting or that there isn’t a lot for her fans to discover in this book. I think there is. But it’s not like I discovered that she’s secretly a man or something. [Laughs] But yeah, I haven’t heard from them and I don’t really expect to.
My goal with this book was to take this person who is adored by a select group of people already, and kind of reveal her and her story to those who are already interested and those who don’t yet know that they’re interested. I think in a lot of ways her story is even more global and transcendent than her music. Like take someone who wouldn’t be a huge fan of her music: I wanted for them to really get something out of this book. I’ve had a couple of emails that indicate at least for a couple of people, that’s happened. So in that way, it’s really gratifying.
FP: Do you think if Chan had been cooperative you have gone to such lengths to expose her as such a dueling personality?
EG: You know, a lot of people have asked me that question. It’s hard to know, like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book. I don’t know what would have happened. But I think what’s clear is her resistance to the book defines it. It is shaped by many factors. It’s shaped by who agreed to talk to me and who didn’t agree to talk to me. It’s shaped by what week I happened to choose go down to Atlanta. It’s shaped by a thousand different tiny choices, that are not really in my control or anyone else’s. And one of the major things it is shaped by is the fact that Chan didn’t cooperate with it. But I don’t think the book would have ultimately been better if she had. There’s an argument to be made that it wouldn’t have been as good if she had. One of the things I really learned about Chan through this process is how expert she is at weaving her own myth. As someone who kind of walked into this project very eager to please her, it’s entirely possible that I would have been pretty willing to write a version of her story as much as anything else. And in this case, that didn’t happen! She chose not to participate in it. What’s true about this book is that it’s not the version of the story she would have scripted. She wasn’t there to do it.
FP: I’d be willing to bet that Chan would or has already read it. She strikes me as someone who cares deeply about the way people see her, regardless of what personality she projects.
EG: It’s possible! I mean, I hope so. I hope she tells everyone she meets that she’s read it! No, I know what you mean and a lot of people have said that. But that’s what’s interesting about her. And that’s one of the major themes in the book. Chan is both an exhibitionist and a pathologically shy personality. The exhibitionist side of her, I mean the star in her, would probably want to read it. And the retiring Southern girl in her who just wants to be a mom would probably be horrified by it. I guess it just depends where she is right now in her own mind. But, I hope she reads it. I hope she likes it. That’s what I mean. I started off wanting to write a book that she would approve of, and although the way that I mean that has changed over the course of writing it, I still mean it. This was never supposed to be an exposé, and I don’t think that it is one. I think that it is an honest portrait of the story that was available to tell.
Comments (32)
you suck for sneaking around
If the subject wasn't involved in the process and hasn't 'endorsed' the information being presented, why should I care what your 'impression' is? What gives you the right?
@spov 75: "What gives you the right?'
A document known as The Constitution, which delineates many of our individual rights. Read it sometime.
I really appreciate anyone's interest in writing a book about a subject that interests them. However, as a huge fan of Cat Power, and as someone who has seen her play wonderful (breakdown-free) live performances, I can't get behind this book. She's extremely young and has a long life full of stories to come and it's likely she'll tell them herself one day. I don't really see what the point is of writing this book now.
I would agree with Lauren, I don't really approve of the fact that you didn't respect Chan to begin with, she didn't want a book written about her, she wanted her private life, private! Why just go and step over that and have your way? I find that so disrespectful. Gossip. This world would be so much better if people would show a bit more respect.
So it's really less of a biography of Cat Power and rather a documentation of a public's impression of her. Tough call on the right and wrong of writing it without her blessing because that's a slippery slope. However, at the end of the day, a biography that doesn't included any input from the subject seems to defeat the purpose because isn't that a huge part of what people want to know? Also, it does seem premature for a biography of Cat Power….what is she, in her 30's? Has the story really even happened yet?
