Touching From a Distance

I just bought and read Deborah Curtis's book Touching From a Distance

It certainly exposes a lot of aspects of Ian and Deborah's life that I'm sure many fans did not know about. I felt very bad for his wife while reading it, seeing how Ian treated her. It bordered on abuse in some cases! It was also a very good portrait of how depression/suicide affects loved ones.

The story aside, there were pictures of their wedding day and their daughter Natalie, and the last quarter of the book was dedicated to a full set of Ian's lyrics, including those never seen before. Those were very welcome since they're not included in the CDs!

Any thoughts?

I always assumed that the Genius, Poet, Twat descriptions on the 24HPP posters referred to Curtis, Ryder and Wilson respectively but after reading the book I now believe that Curtis qualifies under each category.

Spooky

Just got this today (though some tw*t has robbed half the pictures)

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built SpookyJust got this today (though some tw*t has robbed half the pictures)

The POET nicked em!:D

when i read the book it became abundantly clear that ian didn't suffer from depression--he was bipolar. still, no excuse for some of his behaviour towards his wife. however, she did put up with a lot of things that i would have sent my man packing for, no matter how much i loved him.

I enjoyed the book very much. It was a well told sad and twisted tale of someone who wanted to excel and then with everyday pressures , our lifestyle that we all experience, shook and could not take it anymore.

A desperate figure. And thats just the author. An intimate experience. I almost felt I was there in their marriage and it wasn't the warmest of places with Ian's eccentricity.

A bloody good read. Yes I know..............zzzzz sorry.

Ian was never depressed I think,he was a man who didn´t want to live very much and want to be famous dad,so he died young.But I like him the way he was and verryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy much really.

[Content deleted by Love Will Tear Us Apart on 3/11/2003 4:40:49 AM EDT]

[Content deleted by Love Will Tear Us Apart on 3/11/2003 4:40:36 AM EDT]

Originally posted by Love Will Tear Us Apart Ian was never depressed I think,he was a man who didn´t want to live very much and wanted to be famous dad like his idols,so he died young.But I like him the way he was and verryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy much really.

Not sure about the wanting to die young bit mate....

I think maybe he was so depressed that it was a release...... BUT WHO KNOWS??

I don't know, Deborah Curtis seems pretty sure that Ian was enamoured by the idea of dying young, you know, going out when you're on top...

And given what she said about his lifelong fascination with other people who died in such way, I wouild be inclined to believe it. Ian seemed to have his suicide planned out for a while before he actually executed it.

i thoroughly enjoyed the book. it wass fabulous, and very enlightening.

i feel so bad for Deborah and Natalie...that's such an awful thing that Ian did to them.

Ian Curtis had always been some kind of hero to me until I read that book - he came out of it very much as the villain of the piece with some of his antics, and I will never be able to view him in the same light again.

I've only been able to find a copy in French, and as my French is very "student-y," I'm not sure I read a lot of things correctly. For example, the part where Ian engineers the Gillian-Stephen thing by taking Stephen's then-girlfriend home and telling her parents she was suicidal(????). Somebody clarify this.

Originally posted by Housey I've only been able to find a copy in French, and as my French is very "student-y," I'm not sure I read a lot of things correctly. For example, the part where Ian engineers the Gillian-Stephen thing by taking Stephen's then-girlfriend home and telling her parents she was suicidal(????). Somebody clarify this.

Your French is not as bad as you think. Ian didn't like Stephen's girlfriend Stephanie, and when they broke up, (one assumes, it's not entirely clear even in English) that Ian didn't want her to harass Stephen to take her back. So he invited Stephanie to the house when Deborah was out, and when she came back he told her to call Stephanie's dad and tell him to come and get Stephanie because she was hiding in the bathroom threatening to kill herself. Pretty diabolical. Deborah says that the poor girl had no idea what was going on when her father turned up on their doorstep!

I put the book down thinking that Ian Curtis was a pretentious arsehole, rather than the tortured genius the music press and myth would have us believe.....

oh boy....I can't wait to read it...

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D anita

Originally posted by Lady 21 > Originally posted by Housey> I've only been able to find a copy in French, and as my French is very "student-y," I'm not sure I read a lot of things correctly. For example, the part where Ian engineers the Gillian-Stephen thing by taking Stephen's then-girlfriend home and telling her parents she was suicidal(????). Somebody clarify this.

