The new clues that suggest missing Richey staged his own dissapearance

[Glass Angel]

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

Am I the only who's never sure if people are quoting directly from the book or parodying it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[handbag]

Originally Posted by vaiden

I also want to know what happened to Shampoo?

All I know is second hand info that Carrie married the brother of their manager, left London, and at some point she had a shop somewhere. I've looked them up online now and again, but they've covered their tracks since leaving the music business as thoroughly as Richey did.


It's easy as to parody the book. I'm really surprised someone agreed to publish it. One of the flaws that really irritated me was how Rachel and Richey's mum's spoken about in the present tense (still alive) and at others in the past (after her death). I know it was written over a long period of time, but little things like that make the book even more amateurish (although it fits with the detective skills, I suppose).

[raven]

Originally Posted by Europa Gluten Free

The funny thing about the book is that this "exposé" of the what really happened with Richey around this time shows that nobody actually knows anything.

90% of the book is quotes from other already published TV or print interviews, the writers' interpretations of Richey's interest in the arts, and awful interpretations of Richey's lyrics.

10% is "archive stuff" that is really just schoolwork essays and letters to people that obviously mean very little.

It's clear that SHR doesn't know anything. It's sad that it appears that Rachel wasn't so close to Richey around this time and doesn't offer anything either.

As I've said before on here - a REALLY interesting investigative book would be to write about his last year in the band. Simply as a music bio that would be captivating. It is clear (as we all knew before the writing of this book) there were HUGE tensions in the band. Human tensions that the band now gloss over when preferring to just touch upon the myth of the genius of Richey.

But this Traces book is awful.

What purpose would a book focussed just on his final year in the band serve? The tensions as you say are already documented and stem from Richey's illness and behaviour over that time. It's true that the effect on his friends aren't really covered and the dig about how it must have been so difficult to have to curtail their behaviour and awful to have felt so out of sorts etc is so devoid of all context and compassion it's quite something. And Further Away...my brain's fogged but wasn't that picked up as an example of the band moving away from Richey and into safer radio rock type territory when I wished they'd taken a closer look at the lyrics. I know it's about missing his wife but it seems fair to say it's about the distance he'd started to feel growing between himself and his childhood mate. Why they don't consider all this is hard to fathom but I'm still unsure how a book on his last year would work? It would be very grim for sure?

Speaking of that last year, the book actually doesn't consider any of the lyrics on Journal for Plague Lovers, the only mention of it is to call the band out as liars in their obtaining it and that is it. Strange omission when you consider how his school essays are scoured for clues to his future disappearance

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

While that may be true, we must be very, very careful about assuming anything about the causes and triggers for mental health difficulties. While I have not got a BPD diagnosis, I have seen psychiatrists about self harm. I will never forget one asking about sexual abuse in childhood, and when I replied that, thankfully, that has not happened to me, she asked ‘are you sure?’, and when I confirmed that I was, she wrote that I was in denial about childhood trauma.

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I am that they mentioned that at all.

I wouldn't have thought asking straight out was always the best approach anyway and certainly not following up a denial with 'Are you sure?' like it might have just slipped your mind if you just want to think a minute.

Originally Posted by vaiden

As for “borrowing “ a line from someone else. I believe Nicky did the most egregious one by using “trade all your heroes for ghosts”. A line from the wonderful song Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd. It seems i read somewhere you could borrow a line based on the word count. Does anyone know anything about this.

I think the law might be a little vague when it comes to just a line but Nicky amended that line a little and just homaged the idea so he's in the clear

Originally Posted by vaiden

Am I the only one who wanted more info on fans and CoR like Becky?

Yes.
Having said that there wasn't any mention of all the fanzines around the band/inspired by the band.....they were definitely not all full of CoR many were creative, thoughtful...I guess they brought fans together in the way social media does now so they've all been made redundant but yes the bands impact on fans isn't really considered

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

Am I the only who's never sure if people are quoting directly from the book or parodying it?

You'll just have to go seek out a copy....you know you want to I mean why wouldn't you??

[Glass Angel]

Originally Posted by raven

You'll just have to go seek out a copy....you know you want to I mean why wouldn't you??

Well, someone can definitely have my copy for the cost of P&P!

[Bryter Layter]

Originally Posted by raven

Well, I know he did talk about groupies and could be dismissive, bordering on sexist may as well say and definitely sexist and wrong with regards to seeking out a prostitute like a Western arrogant tourist idiot in Thailand but that said as far as I'm aware there was never any suggestion that he was interested in young girls beyond some malicious shit stirring with absolute no foundation.

