A review of Peter Guralnick's "The Colonel And The King"

[elvis4life]

https://www.memphisflyer.com/of-colonels-kings-and-kin

Of Colonels, Kings, and Kin
Elvis Week features author Peter Guralnick and his new biography of Colonel Tom Parker.

“Colonel” and Elvis Presley on the set of Roustabout, 1964 (Photo: Courtesy Graceland Archives)

Alex Greene
4:00 a.m. Aug. 6, 2025

Elvis Week is upon us, and we’re already seeing throngs of pilgrims checking in at hotels, asking for directions, and strolling on Beale. And while they may flock to any of the Presley-centric events listed at graceland.com, starting with a bus tour to Tupelo and the first of many Ultimate Elvis Tribute Artist events on Friday, August 8th, this year also brings a less typical celebration. Or perhaps excavation is the better word, in the historical sense, because it’s centered on a figure more often vilified than fêted.

That would be Colonel Tom Parker, Presley’s manager for all but the earliest months of his career. He’s now the subject of a comprehensive new biography by Peter Guralnick, who’s previously chronicled the lives of both Presley and Sun Records’ Sam Phillips to great acclaim. True to Guralnick’s nose for nuanced character portraits and “the ironies of history” (to borrow a phrase from Isaac Deutscher), his latest work, The Colonel and the King: Tom Parker, Elvis Presley, and the Partnership that Rocked the World, delves into Parker’s life in such detail that any previous biographies of the man suddenly seem obsolete.

Yet some readers may be loath to discard their preconceptions about “Colonel,” the sobriquet Parker adopted, not without some humor, after receiving the honorary title from the governor of Louisiana, Jimmie Davis, in 1948. In conventional rock histories, the holder of that title was a money-obsessed huckster who had no regard for Presley’s deeper artistry. Take Baz Luhrmann’s blockbuster film Elvis, in which “Luhrmann’s Colonel is straight out of Faust, dripping with the evil of Mephistopheles,” as Vanity Fair puts it.

That view of Parker is so ingrained in the popular imagination that even Guralnick himself admits he had to unlearn his earlier habits of thought. “I encountered a good many challenges to my own preconceptions, and plenty of surprises along the way,” he writes in the prologue, “but what would be the point of writing a book, of writing anything, just to end up where you’d planned on going all along?”

In fact, Guralnick had originally planned on writing very little himself, as the book he first envisioned would have been a much simpler collection of Parker’s letters, accumulated nigh-obsessively over Parker’s many decades of management and promotion. There were “tens of thousands” of them, Guralnick notes, along with receipts, contracts, itineraries, and scrapbooks, “all stored in the original dented file cabinets and battered black cube-shaped steamer trunks” in which Parker had kept them. Graceland having purchased everything in Parker’s Madison, Tennessee, home, Guralnick was invited to view the materials in the Elvis Archives in Memphis nearly 30 years ago. Soon he was imagining a book that allowed those letters to speak for themselves, albeit with a bit of context added.

But then he met Parker’s widow, Loanne Miller Parker. Speaking from his home in Massachusetts, Guralnick says that was a turning point. “The letters were like a bolt from the blue,” he says, “but Loanne was a trigger for [writing the book] because I realized that the letters were a window into what was going on behind the scenes, but what Loanne offered to me was a much more intimate, personal look at Colonel. And then when I started doing interviews for the book, and immersing myself, things that I had thought I understood changed.”

As Guralnick puts it, “an emotional vulnerability and sensitivity” emerged from his deeper dive into Parker’s life, which, taken in full, “tells a much deeper story. Those are things that I simply didn’t recognize and wasn’t aware of before writing this book.”

One revelation is the tumult of Parker’s early life, which reads like a blend of Horatio Alger and Flannery O’Connor. Propelled by poverty, an unhappy home life, and some still-unknown trauma in his native Holland, a teenaged Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk, already enamored of the circus, stowed away to America (twice), hoboed across the country, and ended up with a family named Parker in West Virginia after many misadventures. Briefly returning to Holland, he then sailed to America once more, ultimately enlisting in the U.S. Army under the Parker family’s name. First stationed in Hawaii, then Florida, he was perpetually drawn to the carnivals and circuses that overwintered in Tampa, eventually going AWOL just to work in one of them. Once (honorably) discharged, he stuck with that work for years, which he parlayed into managing crooner Gene Austin by 1939, and country singer Eddy Arnold after that.

