The sheer size of my book — 672 pages — may suggest to some that I merely dumped everything I had on Jim Reeves into it, like one big hopper. But that's not the case. I carefully sifted through information and only published what I could corroborate. This was a very time consuming process that took years to complete.
Yet Ray Baker, who worked for Jim for a couple of years, was one of my sources, and can be heard praising me in a radio interview (elsewhere on this site), was recently quoted by an online Nashville columnist, as saying he had no intention of reading my book because Joyce Jackson (Jim's on-and-off secretary), had told him “a lot of things Larry had to say about Jim were not accurate.”
That was a cheap shot on the part of Mr. Baker, who knows full well I quoted him accurately. He even volunteered negative information that he wanted me to put in my book but not attribute to him! So as he takes a public swipe at me, he expects me to protect his confidentiality.
But then, it's a way to save face with one's Nashville cronies, some of whom may be discomforted by the truth coming out, not only about Jim but other music industry figures. I believe this is the reason why the Tennessean newspaper has ignored the book. I step on too many toes! This doesn't surprise me at all; I predicted it to friends. I always anticipated that an honest book would upset some people. But that is the only kind I wanted to write.
Aside from Mr. Baker's outburst, as one reviewer observed, the Reeves “inner sanctum...seem to have formed a tight circle and taken a vow of silence... Something is radically wrong. Why have they been struck dumb? Is it apathy, embarrassment, conscience or maybe even the dreaded word fear?”
He speculates that “those dreaded interview tape recordings...must contain a wealth of...‘hypocritcal comment.’” He wonders if they may be afraid of the repercussions from criticizing my book, lest they fall victim to what he calls “the Bussey treatment” whereby I posted excerpts from a taped interview which revealed the critic to be both duplicitous and hypocritical.
I got a chuckle out of that. I do have hundreds of tapes of candid conversations with sources, in which they say a lot of things that could come back to haunt them. This includes members of the Reeves family, one of whom sent me a couple of nasty emails a few months ago, claiming my book was nothing more than a collection of unverified gossip (even as the Reeves clan has ordered copies of my book in a buying frenzy). This same individual barely knew Jim, couldn't talk to you intelligently about any aspect of his career, is wholly unfamiliar with his repertoire, made no effort to protect his irreplaceable and historic recordings when there was still a chance to legally do so, and has shown no interest in becoming educated about their famous family member except for how much money his estate may bring the heirs.
As for Joyce Jackson — who has spent the 48 years since Jim's passing seeking the limelight and traveling the world (she is headed overseas as I write this) to promote her version of his life, please realize that just because she was employed by him off and on for a few years, doesn't mean she's an expert on Jim Reeves. As Leo Jackson told me in taped interviews on more than one occasion, “Joyce only thinks she knew Jim, but she did not.” Leo made a good point. Mr. Reeves was gone more than he was home, and as a man who played everything close to the vest, I can assure you he was not coming back to Nashville and reporting to his secretary (or his wife) what he'd been up to.
I subjected the stories that Joyce told me to especially rigorous analysis and verification, and left out more than I included.
Although she has not gone public with her criticisms of my book, Joyce Jackson is apparently telling anybody who will listen that I make Jim look bad, which I do not. I make Jim look human. I know she is livid about my revelations concerning the pivotal role Bea Terry played in Jim's life (as Joyce has always protected Mary Reeves, who left her $10,000 in her will). And she's upset that I reported in a footnote that she and Leo Jackson had only been married for 18 days. I deliberately did so to correct the record and any false impressions which Joyce herself may have fostered when she dedicated her own book to Leo, claimed they loved each other for over 50 years (even though Leo was married to Nell much of that time), stated as if it was established fact that Leo was the father of Joyce's daughter (though no paternity test ever proved this and Leo denied it until his dying day), and referred to their marriage (without disclosing that it was in name only; they never lived together as husband and wife). Nell Jackson has previously posted documentation on the web to establish the truth of the matter, including court records which show the brevity of the Leo/Joyce “marriage.” There is much more detail I could go into...but won't, at this time.
I always told people I was writing an honest biography on Jim, so they had ample warning, and yet they still shared very sensitive information with me. I guess until they saw the book in print, they didn't realize just how candid I was going to be. The same people who “told tales out of school” on Jim, which were in some cases negative, professed to be aghast that I published stories of a similar nature from other sources.
But be assured that I fact-checked everything anybody told me, no matter how favorably disposed I may have been to them personally. This was necessary to preclude my publishing any inaccurate information that people may have accidentally given me simply due to faulty memories.
My book is as close to the truth as any author could make it. I did not haphazardly throw Jim's untold story together. As for making Jim look bad, I don't think you'll find many readers who will agree with that statement. Judging from the fan reviews that have been posted around the internet and published in periodicals, people feel that I simply made Jim a flesh-and-blood human being. And what I told about him does not diminish their appreciation for the man and his music one iota.
