Yeah, I agree -- it's a great biography in that it's interesting and detailed and thorough and gives one the option to ask good questions about Jackson, but it's a bad biography in that. Hmmm. She is very confident to the point of reductiveness on some of her interpretations that I feel require a very light touch and a not of nuance, the queer themes in Jackson's work being VERY much a case in point. (I'm still not over When she refers to herself and Jeanou as lesbians in that piece, at a time when lesbianism was little discussed or understood, she seems to be using the idea of it as a metaphor for social nonconformity. Think what you want about Jackson's sexuality but I refuse to believe she didn't know what the word 'lesbian' meant!)