Hi, I'm new to this site and I think it's great. Question...Does anyone no where to find a copy of the autobiography 'Holding On To Air' ? Can't seem to get my hands on a copy for my daughter.

You might be able to find a copy through alilbris, the online used book store place -- www.alibris.com -- or through Amazon (which does deal in used books) or even through ebay.

BUT -- I have inside info on this -- the book is going to be reissued in a new, paperback edition by the University Press of Florida this fall. The catalogue gives a publication date of October, but it might be out before them. They are also my publisher, and I'll ask and see if I can find a better date.

(There's a list price of $24.95)

Thanks so much for the search ideas....Already checked Amazon.com but will keep looking.

I just got an email back from my publisher saying that reissued paperback (with photos!) will be out in August.

This is good news also because university presses "back list" books -- that is, they keep them around more than a few months! So the book will be available for the foreseeable future.

You might also check www.alibris.com, www.barnesandnoble.com, or www.powells.com-- all of them list out-of-print books they have available. People auction books on eBay also, so that might be another place to try.

i think i saw a copy at nycb's gift/book bar. maybe the wedsite for nycballet could get you to the gift bar, which sells any number of second hand books, the selection is, of course, varied but i seem to rem. a copy of farrell's book the last time i looked at that part of the gift bar.

Have you tried looking at www.ebay.com? I've seen that book up for auction many, many times. Also, give www.abebooks.com a try - they are the best! (IMHO)

I bought this book not too long ago from Amazon's used bookdealers. I got a great copy, but it cost nearly $40! I would have waited for the paperback reissue if I had known it was coming.

I was looking for this book too -- guess where I found it? I got it at my local library! I didn't expect to find it there, but I checked it out and had a wonderful time reading it. Don't hesitate to call your local libraries to see whether it is in their catalog, you might be surprised. Good luck!

I bought my copy years ago at KMart of all places!

Lately looking for a copy of Merrill Ashley's book, "Dancing for Balanchine", I tried some of the sugestions here and then found one in the July issue of the magazine, "Yahoo! Internet Life": http://www.bookfinder.com, which is one of those nice sites that searches other sites for you, in this case, bookseller sites, not auction sites.

A very minor point--the book's title is Holding on to the Air. It perhaps would be easier to locate with complete title....?If you do an author search, it is by Suzanne Farrell with Toni Bentley.

i just got a copy on amazon used book sellers for $4.95 hardback. I've just started reading it!

The reissue of "Holding on to the Air" is out! Here's the press release from the publisher:

My name is Steve Krutzler and I am the online marketing coordinator for the University Press of Florida, the non-profit publishing wing of the Florida university system. We have recently published a new edition of "Holding On to the Air," by Suzanne Farrell.

This memoir, first published in 1990 and reissued with a new preface by the author, recounts Farrell's transformation from a young girl in Ohio dreaming of greatness to the realization of that dream on stages all over the world. Farrell recalls professional and personal attachments and their attendant controversies with a down-to-earth frankness and common sense that complements the glories and mysteries of her artistic achievement.

We believe that this book may be of interest to your site's visitors and invite them to check out several full samples of the text, available in our reading room. Readers can read about several trip sites in these HTML and PDF samples that offer a substantive preview of the book that we think dance enthusiasts will enjoy.

The Reading Room can be accessed at http://www.upf.com/Mkt/ and contains more information about the book, including a jacket cover image.

I got the paperback today from Amazon and was thrilled with it. In place of the color photograph by Paul Mejia on the hardcover jacket, of Suzanne musing while leaning against a pillar in a dance studio, the paperback cover shows a well-known 1976 b&w photo by Max Waldman of a girlish-looking Suzanne in Chaconne. Much better, in my opinion. The text is printed from the same plates as the hardcover. and the inside photos are the same, although they aren't reproduced as well.