Through these pre-Elvis years, it’s clear that he’s welcomed as family into many households he encounters, proving himself to be a hard worker, a reliably honest fellow, and an empathetic caregiver for all animals, even managing the Humane Society in Tampa for a time. Never becoming a U.S. citizen, he was a testament to the best that immigrants bring to the table. Through all these stages, his genius for promotion shone through, as did his distinctly personable style of doing business. For, though he evolved into a shrewd businessman and a ruthless negotiator, Parker was absolutely devoted to the families and friends allowed into his inner circle, living by a strict moral code.

“He was extraordinarily open with those families,” says Guralnick. “But he was also extraordinarily open with Elvis and opened up his heart to Elvis. It was more than sentimental.”

Indeed, Parker’s devotion to Presley as an artist belies the misconception that he ran roughshod over the singer’s vision. “From the start, from the time that Colonel first saw him at the Louisiana Hayride in January 1955, Colonel placed his full faith and confidence not so much in the boy’s talent as in the boy himself,” Guralnick writes in The Colonel and the King. And this fierce loyalty led Parker to insist on absolute artistic freedom for the singer when negotiating his contract with RCA. “So far as recordings went, he stuck to the same intractable mantra: his artist, and his artist alone, would call the shots as to what, when, and where he recorded, he would be the sole arbiter of song selection and its manner of delivery.” This was unheard-of for would-be teen idols in the 1950s.

It’s a more heartfelt story than we’ve been taught, and the affection cut both ways. “I love you like a father,” Presley wrote to Parker after his RCA deal had been inked, to which Parker replied, “I know that you understand me better than anyone for you have a very careful eye. I am a great deal like you, very sensitive, but only people I love can hurt me.”

In the end, as Guralnick writes, “It was a bond that would never be broken.”

Peter Guralnick will appear at the “Conversations on Elvis” event at the Graceland Soundstage on Friday, August 15th, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and will sign copies of his new book at the gift shop from 2 to 4 p.m.

[Living Stereo]

I wonder if the book mentions the ad litum report.

[Iwillbetrue]

So, I finished Peter Guralnick’s “The Colonel and The King”, cross referencing books by Alanna Nash (The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley), Steve Binder (Elvis 68 Comeback) as well as Peter Guralnick’s Last Train to Memphis & Careless Love. And for what it’s worth, here is my somewhat long review (which I suspect will need to be broken in a couple posts!!) focusing on the Elvis sections (because after all, that is the meaty portion of the book)



An obligatory disclaimer. I do believe that ultimately Elvis was responsible for his life, and accepting his flaws is as important, nay, necessary in accepting his greatness. His passivity, emotional volatility, cowardice when confronted, tendency to often sacrifice creative integrity for easy money, problematic romantic relationships, frequent bad behavior with his friends etc. has been written about aplenty. And while aspects like trappings of supernatural fame, generational poverty, socio-cultural background, artistic temperament, addiction, possible depression can shed light on his lows (and highs), it is important to acknowledge in good faith that these very valid aspects should be looked at to get the nuance, and not to excuse.



One of the people who tried to get this nuance and succeeded more than anyone is Peter Guralnick.



So, it is only natural that one would expect the same from his biography of Colonel- especially with the treasure trove of letters/ memos/ telegrams published in this manner for the first time.



Unfortunately, what we get is obfuscation, willful omission, and most insulting for the readers- an almost insistent editorializing pushing them to read something in the letters that they can read and decode for themselves.

In the name of giving context- PG acts as a hypeman.

He puts down almost every collaborator but Colonel as responsible for whatever went wrong with the Elvis story.

He refuses to look at the Gaslighting evident in the letters- which is frankly tone deaf in 2025.

He breezes past extremely important events that could show Colonel in bad light.

He doesn’t include documented chronology, but rather picks up a moment that shows his subject in best possible light. Most of the time, he doesn’t interrogate Colonel’s motives or abilities for something which had bad results, instead offers a myriad of cornerstone details that, unless one knows at least somewhat of a chronology/ alternate accounts, can simply be lost for a reader.