Hmmm...not sure him messing around with teenage girls has no foundation. Several women who associated with them backstage have long since confirmed this including a forum member here who many years ago wrote about how he seduced these girls backstage some of which she knew for a fact he was aware of their age (I believe the youngest she personally knew about was 15). I guess it comes down to who you believe. I personally have always believed these woman and continue to do so. Not sure why you seemingly think this is some kind if malicious slander campaign given that these stories didn't really reach mass consumption until about 4 or 5 years after he went missing when these young women began using the internet as the forum that they never had previously, to tell their stories unlike Richey who had access to the media which he used to belittle and dehumanize both hardened groupies and young smitten fans alike. I mean, what would be their motive for addressing not only sex with girls as young as 15, but also the grooming and seduction involved?

Originally Posted by raven

I hear what you're saying about Jo. Even 19 is young to 27.....not wrong of course not but quite a gap at that age. That said it didn't seem unequal if that makes sense, he seems to have found someone he could talk to on an equal level, she didn't sound naive and I'm not entirely sure she was a big fan of the band?

I'm not talking about him dating her at 19, I'm referring to the fact that he met her when she was 15/16 years old and I find it very hard to believe his relationship/involvement with her was platonic from the start. The authors are very careful not to make reference to her as a love interest until she's 17, but even then only publish an innocent passage from one of his letters to her. It's only after she would have been 18 when they include a passage from a letter to her that makes reference to any kind of romance between them (if I can use the word "romance" to describe their relationship given he would later claim to have gotten a hand job off a prostitute around the same time he wrote said passage). I just find it really backwards and extremely out of touch to romanticize a relationship between a teenage girl and a mid-20s guy in a band.

He probably could talk to her, but how do you know that a man in his 20s isn't manipulating the thoughts of a still developing young person? How is that on an equal level? As for being a fan of another band, how is that relevant? He met her backstage at a gig and I would hazard a guess that him being cute and in a band, regardless of whether she liked the Manics or not, had a lot to do with why she accepted the sporadic communications and rarely seeing him. Can you honestly say she'd be ok with that type of dynamic if he was Richard Edwards the librarian?

Originally Posted by starfucker

^ Which is itself a direct rip-off of / homage to, depending on how you view these things, Tulips by Sylvia Plath.

Both are rip offs of Tulips even if Richey/Nicky's lyrics are less blatantly so.

Originally Posted by vaiden

A couple of other things I wanted to point out and was confirmed by some fans around that time was that the fan Becky got herself checked into the priory at the same time to get closer to Richey (?).

I heard that too, but I don't remember anyone actually confirming it. That's an expensive private facility and from what I know about her, I don't think she came from money nor do I think she personally had the resources to pay for a stay there. I might be wrong though.

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

Book thoughts
I have to preface this by saying that my views were prejudiced by what I read about SHR’s behaviour, before I started reading.

I think we all were. Lol! It turned out that a lot of the apprehension was warranted though because most of the book is a bit shit. Ha!

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

some of the praise of Richey’s geniuses is laughable; and he really, really does not sound nice.

I don't personally think he came across as not particularly nice in his adolescent/teen/early 20s, but I was surprised to see that he actually was quite arrogant or at least tried to present himself as such. I was also really disappointed to read about how he viewed women even if I really shouldn't have been given how he clearly had contempt for the women he slept with. I guess I was just surprised that his "sluts and saints" attitude towards women stretched back to his teens.

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

But most importantly, what is with that one paragraph about when Richey was 10 years old?!

I didn't have the same response to this story as you did. I saw it as her trying to remember if there was any sort of trauma in his youth that may have been the catalyst for what began to manifest from puberty onwards. I know everyone on this forum seems to have some pretty negative opinions on psychiatric diagnosis which is completely fair, but he was diagnosed by people who actually examined him (from the sounds of it, a few doctors gave him the same diagnosis) so I don't think it's unreasonable to believe this may have been at least one of the illnesses that affected him especially when he exhibited almost to the T all the symptoms and affects of BPD. If he indeed had BPD, then childhood trauma is sometimes a catalyst so for Rachel to explore any possible traumatic experiences he had as a child seems warranted to me.

Someone mentioned earlier why his relationship with his mother wasn't really touched upon and I should think it's fairly obvious why that is. It's pretty clear that both Rachel and the authors believe that a lot of Richey's issues were the result of his father's attitudes - what we now call toxic masculinity - which is why he's mentioned a lot more than their mum.

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

School reports. Not exceptional, sorry. Two Bs doesn’t make ‘excelled at history’.

Ha! I said something similar earlier in the thread, but someone had a smartass remark about it so I deleted the post. I just thought it was humorous that they considered it "exceptional" that he got a B in history, but said nothing about the A he got in French, etc. It's pretty obvious why they did that. Lol!

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

predicted Nirvana’s Pennyroyal Tea more than ten years before it was written?

