A couple of points I had thought about (being serious again) from the early chapter.

In an interview, MacColl's mother said that there would be heated arguments between her and MacColl's father. She felt that while politics were important, bread and butter was important since you cannot 'live on wind'. Harker uses the word 'bitter' to describe these arguments. And sometimes kids from homes where there is a lot of argument do struggle in school. I don't know if it was bad to that extent, but maybe this was another factor making things tough for MacColl? Though plainly he did have good times too.

Also they had lost two children and there were two miscarriages, so MacColl was an only child. Later in the book it says (not sure who supplied this information) that in his mother's eyes MacColl could do now wrong. So an only child, can do no wrong in his mother's eyes, I dunno what the effect of this may have been. There is a risk of a child in this situation ending up 'spoiled' in some sense, maybe? It also says his mother kept him away from rougher kids so all that was a shock when he started school, and one of his nicknames (he seems to have been bullied) was mammy's boy. And then he had diphtheria, which can be fatal (and did kill some of my family at this time, another getting polio) and near death experiences are not easy.

So where was I going with this? Maybe that some of this background, as well as the poverty, may have fed into his creativity, and also into the personality, as on some accounts MacColl did not like being disagreed with and it could provoke him.

None of this detracts from his achievements.

I found the end of the life story sad. He seems to have been lonely.

Finally, Harker discusses the autobiography which as I indicated earlier seems to have been something of a mixed bag, and written in a couple of bouts of work. He lists people missed out, because, in his view, they had upset MacColl, and also suggests that it includes some exaggeration, I think he uses the phrase 'self dramatisation' somewhere. And he does refer in it, according to Harker, to the 'party I served' which he regarded as moribund.

I was wondering whether to ask the library to get me the autobiography, and I would suggest that this biography and the autobiography might ideally be read together, to get a fuller picture.

Has anybody here read the autobiography, and if so, do they think it is an interesting read?

I am sorry if my conduct here has spoiled people's enjoyment of Mudcat, by the way. I really shall try to be better in future, I did want to discuss a book I had read and very much enjoyed. I take my hat off to the author, who seems to me to have put in a lot of work and research. I can see that people who knew the subject of an autobiography, especially of such a colourful and controversial character might be upset at some aspects of it, but then had a lot of time passed it would not have been possible to interview so many people who knew him, and so maybe the result would not have been so good?

Enough.