Your French is not as bad as you think. Ian didn't like Stephen's girlfriend Stephanie, and when they broke up, (one assumes, it's not entirely clear even in English) that Ian didn't want her to harass Stephen to take her back. So he invited Stephanie to the house when Deborah was out, and when she came back he told her to call Stephanie's dad and tell him to come and get Stephanie because she was hiding in the bathroom threatening to kill herself. Pretty diabolical. Deborah says that the poor girl had no idea what was going on when her father turned up on their doorstep!

Merci. That part of the book was a real head-scratcher...

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!! Ian Curtis had always been some kind of hero to me until I read that book - he came out of it very much as the villain of the piece with some of his antics, and I will never be able to view him in the same light again.

Remember he is not around to defend himself & maybe Deborah had a hidden agenda ie make the book more sensationalist and it sells more copies

:dead:

Maybe, but the facts about some of his antics speak for themselves.

Curtis could still be a tortured genius as well as a pretentious arsehole. How many 'nice' geniuses have there been in the course of history? There is usually an element of edge or ruthlessness to any genius. I think Curtis possibly was a genius but was almost certainly a twat.

I'm not convinced he was a genius. Sure, he wrote some lyrics that had far more to say and imply than many of his contemporaries, but that's as far as it goes. He couldn't sing without the assistance of technology, particularly live. If anyone was a genius in Joy Division it was Barney, who has become one of the finest songwriters of his generation.

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!! I'm not convinced he was a genius. Sure, he wrote some lyrics that had far more to say and imply than many of his contemporaries, but that's as far as it goes. He couldn't sing without the assistance of technology, particularly live. If anyone was a genius in Joy Division it was Barney, who has become one of the finest songwriters of his generation.

Couldnt agree more, Ian wrote some terrific yet disturbing lyrics, yet mumbled his way through his lyrics which becomes somewhat frustrating, and as for his live singing! well... Barney is without doubt one of the finest songwriters of his generation, no arguments from me their Timbo!! :D

I have it in an above-average portuguese translation. Bought it in 1996 and only read it once, in fact! I don't want to sound harsh towards Deborah, but her side of the story never convinced me...

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!! I'm not convinced he was a genius. Sure, he wrote some lyrics that had far more to say and imply than many of his contemporaries, but that's as far as it goes. He couldn't sing without the assistance of technology, particularly live. If anyone was a genius in Joy Division it was Barney, who has become one of the finest songwriters of his generation.

I remember a previous thread when you said that if Barney had died instead of Ian then JD/NO would have turned into a sad underground poetry collective. That statement intrigued me and I have been trying to re-evaluate my opinions on the whole Ian/Barney/genius debate ever since. If the word tunewriters was substituted for songwriters then I have no arguments but song is a combination of tune and words but is Barney a wordsmith? I am still to be entirely convinced.

Originally posted by a very small boy > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!!> I'm not convinced he was a genius. Sure, he wrote some lyrics that had far more to say and imply than many of his contemporaries, but that's as far as it goes. He couldn't sing without the assistance of technology, particularly live. If anyone was a genius in Joy Division it was Barney, who has become one of the finest songwriters of his generation.

I remember a previous thread when you said that if Barney had died instead of Ian then JD/NO would have turned into a sad underground poetry collective. That statement intrigued me and I have been trying to re-evaluate my opinions on the whole Ian/Barney/genius debate ever since. If the word tunewriters was substituted for songwriters then I have no arguments but song is a combination of tune and words but is Barney a wordsmith? I am still to be entirely convinced.

I think he is, in his own way, moreso now than in the early days, when he seemed to try and emulate the Curtisian ambiguity. Some of his lyrics are plaintive and beautiful - there's a naive almost childlike quality to some of his best stuff. Absolutely no doubting his incredible creative talent though, to me he is right up there with Elvis Costello as one of the finest songwriters I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.

Bernard is a fantastic musician,very creative and intelligent.But Ian was different, he had a mysterious way to do things and knew how to play with his lyrics.He was also a great conductor.

Originally posted by Love Will Tear Us Apart Bernard is a fantastic musician,very creative and intelligent.But Ian was different, he had a mysterious way to do things and knew how to play with his lyrics.He was also a great conductor.