The big excitement for me, though, is a new "Preface to the 2002 Edition," in which Suzanne mentions how devastated she was at being fired from NYCB by Peter Martins (through an intermediary) in 1993. On a much happier note, she says she has "exciting ideas for the future," and seems to hold out the promise of another book. As befits her status as a college professor, she also sent me to the dictionary with her mention of "osmotic understandings that were shared by George and me."

Thanks so much for the update on the re-issue of this booK. Now I have to decide if I want to order it now or wait for it to appear in the stores!

Anne Freedgood, the editor of this book, as well as of the works of many prominent authors, died on Dec. 15, 2002. She was a great fan of Balanchine's NYCB, and of Suzanne Farrell.

I just got my copy of Farrell's autobiography. This will be my 4 th approach at Mr. B and NYCB-(after Joan Brady, Villella and infamous Miss Kirkland). I know many of you guys got through it already, so i would like some input on it. (Farrellfan, are you out there...?

I enjoyed it very much, but Farrell remains more of a cipher than either Kirkland or Allegra Kent*. Perhaps she has a more reticent personality than either of them, perhaps she was more aware of her position as an 'icon' (like Margot Fonteyn) and perhaps because the book was written together with someone else.

By the way, I'm sure there is a thread about 'Holding onto the air' somewhere.

* Now her autobiography is an absolute must-read, cubanmiamiboy!!

Interesting, I was just watching the DVD, "SF: Elusive Muse" last weekend.

So this is this book only a reprint with a new preface? I wish that Farrell would revise some parts of her autobiography. Especially the passages where she asserts that she never wanted to be on anyone's "list" when she was linked with Vera Zorina, Maria Tallchief, Tanaquil Le Clercq, and mentioned in the press as the next Mrs. Balanchine. The tone of her protests seemed inelegant and somewhat insulting to Balanchine's former wives. As if they were lesser dancers or muses because they married him. One could not fault Farrell for the problems that ensued but I wished she would have showed more respect and humility when Le Clercq was still alive [when the autobiography was originally published].

Just my opinion which has been noted more skillfully in a book review in Ballet Review years ago.

Neryssa

It's hard for me to think of Suzanne Farrell as in any way disrespectful of Balanchine or any of his wives -- or of anyone! She was torn and exceedingly unhappy that Mr. B was professing his love for her while he was still married to Tanny.

Ballet Review had an excellent review of either Farrell's autobiography or the DVD "Elusive Muse" where she repeats her contention that she did not like being on a list, etc. Apparently, I was not the only one who was rankled by such statements. I never accused her of disrespecting Balanchine but I think she could have been more sensitive (in print, on film) to the muses who preceded her. I am not commenting on Farrell as a dancer; I am only trying to discuss her place in history. Her story is never discussed in context in "Elusive Muse." IMHO, I think she tends to monopolize [on the] Balanchine legacy. It is only my opinion.

Neryssa

I've always found that Farrell's statement rings true.

She was still a young woman and dependent on Balanchine for her professional life. She knew more than anyone what she had to lose were he to cut her out. Her mother, with whom she was living, was in her face and wanted her to marry Balanchine at that point. Yet there was some streak of stubborness, whether protective of self or ego, that made her say "No", draw the line, and deny, independent of feelings of guilt about LeClerq. Perverse as it may be, I've always admired her for that.

Neryssa--
Thank you for your comments--I think they're thought-provoking and supported by the texts that you cite. Parodoxically, I think that FarrellFan is probably right too--that she did feel torn; the historian in me, though, would want to know when.

I think it's fine to criticize even our most cherished figures. They are, after all, human beings with human failings, even if we idolize them. Helene your "perverse" admiration captures the sense of paradox well.

I think that we are discussing 2 different things here, Helene (and I need to find that Ballet Review article). Admiring Farrell for saying "no" is one thing, and describing why or how she said "no" (years later) is another. I too admire her for the former but not the latter. Again, I am not the only one who has taken issue with the way she described her disaffection. Is this even an issue that can be discussed, I wonder? I find myself up against a wall, it seems, when I want to give the muses on the "list" equal time.