Speaking of Nirvana, I found it incredibly annoying the way they kept making comparisons between him and Kurt Cobain. Like they were in competition with each other, but Richey was always beaten to the punch by Cobain or something. I highly doubt Cobain even knew who he was.

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

Regarding girlfriends, I just have to say it - some of those descriptions are pretty incel-like. Girls are perfect or they are sullied. Eurgh.

Yep! Incel-like is a pretty good description. I never considered him a feminist anyway and have never taken his outrage over sexism seriously. For an intelligent guy, he was pretty clueless about what sexism actually entailed.

Originally Posted by handbag

Speaking of no Nirvana, it's always stated that In Utero was the tape in the car but this book says it was Sex Pistols. Did I miss something?

Every source I've seen up to this book stated that it was In Utero in the cassette deck. I would think Rachel would know better though, no?

Originally Posted by handbag

Speaking of Nicky's wedding, I found that description of a man broken by his friend's marriage strange. He's beaming harder than anybody else on the wedding photos.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. He could have been ecstatic initially, but then got depressed about his future once he started drinking.

What bother's me about that passage in the book is why did they throw that reference from Jo about him being in love with Nicky in and then not expand on it in anyway? If it was used in reference to how he allegedly acted at the wedding, why does his sister surmise that he may have been down out of jealousy for not being able to have a lasting relationship like that or maybe because he was losing his best friend. Where does the "he was in love with Nicky" factor into this story? Lol!

Originally Posted by Europa Gluten Free

It's clear that SHR doesn't know anything. It's sad that it appears that Rachel wasn't so close to Richey around this time and doesn't offer anything either.

.

I suspect that is the case too. I think the only people who knew him the best during that period was the band and to a lesser extent, Martin Hall.

Originally Posted by handbag

I'm surprised SHR didn't attach some deep meaning to the tape left in the car.

"At the end of the Sex Pistols final gig, Lydon repeated, No fun, no fun, this is no fun at all...Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Was Richard telling us he felt cheated by the other band members? Are the lyrics to No Fun telling us how alienated they were making him feel? No fun to be alone/Walking by myself. Let's look at every track by the Sex Pistols for clues. Holiday in the Sun...[write something about the reference to Belsen and Richey's striped pyjamas look]."

That could've been half chapter's worth of word count.

I genuinely had a LOL moment when I read this.

I hate to say it, but I think this book has made me less of a fan of his than I was before. I feel great sympathy for him given the mental challenges he faced especially throughout '94 and into '95 and I'll always consider him a great lyricist and a fairly decent provocateur, but beyond that, I don't have much regard for him anymore. Maybe I'm just too old to hero worship guys in bands (not that I ever considered him a hero per say, but I did kind of admire him).

[raven]

Originally Posted by Bryter Layter

Hmmm...not sure him messing around with teenage girls has no foundation. Several women who associated with them backstage have long since confirmed this including a forum member here who many years ago wrote about how he seduced these girls backstage some of which she knew for a fact he was aware of their age (I believe the youngest she personally knew about was 15). I guess it comes down to who you believe. I personally have always believed these woman and continue to do so. Not sure why you seemingly think this is some kind if malicious slander campaign given that these stories didn't really reach mass consumption until about 4 or 5 years after he went missing when these young women began using the internet as the forum that they never had previously, to tell their stories unlike Richey who had access to the media which he used to belittle and dehumanize both hardened groupies and young smitten fans alike. I mean, what would be their motive for addressing not only sex with girls as young as 15, but also the grooming and seduction involved?

Textbook definition of libel

Your allegations are unfounded, malicious and shouldn't have a place on the forum

[Glass Angel]

Originally Posted by raven

Textbook definition of libel

Your allegations are unfounded, malicious and shouldn't have a place on the forum

You can’t libel someone who has died / is legally dead. And I’m also not sure why you think that what Bryter said is malicious and unfounded. True, we cannot verify anything now, and maybe it isn’t helpful therefore to repeat rumours, however, I must say that the book only increases the impression that these rumours may be true.

[Glass Angel]

Bryter, re the bit about the woods, your interpretation does make sense, I suppose I was thrown by it being one paragraph without any context. A good writer would have added pretty much what you said, rather than moving straight on.

[raven]

Originally Posted by Glass Angel

You can’t libel someone who has died / is legally dead. And I’m also not sure why you think that what Bryter said is malicious and unfounded. True, we cannot verify anything now, and maybe it isn’t helpful therefore to repeat rumours, however, I must say that the book only increases the impression that these rumours may be true.

