Marybeth Hamilton has obviously done her homework and devoted a massive amount of study going by the references cited. I'm not doubting that she read these citations, but I am doubting her deductive ability. The text on the dust jacket goes on to say, "Hamilton shows that the Delta blues was created not by blacks but by white pilgrims, seekers, and propagandists who headed deep into America's south in search of an authentic black voice of rage and redemption."

I have to agree that the Blues Revival of the 1960s came into being due to "pilgrims" and "seekers," but it's the music created early in the century that's the Blues, and it was the pilgrims and seekers who simply brought it to the attention of the public. The pilgrims and seekers were merely music archaeologists, so to speak, finding and interpreting what was already there, but hidden, and then making a big deal out of it.

Blues was created by storytellers, poets, and occasionally liars, just like all the other types of music in existence today. Sure, there's going to be some myth involved. There are outright lies, and heartbreaking truths involved, too. It's up to the listener to be able to deduce which is true and factual and which is not, or whether it's even important. Some listeners hold onto every word, while others simply take it as something to listen to. Some don't care about whether the story being told is true or not. Others take it as testament when the singer says, "I'll love you forever." Yeah. Right. The believers are, of course, the same type of people who drank the special Kool-Aid brewed up by Jim Jones.

On the other hand, one has to be able to read, interpret, and distill information, then form conclusions on the evidence presented. The evidence clearly shows that in the prewar era, a thousand different musicians made ten thousand different records (examples, not accurate figures). Do they exist? Of course. Are they real? Ditto. Are they created by myth? Not a chance.

Roughly 60% of working my way through the book, a completely different realization came to me. I got the distinct impression that Hamilton had decided to publish on the spur of the moment, that perhaps she had grown tired of the research and writing process. I had questioned her lack of completion early on, when I emailed her to ask about one of the early paragraphs in the book. I questioned the part about Howard Odum, where it seemed to me that the paragraph had been left incomplete, dangling and inconclusive. I emailed the author on 8 April; since it's now 22 April, I think I can safely assume she has no intention of replying, unfortunately.