Neryssa

Thanks very much for your post, Ray. My apologies for my typos and defensiveness. Had I seen your post before I posted my previous one, I would not have been so "prickly"

Neryssa

I admire Farrell for describing the sitatuation at the time. During a Chicago visit by NYCB, a writer announced an upcoming marriage between Farrell and Balanchine, and put her on that list to the public. What else could make her position clearer to her?

In love, she had every right to want to be first and foremost, not one in a long sequence. In art, why should she want to be "the next"? I can't count the number of times I've heard a young tenor lambasted for not wanting to be "the next Pavarotti", but wanting to be the first [fill in the blank]. What is wrong with wanting to be appreciated for your unique gifts and not put on a list?

She would have every right to feel the same as strongly now, and I would admire her no less.

I think you have every right to feel differently.

I don't think so. Because she was yet another in a long sequence even if she was also "first and foremost" by then, which she clearly was. If 'first and foremost', she'd be that by just being the favourite, which she was anyway without even having to get married as desired elsewhere. Ideas about "the right to be first and foremost in love" seem to me to be outmoded, or at very least they're open to serious question. We haven't "rights to be" something loved, we are either loved or not. It doesn't have anything to do with loving someone else in addition; rights to 'the most special love' are pretty spurious and even they are often temporary matters, as multiple divorces after 'loves-of-one's-life' attest after they've been worn out. As well, the 'right to be first and foremost' could have only been a matter of marriage and its legalities, and this she wouldn't do (nor should she have, I'm convinced). And wasn't Karin Von Aroldingen left important things in his will, including rights to ballets, so that there was an example of the personal gratitude to someone who wasn't also the greatest artistic muse in the same sense.




She was appreciated for her unique gifts, but in this endless discussion, to echo Christian in a previous thread (although this one is almost 35 years old), the larger context is Balanchine, not Farrell. She is ahead of the other ballerinas in legend, explicit demonstrations of favoritism by Balanchine, image and number of ballets made for her especially, but she is still not the prime mover that he is within the world of Balanchine: Without her, he would have still been almost as important; without him, she would not have been (or it's much less certain). Sometimes that old episode seems to place her above not only all the other ballerinas and muses, but above the master as well. He seems weaker and less sympathetic than she does in that episode to many people, I think they were both just being themselves. In any case, as Helene notes regarding what Farrell 'had to lose', even if he was 'weaker', he still had the power of ultimate decision, she didn't. I don't remember where she says something like "neither of us were especially interested in sex." Well, that's neither laudable nor ignoble, it's neutral.



Understandable, but you can't always, can you, even if you and others personally think the others were equally or even more important in whatever way? Farrell will always be the one most identified with the ultimate Balanchine ideal, the embodiment of the fulfillment of his potential. In that video 6 Balanchine ballerinas, Tallchief even says 'this was his Muse, and I think, for the rest of his life..' or 'until his death', I don't have the video handy. By then, she didn't sound at all resentful, but did seem to be stating what had played out with Farrell as Muse as an indisputable fact. Ashley lamented in her part of the tape about having done 'Diamonds' and how when Farrell returned to NYCB 'she got most of her old roles back.' People do talk about 'Balanchine's muses' and even sometimes refer to Darci Kistler as 'his last Muse' (although I believe I've heard Farrell called that too), but if it's just 'Balanchine's Muse', it always means Farrell. But it's clear why you'd feel that way sometimes, it does seem sometimes as if there's an emphasis that goes too far (and frequently.).

I would never claim that anyone had the right to be loved, but everyone has the right to decide what they want from love and to live with the consequences of that decision. She was a young woman raised pretty much fatherless who came of age in the 60's. Whether her ideas were outmoded or not, she had every right to heed them for whatever reason and to choose Paul Mejia, with whom she was the "first and foremost" for at least the early parts of their marriage when they were together. She had no obligation to choose Balanchine or what she saw as her place in his life. She already knew on a personal level, where out of the studio, he'd bring her to see his older Russian friends, and then ignore her.