This is not adding nuance, but making excuses, time and again.

This is not a biography- but a hagiography.



What is excellent about the book is the availability of letters. It is also written with an easy to read prose, without any salaciousness, which, while expected from PG, still is a good feature.

It would have been better had he just published the letters, with some context/ chronology given, as originally intended. Or at least structured the book so that the letters follow the narrative chapters appropriate to them, instead of dividing it in two sections. It would have avoided the duplication and made referencing more reader friendly.



The book is an attempt to cast Colonel is a ‘new light’ as stated by the author. But in attempting to do so, PG has in fact shone light on just how much merit there *is* in these so-called myths.



The early days of the relationship between the upcoming sensation and a dazzlingly intelligent promoter are noteworthy for how just much Colonel believed in Elvis. These early letters to different industry personalities are replete with Colonel succinctly summarizing the best qualities of the Hillbilly Cat. He cajoles, he threatens, he begs. The feeling of utter belief in the promise of a unique stardom for the boy is palpable in every letter. His 1955 letter to William Morris for example, states ' this boy, Elvis Presley, has the same type of personality and talents along the line of James Dean' ( something he obviously got from Elvis himself, but still). Examples of pushing Elvis' unique artistry and abilities abound in 1955 and 56 letters. These letters truly show Parker's vision and maverick ways. And frankly- this vision is enough to earn him a place in history as one of the greatest managers.



But PG is not content with that. After Mae Axton's quote about Colonel getting dollar signs in his eyes at seeing Elvis getting his clothes torn off in Florida- PG interjects - "But I think even Mae would be willing to admit that this was a reductive picture of a man she had come to admire for both his intellect and determination."

Why? Even if Colonel did get the dollar signs in his eyes, there is nothing inherently wrong in it. He was a promoter, not an artist after all.





Anyway. One of the most illuminating factors is the Gaslighting in the early letters to Elvis ( and it is present till the end of Elvis’ life) . In a 1955 letter, he subtly threatens to dissolve his involvement in Elvis’ career, but he also passingly mentions ' I have just mailed a deposit check for USD 1000'. In a letter full of warnings about not trusting people who don't give publishing rights, he writes ' Always remember, the well-wishers did not try too hard to find you when you was living on Getwell and trying to figure out where you could get some money to buy things for your mother and dad with. I can always remember the tears in your eyes and your mothers when I was able to give you your first USD 5000 check' And this dangling references of money, welfare of parents, as well as references to staying within publishing limits, not trusting outsiders increase in their ominous vibe as Elvis expands his wings and comes in contact with people who can connect with and influence him.



People like Leiber and Stoller, you might be thinking? Well, this duo who was one the most influential to Elvis’ career, don't even appear in this book. Not even name checked!



This is rather telling that PG doesn't see the blatant gaslighting. This is 2025! The pattern of a controlling relationship, where the older and wiser party slowly isolates the younger one( there are several references where people Like Scotty are asking Colonel permission to talk to Elvis), ensures that they are dependent psychologically and emotionally, exerts control over them through promises & dreams, makes them doubt their own judgement, plays hot and cold - is now clearly understood as a form of manipulative control. That the more powerful person might love and care for the other does not negate the inherent power imbalance and precarious results as the younger one spreads their wings. Again, Colonel is patently not responsible for all that went wrong with Elvis ( and is responsible for much that went well), but the fact that PG doesn’t realize the gaslighting is disappointing to say the least from such an experienced writer.



Colonel repeatedly insists (And PG agrees) that he never interferes with Elvis’ creative process. Another Myth busted!! But the letters tell a vastly different story. The publishing issues raise their head as far back as 1956. While PG publishes letters in which Colonel is advising Elvis that he ‘must also be very careful so we do not have some of these songs going out without having at least the protection for your return’- the crippling effect it eventually had on Elvis’ career is not spelled out for context.



