Justice For All: The Truth About Metallica (OP49148) (Hardcover)

First of all, this book covers the band members lives before the formation of Metallica up to the release of St. Anger, and therefore is the most complete biography of the band currently in print. The book is well researched (although there are errors present) and despite not having spoken with the band directly, it does contain various interviews of people close to the band (and some of them fairly involved with the band, like John Marshall who was a roadie and filled in for James on guitar after several accidents). So it does go into a lot more depth than say a book created solely from magazine interviews would (Chris Crocker, I'm talking to you). The errors do creep in here and there, but a number of them are quotes from individuals and therefore not really the author's fault (such as Flemming Rasmussen's admission that the band was embarrassed that fans would find Trapped Under Ice to 'poppy', when I think it's clear that he meant to say Escape), although perhaps McIver should have clarified these a bit more in the teaxt. Some other mistakes are inexcusable (such that Cliff's tattoo was for Samhain, when actually it's the Misfits Crimson Ghost logo - something easily verified), but considering how much is correct, I'm not going to nit-pick. Up to the point of the Black album (and including the section on the Napster debacle towards the end - the author's opinion with which I am in total agreement with), this book is a really decent and engrossing read.

What I do find a bit odd is some of the book's structure. In the early part of the book, there are tons of interviews of other bands that were on the scene at the same time as Metallica was starting out. While I do feel it's important to give context of the band's place in history and a sense of what it was like in music at that time, these sections are too long and don't really add nearly as much insight as would be expected. Also, the author's obsessive need to define and categorize different styles of metal is distracting. I guess (in a misguided way), it's his attempt to shed light on how older/earlier fans would be horrified by the growth that Metallica has displayed over their career because they no longer fit into the category of what they once were. Who cares? It's this childish need to fit a square peg into a round hole that really makes the latter half of the book come across like adolescent whining. True, Load/Reload and St. Anger are not great albums, but the author's reasoning for this is like a petulant child that's had his favourite toys taken away from him. Save the subjective opinions for the internet - and keep them out the book.

And this is also why the latter part of the book fails. Discussing Metallica in the context of heavy metal works for the early part of their career, but after the Black album, Metallica have become 'sui generis' and really need to be looked at in larger terms. Their contemporaries are no longer Anthrax and Slayer etc., but U2 and REM etc. - bands with long, successful careers that have also changed shape and form since their inception, and in the process have also alienated fans of their earlier work. It's this refusal to accept Metallica in larger terms and deal with it in the book that, to me, narrows the target audience of this book to only fans of the band and of little interest to anyone outside of that circle. Metallica have had a major impact to music and the industry (not just metal), and not addressing this is a major failing of the book.