Chan is about 35 and yes, much of her life is still there to tell, however in terms of her career, she has hit a certain peak. The book discusses a number of albums and demos released before "Moon Pix" (which is what ultimately gave Chan a rise to fame). On the other hand, Chan's "breakdown-free" performances did not happen overnight. No, indeed. She suffered a number of inner-obstacles to achieve whatever she has achieved now, including breakdown-free shows and powerful, confident albums. That is what the book is about. How she (very recently) overcame.
journalism doesn't need the subject's approval. you do the reporting and you'll get the story. whether or not someone approves it is immaterial. richard nixon didn't approve the woodward/bernstein reporting but it was still true and accurate. the book wasn't done with nefarious motives in mind. it was pitched because the author liked the subject and admired her as a performer. initially she was on board, but then freaked out because, well, chan isn't stable. simple as that. author has a contract and has to fulfill it and the story is more interesting as a result. 90 percent of the bios you see in bookstores are unauthorized. if you are a public figure you can expect as much.
Branding herself as a crazy, unstable performer certainly helped build Chan's name (if not reputation) early on. Have fans stopped to think that maybe she's scared that when you find out how much you've been manipulated by her smoke and mirrors, you won't want to listen to her music anymore? Also: Elizabeth Goodman is a music journo. Kudos to her for not serving us up a fluff piece. Think about it peeps: If someone was to write your bio, do you really think you'd approve of half of what they had to say? Doesn't mean it's not true.
"You really managed to pry apart a very mysterious person." Are we really applauding this kind of malicious, deleterious writing. Have some fucking integrity, not to mention respect for an exceptionally talented performer and surviver. The author of this book sounds like a real asshole, if the voice she conveys in this interview is any indication of her demeanor no wonder Chan didn't trust her.
Kristen, just what do you think journalism is for? Chan is a notoriously unstable person and wouldn't have responded well to anyone who wanted to write a book about her past. But what the subject wants isn't the point of journalism. Elizabeth Goodman's book is a celebration of real gadfly journalism.
no consideration for privacy and the seriousness of someone struggling with alcoholism, depression, loneliness, and insecure family attachments… writing this biography without chan's consent not only exploits her vulnerabilities, it invalidates her story and her voice.
I don't think its fair to simply dismiss her right to privacy (and I use the word "right" in a moral rather than legal sense) because she is deemed a "public figure". You can't compare someone who writes and performs music to Nixon – she's not a government figure – she's not in a public role. Nor is she courting public attention, like a Paris Hilton type. People who seek publicity can't complain about a lack of privacy. I think this author comes across as simply devious in this interview. This book seems premature, distasteful and the author sounds like a twat – basically. Just because you legally can – doesn't mean you should.
Perhaps, if Chan Marshall didn't want people commenting on her public persona, she shouldn't have chosen a public career. Goodman's done nothing wrong, and I look forward to reading the book!
Wow! These posts are the definition of tatological, circular, inane debate. We are arguing about the public's knowing about an author's ART, and we're using a public forum that promotes info gathering and sharing but we're advocating for the supression of knowledge. Some of you feel the work by Goodman (yes, its her art) should not exist because the subject is cranky. Sheesh, without this book, what would you dummies be shoegazing over today?
"Twat" is so sexist and ad hominem. Shame on you, intellectually…
… that should read, "tautological"
Here Here!
Elizabeth Goodman is rather sophomoric…in the way she articulates herself. It will certainly be a painful read if she writes as well as she speaks. Then again, you are what you read.
A stream of consciousness can never be as perfectly articulate as an edited book. That should be obvious.
Penetrating Chan's past and violating her privacy and wishes to maintain privacy from the public makes this book offensive.
Horrible. Who the hell are you to upset her just to make a few bucks with your damn book?
What a selfish and unethical person.
CPJ: Have you ever been interviewed? It's kind of off-putting, even if you are normally quite articulate. Also: Sophomoric = db red flag.
this feels a little bit creepy.
I walked into the bookstore not knowing a bio on cat power would be there, so you can imagine my extreme excitement, I thought WOW this is the best part of my day, I can't believe theres a book on chan. I was expecting stories of her and bits of her mind, what makes her inspired, etc, not a full biography of course for obvious reasons..