Guralnick doesn’t see how the interference is evident in the letters. Like the one in which Colonel is insisting that Elvis' voice should be at forefront and not instruments, or most tellingly- several letters to Wallis and other persons associated with movies, with outright editorial suggestions. Be it the storyline about Elvis being a Gypsy fondling("perhaps the Native Hawaiian beat type songs which more or less are of the same type (wild) and also in ballads very soft and soothing. This type of music brought out into some sort of native Love story with of course some tough elements included in a story and the fine pictorial display"), or a ridiculous defence of Kissin Cousins, or the eye roll worthy suggestions for improving the latter movies. But PG never points out this contradiction. " Elvis, by contract, has no say on script, director or fellow players in his pictures. We don’t know anything about making films, the Colonel says, “and leave all that to the people who do.” PG doesn't see the irony, as to why didn’t Elvis Presley- one of the biggest stars in Hollywood- not have any creative control.



What is infuriating about the entire movie era is PG putting the blame on ' Elvis' spiritual studies' for ignoring music and movies. His theory is that the delayed reaction to his mother's death led to his metaphysical quest, and that resulted in his disinterest in movies. No mention of how only soundtracks were released as a policy devised by Colonel. How publishing restrictions became oppressive. The context of changing music scene. How the movies became cookie cutter precisely because of Colonel's ignorance of movie industry. The Viva Las Vegas fiasco where Colonel failed to understand the merit of having a good budget, a good director and a good co-star- prioritizing cheap productions to increase profit margins. One would imagine that Elvis was making the likes of A Streetcar Named Desire all this while, but then a sudden interest in being a Yogi side-lined him into making Clambake instead!! But hey, PG points out, as if pleading for Colonel's achievements, "Harum Scarum, for which Elvis received a salary of $1 million plus profit sharing ". Yay!!



PG states that it was Elvis' interest in spiritual studies which prompted Colonel to strike a deal about Gospel album ( HGTA). I don't know about this, if true, then it is indeed quite intuitive of Colonel.





The ‘myth’ PG seems to be most concerned about is the Comeback Special. How he treats it however, neatly reveals all the weaknesses of this book.



PG states that Colonel was A-Okay with the non-Xmas nature of the show pretty much from the start. ‘Contrary to popular legend and even more popular movies’, PG writes, ‘Colonel was not dragged kicking and screaming into the new approach’. ‘If you simply take into account the dating of the memos’, he writes, ‘ you will see this is not the way it happened.’ And quotes a May 8th letter to corroborate that it was a Singer exec Alfred Scipio along with, who had convinced Colonel that it was fine to deviate from Xmas theme.



Well, let’s look at the “dating” now, this time from Binders book, in which he painstakingly produces documentation (including reimbursement bills for soft drinks and potato chips (!!) during a meeting with Elvis dating *before* the Colonel memo produced in PG’s book).



Feb & March: Finkel contacts Binder (who is primarily known for edgy content and not Xmas specials), Binder agrees to associate with the project after Howe tells him about his experience with Elvis. Finkel and Binder have lunch.

April: Finkel communicates with Binder that he will be formally hired shortly.

May first week: Binder receives material Parker sent to Finkel and meets up with Parker. He is handed a script at the meeting for a show that has more than a dozen Xmas songs and the only talking part is a five second seasonal greeting message from Elvis.

May 10th- Binder and Elvis meet for the first time, Binder shares his vision for the show which Elvis loves. They meet again twice and by May 21st- the broad outline of the show as we know it, is ready in its documented format. Binder shares the first draft of budget for key personnel (costume, sets, arrangements) with NBC on May 21st.

June: Binder is formally hired. As in he signs the contract. The delay is due to the fact that he and Howe ask to be remunerated and credited for the show soundtrack that they will be producing but are told by William Morris and Colonel that there will be no soundtrack.



When one looks at this chronology (documented, not some fanciful myth), it is uncomfortable for PG’s framing of the narrative that Colonel was fine with the changes BEFORE Binder got involved and that it was a Singer exec who influenced his change of mind (which, as Justin pointed out earlier in this thread, is problematic on its own, even if true). He also states ‘there was never any showdown of any sort with director Steve Binder’. But if that was so, assuming Binder (and Howe) are simply lying through their teeth, why did, as PG himself writes, Finkel ‘anticipate trouble’ and ‘was fending him off Binder’? PG never interrogates this. It is frankly insulting to not just Binder, but also Finkel and Howe. And Elvis himselvis!!!

