I am a big fan of AC/DC, in particular the Bon Scott years. When Bon was around the band seemed to strike the perfect balance of rock and roll/heavy metal and blues rock with the emphasis on the latter. There is no doubt that in the world of Rock, Bon's early demise was not only a tragedy for those that knew and loved him (as well as the man himself of course) but it also deprived the band of, in my opinion, their best frontman and vocalist. I love some of Brian's songs, but his voice was never as good and as a live performer, the lyrics he rasped out in his later years were not decipherable to be honest.
I have tremendous admiration for authors. I sometimes think I would like to write a book but I have neither the patience, skillset or application to do so. Therefore I need to state up front that this book seems to be well researched and is easy to read and I'm glad I worked though it. However, I have to say that it pulls at many of the strings of things I greatly dislike so it was not for me.
I hate conspiracy theory thinking and I fear that this book goes down that path too much for my liking. I haven't read JF's other work on AC/DC, namely: "The Youngs" but it seems as though he has something of an axe to grind with the titular brothers of that particular book. In particular he seems pretty contemptuous of both Youngs, in particular Malcolm who he tabs as the leader of the band in many ways. There may well be good reasons for this but it tends to slant the narrative in my opinion, in a way that seems to imply that the Youngs, and latterly Brian Johnson, are essentially lying about many things, in particular whether Scott's lyrics appear on the famous album "Back in Black".
Whether or not Bon contributed to "Back in Black" is an interesting question, although one that really only exercises fans of the band I'm sure. His death, similarly, has become an event that generates its share of controversy, as is probably the case with all deaths of well known people that are anything short of clear cut. However, I became somewhat frustrated that this book seemed to become what was essentially a conspiracy theory built on what I would consider to be somewhat flimsy evidence.
I am a skeptic in the sense that I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible and I want to build an epistemological basis to ensure, as far as possible, that I am doing so. So I try to adhere an evidence based belief system based on the laws of logic as we understand them. I am no expert here and always learning but this book seems to commit a number of logical fallacies that become increasingly annoying.
The most egregious of these is one common to such lines of argument. Namely, a shifting of the burden of proof. If one is going to claim that Bon was killed by more than alcohol (and there is myriad evidence of his prodigious drinking from numerous witnesses over the years), it is not enough to claim that he was also a regular heroin user when the evidence for that is far more flimsy and contradictory from those same witnesses. It is not enough to state that he was around people taking heroin, we can't prove he WASN'T taking heroin (shifting the burden of proof) and that some people say they never saw him taking it but assume he was because others around him were. This doesn't rise to the level of convincing evidence for me.
I find conspiracy thinking tiresome. I get that this is not a conspiracy theory book per se. However, it seems to me that the cases that are pushed here lack convincing evidence. Most of it is speculation and hearsay. At one point JF actually writes in the text that "Occam's Razor doesn't apply here". The Hell in doesn't. It seems to me that, especially with Bon's death, there is a school of thought that there must be more to Bon's death than the suggestion he had alcohol poisoning/choked on his own vomit which is something we know happens with regularity. It seems somewhat mundane and even sordid that such an accomplished rock front man should die in this way. Therefore, there is a need to seek a more complex and sensational theory.
This happened with the JFK assassination. Could such a consequential president be felled by a lone gunman? Yes he could, and he was. However it is far more entertaining to think about CIA plots, Secret Service plots, grassy knoll shooters, missing bag lady, hospital conspiracy to substitute one body for another etc. etc.
I do think there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence that some of Bon's lyrics made their way onto Black in Black but no convincing evidence or proof. No notes in Bon's hand that read "knocking me out with those american thighs". Of course not, the theorists will cry, those are in the notebooks the Youngs stole. Again, this is speculation and assertion, not backed up with enough evidence. It's fun to speculate, but ultimately fruitless and doesn't prove the case.
Was Bon's death foul play or a cover up? I am unconvinced. I think he died from his own excess, choking on his own vomit and/or alcohol poisoning. Was there heroin overdose there too? Unconvinced. If you think the autopsy was shoddy or a cover up I need more evidence than "it didn't take very long" which is essentially the argument here I feel. People die of alcohol related vomit aspiration often and as sordid and messy as that demise may be, it happens. I don't think the case for him dying elsewhere, moved in and out of the flat, not left in the car overnight etc are proven. it's clear that leaving him in the car on a cold night was a heartless thing to do, with tragic consequences, but we know how he lived and JF is right when he says Bon got away with such behavior many times before, just not this time.
It is telling, in my view, that JK concludes his book with a couple of the most likely theories of what happened. This, in my view, illustrates the point that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the more complex one, with more assumptions and unknowns is something we should consider until we have more, and better, evidence. I would have preferred the book stick to what I felt was it's line that there was more skulduggery and subterfuge afoot in this event and nail that to the proverbial mast.
Ultimately we are presented with a series of theories, lacking convincing evidence and a picture of Scott the man, derived from conflicting accounts from his friends, hangers on and acquaintances. He was certainly an alcoholic/he definitely wasn't an alcoholic. He definitely took heroin regularly/I never saw him take heroin/he didn't take heroin. He was a great, fun loving party animal/he was a mean drunk and depressed with touring. I think these all paint a picture of either a complex man or just someone nobody really knew as well as they thought. Maybe both. His death is sad and tragic. I don't think we need all this speculation to be honest but as with all these things, speculation is a fun activity. I just don't think we should give it too much space, especially when the evidence is, in my estimation, thin.