And so he's fair game?
Malicious because it's intended to harm. A rumour is by definition unfounded (and rarely has good intent).
I didn't read any such impression in the book

[vaiden]

Fuuuckkk. I just wrote a huge response that is now gone and I don’t want to write it again

[Routine Builder]

Cough cough* public forum * cough cough
Cough cough* public forum where members of the Edwards family have been forum members so probably not wise to nonchalantly throw out paedophilia accusations*cough cough

[vaiden]

Round two

The book made me realize even more that the remaining members conducted themselves in a very respectful manner regarding Richey. Despite a few responses James said leaving me to believe he was in the anger stages of grief. I give him a pass as he is now always respectful to Richey and maintaining the band. They sent richey to hospital and visited every day, paid for his treatment, and gave him several options to decide ih should tour or not. I think they made the best decision to take Richey on the tour. They thought they were doing a good thing. On tour the band or crew looked after him. It would not be wise for him to go back to his apartment alone and maybe attempt again.

Having said that I guess I’ve been pretty naive about the band is the intense friction which may have lead him to quit. All I remember is Nicky saying he in December he began yo peak in his weirdness but seemed much better in January when they went to practice. Can anyone shed any more light on that or point me to article video about this.

I also keep thinking about the 2 weeks the car had been lived in. Did they take any fingerprints. I’ve said what I think and wonder if anyone will tell me their opinion.

I do some research on people’s breaking point. We all have one. For richey was it Bangkok, suicide attempt, just his mental state, his dog dying, last gig at the Astoria, something that happened in Jan, not being married or the 2 weeks spent with jo in the fall, dog dying, friend dying and manager. Perhaps it’s a combo but I believe he just snapped and could that have been prevented. Because one doesn’t typically happen when waking up thinking this will be my day. What do y’all think?

[handbag]

I can't take the book seriously. I've stopped even thinking about anything written in it. Take the school report. That would've been his first year at secondary school, I think. His grades were average so how did he get a scholarship to some fancy school? All the "extras" come from what sounds like gossip sessions between SHR, Rachel and Jo. Shit about being in love with Nicky. Shit about Richey having autism. The poor lad couldn't even go for a wee after eating without us being told he could've been a purger because his teeth became janky. Or it wasn't bulimia, it was drugs that caused it. Drugs he bought from dealers who were after him, maybe.

It really is a pile of shite. I'm going to sit in my own bubble and remember him as he was when I first read interviews, whether he was lying about things or not. I know intentions were good on Rachel's part, but my final opinion is that the book reeks. Fortunately it didn't even enter the world with bang, but with a whimper

[Bonesy]

Originally Posted by vaiden

Round two

The book made me realize even more that the remaining members conducted themselves in a very respectful manner regarding Richey. Despite a few responses James said leaving me to believe he was in the anger stages of grief. I give him a pass as he is now always respectful to Richey and maintaining the band. They sent richey to hospital and visited every day, paid for his treatment, and gave him several options to decide ih should tour or not. I think they made the best decision to take Richey on the tour. They thought they were doing a good thing. On tour the band or crew looked after him. It would not be wise for him to go back to his apartment alone and maybe attempt again.

Having said that I guess I’ve been pretty naive about the band is the intense friction which may have lead him to quit. All I remember is Nicky saying he in December he began yo peak in his weirdness but seemed much better in January when they went to practice. Can anyone shed any more light on that or point me to article video about this.

I also keep thinking about the 2 weeks the car had been lived in. Did they take any fingerprints. I’ve said what I think and wonder if anyone will tell me their opinion.

I do some research on people’s breaking point. We all have one. For richey was it Bangkok, suicide attempt, just his mental state, his dog dying, last gig at the Astoria, something that happened in Jan, not being married or the 2 weeks spent with jo in the fall, dog dying, friend dying and manager. Perhaps it’s a combo but I believe he just snapped and could that have been prevented. Because one doesn’t typically happen when waking up thinking this will be my day. What do y’all think?

he seemed to be the type of character who had to be the best at everything he tried otherwise he wouldn't try at all.

i don't think that being a 'professional musician' when you can't really play your instrument would help your self esteem. there was a lot of bluster and bravado about that back in the early days but i can only imagine it got tiring for him especially when he compared himself with james. there must have been some resentment there?

from what i've read of the book and from the sky arts documentary it seems the band was pulling more towards an everything must go style record before he disappeared. the fault lines were there and already growing. i always assumed that EMG was inspired entirely by the disappearance. it seems the groundwork for the album was already there with no surface all feeling, elvis impersonator, kevin carter and small black flowers.

i can't imagine it was much fun for him at the end.

the band that he had helped grow and form was growing away from him.

he couldn't just sack the band and join Nine Inch Nails on a free transfer.

[4our5ive6ix]

Originally Posted by Bonesy

he couldn't just sack the band and join Nine Inch Nails on a free transfer.

Richey is Charlie Clouser is Richey