PG also doesn’t put context of the pre and production phase full of brainstorming sessions (Binder produces the notes in his book), meetings, phone calls- something that is at the heart of any creative media project. He doesn’t mention Colonel’s sleight of hand vis a vis soundtrack remuneration to Binder and Howe. He publishes Colonel’s letter threatening to pull out the show, but doesn’t even bother to wonder as to why this extreme reaction, if Colonel was just fine and dandy with the new direction? After all- the Singer people were fine with no Xmas songs. It is a bizarrely bureaucratic approach towards the creative industry. And as if to bolster the legitimacy of ‘one Xmas song’- he mentions that Blue Xmas was Elvis’ favourite song. See- it is not a bad insistence on the Colonel’s part after all. What he conveniently leaves out however, is that it was the superlative ‘Tiger Man’ that was sacrificed because of Colonel’s tantrum.





Moving on chronologically- enter Chips Moman!! The contentious fight over Suspicious Minds is laid at the feet of poor Tom Diskin, because as PG states- 'why, colonel wasn't even there!!' Can anyone , really anyone, who has very little prior knowledge about Elvis story, upon reading just this book, believe that Diskin would take these calls on his own? And if he did, where is the letter from Colonel admonishing Diskin on this horrible overstepping? Does PG think we the readers are idiots???



This was one chance to at least acknowledge that publishing issues did harm Elvis' career and that Colonel should have reviewed his policy. But no.



Another ‘myth’ that PG wants to shatter. The World Tour.



Tellingly, there is no mention of international offers, publicly made by the likes of Lord Sutch at the 1969 press conference. Is there no correspondence in this pivotal year with offers from international promoters? PG mentions 1970 Bahamas vacation in passing- but omits the fact that Elvis had planned to go to Europe for vacation and was argued down by Parker in the name of his fans wanting him to go on a proper tour instead of as a tourist. So what happened to the concerns of these international fans? Why didn’t Elvis, on top of the world , met that very world? It is only in 1973 that PG mentions the touring- and in context of ' security', i. e, drugs. But what about offers in 1969-70, when Elvis was relatively clean and in good health? It is as if it simply didn't happen. The biggest star in the world didn't get any offers to perform abroad?? Did they come only when his drug abuse had worsened, and what could poor Colonel do? Because after all, the other rock stars who were touring internationally all the time, were totally clean, totally compliant with the customs.



And what about the Vegas deal? Alex Shoofy ( C.E.O of International Hotel) is on record in Nash's book that he was surprised at the deal Colonel cracked with him - it was low for the artist who was getting them unprecedented business. All Guralnick mentions was that Elvis was the highest paid- but doesn't delve into the deal itself.



Moving on to increasingly depressing times. To be fair- for the catalogue sell-out deal, PG gives a rounded view, including Aberbach's criticism of the shockingly low amount as well as Colonel's opportunism in getting more dollars than Elvis in this deal. But even here, he places the responsibility on Elvis. The story of how elated Elvis was after he got the money is at once pathetic and tragic.



Colonel’s letters to Elvis during this time are actually very moving. He is unable to go through his ‘partner’. He can see that the boy he placed all the bets on and thought could control, is now hurtling towards self-destruction. His pathetic attempts to still rouse the drug addled, paranoid, uncommunicative Elvis are frankly tragic. Especially given his own gambling addiction, which is portrayed very sensitively by PG.



But just when you feel for the aging Colonel in the clutches of an addiction of his own, you learn that post Elvis’ death, the 50-50 arrangement continued. No matter how much Parker wanted to ' take care of business for Vernon and Lisa Marie', in addition to the 50%, he received an additional 6,75,000 for 'advice, promotion and counsel' within just two years. It is understandable on part of EPE/ RCA as Colonel was the only meaningful continuity factor in the event of unprecedented grief and resultant commercial rejuvenation.



PG does not go in detail of the Attorney Blanchard Tual and the court case following Tual’s report- a curious choice for the biographer who places such high value on documentation. He however, goes in detail about Colonel's response- in which Colonel condescends that Tual doesn't understand show business. The famous line ‘ it has shocked the conscience of the court’ doesn’t appear. It is perhaps too harsh a pronouncement – by a court of law no less- for PG to defend?