So I spent my thirty dollars and saved it for just before sleeping. As soon as I read the prologue I was shocked. I could not believe how dreadful of a writer this woman was, how much she sounded like a gossipy customer at a cafe out with her bimbo/simple girlfriends. So I agree with KristenL'E.
There is no imagination. NOTHING from chan herself. I read the first five chapters, then skimmed every other page until the end, and I could not be more disappointed, upset and disgusted. And usually I am a pretty easy going person.
Yes. People can write about others, its a right. Yes. She is a "writer/journalist".
That doesn't mean she is any good. My favourite bit was right at the end. Where this self absorbed wench thanked people for their contribution to the book.. And she didn't even mention chan. How she inspired her. Or how her music affected her. Nothing. Not even a fan like she said. Who cares who you thank, my god. People buy the book to read on chan, her life. Not gossip and speculation and BORING word by word account and a personal authors interpretation of events in chans life. Or for obvious put downs on the women in chans family, or ridiculous three page thank you's to whoever's contribution to a pathetic and dreadful piece of mird.
(sorry if I made anyone feel sad or gross. I just felt really strong in my reaction as well as sad.. If anyone is a fan I wouldn't bother buying. this is the only advice I can offer)
Thanks for your review, Annie. The people defending this book must be friends of the author. No one else would care enough to question the connection fans have with Chan and her music…and the reason fans believe this book is a poorly written disappointment.
I think the author had every right to write that bio, even if Chan didn't want her to. And that's because ms. Goodman is right when she talks about the whole exhibitionist/shy personallity Chan has… She, in some ways, provoked the curiosity on her personal life. She did that. Anyone who has read some of the interviews she gave knows that Chan says stuff you probably shouldn't say to a journalist. And i think she doesn't mean to say those things – she probably regrets even saying "yes" to some interviews she gave over the years -, but you can't ask the world to be condescendent to your constant change of heart or something like that. Cos she didn't stop. It is not just only ONE BAD INTERVIEW, a one time thing. It is not like she said "ow, ok, i was drunk and said too much to that stupid reporter, reporters can't be trusted, i won't do that again". Maybe, for a second or so, she really felt like that. But then she changed her mind and said really personal stuff to another magazine. And another. And yet another.
With that being said, the fact that you can write the damn bio DOES NOT mean in any way you can make stupid and EASILY DEBATABLE ASSUMPTIONS on someone's personal life and pass them one as a sure thing. And Elizabeth Goodman makes that kind of bad journalism all the time in her book. I mean, we know Chan said no to the book and that must have made it harder for you ms. Goodman to have some sort of certainty in some parts of Chan's life, so it's easy to understand not having the whole facts – but the author should just had said that, you know? "And i couldn't gather much information about that particular period of Chan Marshall's life, but I THINK that what happened was…". Elizabeth Goodman passes her personal take on some facts as real hardcore true information. You just can do that, under no circumstances – even if you're mad at your personal idol for not giving you permition to write about him, making you feel disgusting for even asking.
That's it. The whole book reeks of resentment. Not to metion those little stupid mistakes you just can't make when writing about a public person cos you just loose what little credibility music reporters have to begin with, such as saying Cat Power covered Chan Marshall's own "AMERICAN FLAG" on Jukebox. I mean… simple research work. If you were able to track down her half-brother, you should be fine with figuring out the names of the songs she recorded on her last album.
(ps: sorry for any terrible spelling mistake i may have commited – i'm not a native speaker)
ps2: and sorry for the looong post
Why is everyone always so interested to know every detail about the lives of musicians and artists? Doesn’t art define itself? It doesn’t need to be explained or justified, it just is.
I love the dear knowledge you be offering on your articles. I can bookmark your blog and have my kids take a look at up here generally. I am relatively positive they’re going to be told a variety of new stuff right here than any one else!
I like the dear information you be offering on your articles. I will be able to bookmark your blog and have my youngsters check up here generally. I am somewhat sure they’ll be told numerous new stuff here than anyone else!
Post a new comment