That wasn't conducting you pillock :) - that was his dead fly dance !

Still dont believe that Barney has written lyrics to compare with for e.g. LWTUA... unless he did write them! Which were the lyrics that Tony Wilson claimed to have had a hand in?

I ordered my copy last Friday and it was shipped Monday and it's on the way from England! Woulda ordered it from Amazon US but it woulda taken 6-8 weeks to get here because they woulda had to order it but it'll get here faster from England!!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D anita...the happy one

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!! I'm not convinced he was a genius. Sure, he wrote some lyrics that had far more to say and imply than many of his contemporaries, but that's as far as it goes. He couldn't sing without the assistance of technology, particularly live. If anyone was a genius in Joy Division it was Barney, who has become one of the finest songwriters of his generation.

                                                                                                                   I might have to disagree slightly. There have been numerous instances where the remaining members of the band have stated that it was Ian curtis who "spotted the riff" for many a truly classic joy division song. Hooky says that half the time they hadn't even noticed a riff while messing around until Curtis said "wait! play that again." I've read that this was the case with transmission, she's lost control and love will... to name a few. so clearly, Curtis' contribution went well beyond the lyrical. Obviously his words are among the best. As for the singing, lets be honest, barney has had more than a few awkward moments himself. In both cases, their voices and the less than perfect delivery are part of what makes their music so real in a world of bullshit music. Of course, no offense to anyone, these are just my opinions. Do have to agree that barney is a brilliant songwiter, though.

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb EYES-UH !!! Curtisian ambiguity.

isn't that an advanced mathematical principal or something?

'stephen hawking might have proven the famed 'theory of everything' long ago were it not for the elusive curtisian ambiguity factor.' :D

I don't buy the anti-Curtis/pro-Albrecht revisionism that has crept its way into this forum, either. I agree completely with the remarks of Ghost Is Luminous, and may add a few further considerations. For one, Ian was already pointing the way toward electronic music during the days of Joy Division by bringing along his Kraftwerk LPs. Secondly, the most revealing insight to be gained from the 'Jack' magazine interview from late last year (part 1), as far as I was concerned, is that it was Ian who introduced the melodica to the band's music (and not, as I had always imagined, Bernard himself). Is it really coincidental that both elements were eagerly picked up by his closest friend in the band?

It's probably true that Bernard deserves more credit than may have come his way in the past as far as songwriting is concerned, and he may well be the crucial factor in NO's enduring success, but I am still convinced that Ian was THE driving creative force during the JD days. The fact that he emerges from Deborah's book as one big asshole should not cloud our judgement of his artistic merits.

As for Ian's singing: sure, he needed some tutoring (witness the atrocious hurls from early Warsaw recordings), and he never made the world's finest baritone, but there's nothing wrong with that. And as pointed out above, it took Bernard several years to find his true voice, too. I'm pretty sure that if he had still been around, Ian's singing would have improved considerably, too (compare Nick Cave from the days of the Birthday Party and from his latest albums).

Got it today, will start reading it tonight.

Plug for Amazon UK for the American fans interested in getting the book: I ordered it the 15th and it's here already and it was less than $15.00.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D anita

TFAD has to be the best Joy Division book out there so far, simply because it is in a first person narrative.... as far as the argument about who contributed what to the artistic process.. this book may be the WORST book to evaluate that on, simply because Debborah was never around and in the latter days said she didn't even listen to them!

Hopefully a new book will come out (that T. Wilson has nothing to do with) that will shed some more light on the professional side.

The book definetly makes for a good drama though.

I've read the book a couple of times. There was definitely a number of sides to Ian Curtis. He had always been a bit of an odd character, even from when he was young lad. Deborah still seemed to be attracted to him, for some strange reason.

During the course of the book, it seemed as though ian wanted to be on his own, but he had so much going on around him, he just caved in. It is a sad story & you have to feel for Deborah, & Ian!

Great book though!

You have to say though, like with a lot of first person narrative books, it's hard to believe that everything that happened within the book did actually happen. I'm not saying that Deborah was a liar, I just believe that if something is written wrong, people take it the wrong way.

I mean, 24 Hour Party People was quite a good book, but you knew Tony Wilson did talk a lot of bollox throuout it!