Colonel was a valuable asset to EPE from continuity perspective. Again, to be fair to PG, he does include Colonel's angry demands that Graceland/ EPE pay him thousand dollars on a weekly basis for all his past services to Elvis and Loanne’s embarrassment and Jack Soden’s response.



PG’s own interaction with Colonel is quite illuminating in itself. It is tempting to speculate that PG got ‘snowed’ by the Colonel, but I think it would be too simplistic a statement.



What I will say is that I, no doubt like many readers who cherish PG’s Elvis biographies and other books/ liner notes/ articles, am just baffled and disappointed after reading this book. This was a good chance to put nuance and better historical understanding of this titanic figure. Colonel’s wit, vision, dynamism are enough to stand on their own. He played a critical role in giving the world once in a century talent. He was also a human being with his own insecurities, baggage and humanity.



Alanna Nash, for all her speculative and sensationalistic focus on the ‘murder that Colonel might have committed’, has given a much more rounded picture of Colonel. We actually hear from people of all background who love the man, or admire him, or are fascinated by him, or learn from him. She highlights the visionary dynamism, as well as greed and power hungry control. I recommend that her book should be read alongside PG’s if one really wants to get a full picture.



Highly recommend folks check out the meticulous and objective reviews of the book by TCBCAST and EAP Society.

[cliveatdell]

Great review.
I was expecting an excellent book based on Peters past excellent books.
As you rightly say so much was not properly and rightfully explained!!
On recent podcasts that Peter has done, you never hear Peter negative towards the colonel.
The book in my view is not a total " snow job" just because of the letters that are included.
.

[Iwillbetrue]

Great review.
I was expecting an excellent book based on Peters past excellent books.
As you rightly say so much was not properly and rightfully explained!!
On recent podcasts that Peter has done, you never hear Peter negative towards the colonel.
The book in my view is not a total " snow job" just because of the letters that are included.
.

Thank you. I had hoped that this would be a good book, given PG's earlier ones. Very disappointing.

I wonder why has he done this? Is it that he was missing from all major Elvis projects ( Searcher, Binder doc, Netflix doc, Elvis 2022), and with this he wants address the balance?

[londonflash]

Sounds like I've saved a few quid as I'm unlikely to buy this book.

Normally a Guralnick book on Elvis would be a no-brainer but the Colonel did a good job on him by the sound of it.

[martin018]

Ordered this book before seeing the reviews here.
Will read soon and see what I think.

[ETMAHM]

The new issue of ETMAHM has given over 4 pages for an extended review of this fantastic book. Everyone we’ve spoken to has raved about the honesty and presentation of facts. Not everyone is going to agree with the content as they base everything around all the myths and misreporting there has been in the past. Peter’s research is second to none. Whereas Nash and Binder had their own agenda.

[Iwillbetrue]

Did Lieber and Stoller, Chips Moman, Scotty Moore also have an agenda

[martin018]

Hopefully get my copy of ETMATM music in a few days. Generally their reviews are well balanced.

[Living Stereo]

The new issue of ETMAHM has given over 4 pages for an extended review of this fantastic book. Everyone we’ve spoken to has raved about the honesty and presentation of facts. Not everyone is going to agree with the content as they base everything around all the myths and misreporting there has been in the past. Peter’s research is second to none. Whereas Nash and Binder had their own agenda.

Yes, we all know that the Colonel only had Elvis' best interest at heart. Loved him like a son, actually. And Elvis, poor Elvis, didnt have enough sense to run his own life.Why, if it wasnt for the poor ol' Colonel we might not have had Elvis at all!

[ETMAHM]

The new issue of ETMAHM has given over 4 pages for an extended review of this fantastic book. Everyone we’ve spoken to has raved about the honesty and presentation of facts. Not everyone is going to agree with the content as they base everything around all the myths and misreporting there has been in the past. Peter’s research is second to none. Whereas Nash and Binder had their own agenda.

Yes, we all know that the Colonel only had Elvis' best interest at heart. Loved him like a son, actually. And Elvis, poor Elvis, didnt have enough sense to run his own life.Why, if it wasnt for the poor ol' Colonel we might not have had Elvis at all!

