Elvis Branching Out

I have always found Elvis’ roots interesting. He is of a humble and religious background, yet once he explodes onto the popular scene, he transcends the stereotypes of his upbringing. Elvis becomes one of the most controversial figures of the 1950s due to his unconventional behavior and style. Hip thrusting and gyrating was anything but typical of a good old religious mama’s boy, but some how he changed his persona totally breaking the mold.

Guralnick seems to think this sudden shift of style and personality occurred around Elvis’ days as an upperclassman in high school. Not so much a change in personality as it was a final exposure of his true personality, this new Elvis character “seemed as if he wanted to make a statement, he was intent on setting himself apart … by his dress, his hair, his demeanor, though, he was making a ringing declaration of independence” (Guralnick 49). It is also noted that he exuded much more self-confidence and an awareness of his self-image even though he was still being ridiculed by many of those around him. I think that Elvis took this ridicule and used it as fuel to feed his growing determination to be something great.

This creation of an alternate self, of Elvis’ true inner self, would never have been able to emerge had he not grown up suppressed by his classmates and various other influential figures. Had he fit into the crowd, his talents would have never been fostered or allowed to propel him to any level. It was his difference and his willingness to accept his difference that allowed him to strive towards his own unique desires and potentials instead of to that which was popular.

Quetzal states in his response that the author’s recognition of possible bias or uncertainty in facts is a good idea, but fails in the sense that the author tends to back most of his assumptions up with factual evidence or interviews. I don’t necessarily agree with this point, but rather agree that, yes, the author’s recognition that he might have some fact incorrect is a smart choice – besides dodging bullets from insane Elvis fans who claim to know everything about the King’s life, Guralnick also is able to uphold a sense of integrity and loyalty to the subject. Him backing up assumptions with evidence is no reason to find him as looking for an excuse, but rather, allows the reader to have some faith in the text instead of a constant doubting.

Also, this recognition of Guralnick is smart because so much false evidence about Elvis has turned up. By saying that this is his personal account of Elvis, rather than the story of Elvis, Guralnick doesn’t assume total control over the possibly inaccurate texts but still maintains a sort of personal integrity. He doesn’t fully commit to the more questionable documents, which keeps the reader from being tricked into believing that which is not real and possibly even proven false.