Do I sense a hint of sarcasm there ?

[Living Stereo]

Ive tried to keep a open mind about the Colonel, after all Elvis was an adult who could have and should have put more thought into his career. Im on the fence about reading the book, and perhaps in the name of fair play I should. On the downside is the ad litem report and the 30 million dollars or so the Colonel was in debt to the mob, err I mean theHilton hotel for gambling.
Colonel was instrumental in Elvis early skyrocketing to fame.He knew the right people( Hank Snow, Steve Sholes etcand no one can deny that.

[Iwillbetrue]

Ive tried to keep a open mind about the Colonel, after all Elvis was an adult who could have and should have put more thought into his career. Im on the fence about reading the book, and perhaps in the name of fair play I should. On the downside is the ad litem report and the 30 million dollars or so the Colonel was in debt to the mob, err I mean theHilton hotel for gambling.
Colonel was instrumental in Elvis early skyrocketing to fame.He knew the right people( Hank Snow, Steve Sholes etcand no one can deny that.

It is definitely worth reading the book. The letters themselves are quite revelatory, and no matter how much PG tries to tell us " this is how you should decipher' them- the gaslighting, the power play, the interference is all very clear for all to see.

What is also noteworthy is what is * not* included. And that makes me think, if the letters in their *entirety * would be published one day.

I get that the simplistic ' colonel was responsible for all that went wrong' is annoying, and the 2022 movie as well as Binder's Documentary portrayed him as a two dimensional villain. So a nuanced portrait was very much expected from PG who I respect like no other Elvis writer. Very very disappointing as to what we got however.

[PFBELARD]

Ive tried to keep a open mind about the Colonel, after all Elvis was an adult who could have and should have put more thought into his career. Im on the fence about reading the book, and perhaps in the name of fair play I should. On the downside is the ad litem report and the 30 million dollars or so the Colonel was in debt to the mob, err I mean theHilton hotel for gambling.
Colonel was instrumental in Elvis early skyrocketing to fame.He knew the right people( Hank Snow, Steve Sholes etcand no one can deny that.

It is definitely worth reading the book. The letters themselves are quite revelatory, and no matter how much PG tries to tell us " this is how you should decipher' them- the gaslighting, the power play, the interference is all very clear for all to see.

What is also noteworthy is what is * not* included. And that makes me think, if the letters in their *entirety * would be published one day.

I get that the simplistic ' colonel was responsible for all that went wrong' is annoying, and the 2022 movie as well as Binder's Documentary portrayed him as a two dimensional villain. So a nuanced portrait was very much expected from PG who I respect like no other Elvis writer. Very very disappointing as to what we got however.

We know they were both deeply flawed individuals, but only one took advantage of the flaws of the other. It was not Elvis.

[A. C. van Kuijk]

The contracts were signed by Elvis. Thererfore he was responsible. Believe it or not: It was Elvis, and only Elvis, who fucked it up!

[Iwillbetrue]

The contracts were signed by Elvis. Thererfore he was responsible. Believe it or not: It was Elvis, and only Elvis, who fucked it up!

Elvis' job was to sing, produce music, act, perform.

Colonel's job was to ensure that his * only* client got the best deals.

Just like we wouldn't expect Colonel to sing well , we shouldn't expect Elvis to know the intricacies of contracts.

Simple division of labour.

Why keep a dog and bark yourself??

[A. C. van Kuijk]

So a manager can put his client in every project he wishes? WTF?!? Parker was Elvis' manager, not his guardian.

[Iwillbetrue]

And a terrible one at his job, 1965 onwards.

Huge gap between the artist and his manager.

Pearls and swine.

[Living Stereo]

The contracts were signed by Elvis. Thererfore he was responsible. Believe it or not: It was Elvis, and only Elvis, who fucked it up!

The problem with this statement is it removes Parker from the Elvis equation.Parker was not an appliance, he had input into everything Presley did.
It seems impossible to start a conversation or messageboard topic about Parker without his apoligists jumping in to point out Elvis' shortcomings. We are all aware of them. They have been well documented. Why do the hackles go up when Parker is under the microscope?