From our point of view, perhaps, or history's or posterity's. But she was speaking in her own voice.

There are a lot of people in Europe -- they filled stadiums -- to whom Balanchine was fine, but Bejart was King, and they remember Farrell quite differently.

No, but anyway I already agreed on that she 'didn't have to choose Balanchine' and personally never thought she should. All the things you mention point to a provincial sensibility (this is not a criticism, I used to have one too) in the constant company of an extremely worldly older man who was pursuing her in more than one way. This very intense history of Balanchine, including all of his women, was not something she could erase no matter how sincere she was; but neither could he, even if his infatuation made it seem possible to give it no value. Peter Martins mentions in 'Far from Denmark' how she was playfully sizing him up, he was 'the provincial', she the 'woman of the world'. But she could play that part because of Balanchine's protetcion, I don't think she was ever that by nature, nor is even now. All the more reason she made the right decision. I just don't think Balanchine was 'wrong' in any of it. He was responding from his own nature, and even if religious, this was a nature that had been around the block. So yes, she accepted the consequences of her decision, and although they were difficult initially, it surely added to her development as an artist to be away from Balanchine for those years. What's interesting about being 'first and foremost' for Mejia, for however long, is was he ever first and foremost for her? Maybe, but in the end Balanchine became first and foremost for her, and in 'Elusive Muse' we hear that he talks about how he shouldn't have done that, he 'was an old man', etc., and she then soujnds confused, saying she didn't really want to hear this even though she might have felt relieved to as well. Some confusion in some areas, just like eveyone else in matters of the heart.

Of course, she wouldn't like his ignoring her with his old friends, although the other NYCB dancers felt slighted by his favouritism, which is much more serious--and this is what Tallchief said 'we understood it, but it was bad for the company'. I think Americans in social situations are more easily hurt by this kind of thing, and when I lived in Paris it happened to me frequently when I was in an all-French social situation; I couldn't really understand it at the time, but I did learn not to let it get in the way of other benefits that might eventually accrue if I didn't take it too seriously. It's never polite, but I think it is not nearly always meant to be rude, but rather is an intense bonding in which some social niceties are momentarily neglected in the midst of 'one's own people'. Families do this to outsiders all the time.

I think it actually almost miraculous that it turned out as well as it did: He probably could not understand that her brilliant talent and artistic intelligence did not translate into having a physical attraction to her most kindred spirit. This is the kind of brick wall we all run into in life, and a large part of his early infatuation had to have been fantasy--which is one the reasons the resistance was so expedient: It did not hurt him to realize that he could not have his way in this affair. I like the headstrong nature more than the 'morality', because it's that that made the art even greater in the ensuing years. If she'd been physically attracted to him, it wouldn't be controversial, but since she wasn't, her resistance did protect her talent once he was not able to in the ways he had prior to these developments.

I'm going simplify madly and say that, in my version, I don't think Suzanne Farrell was very interested in Balanchine romantically--except as being a romantic figure in his world. She was in love with him through that figure (and perhaps a bit in love with herself--who would not be under those confusing circumstances, at least for a while).

According to Maria Tallchief--as I recall from her book and the Anne Belle film--Balanchine married his muses--or instruments for musing about ballet--out of practicality. He had one lung, a limited amount of energy, and so it was logical they would go home together and work together and cook together. He may not have been the most passionate lover.

Balanchine was also perhaps simpler as a person than most of us would like him to have been--there is rather a big schism between the artist and the person who is merely struggling to get throught life. We are shocked if by some miracle we sit next to one of these gods at dinner and find they have nothing interesting to say.

Christian Berard--who did the sets for Mozartiana in 1933 (Balanchine's greatest year according to Eliott Carter)--characterized Balanchine to Lincoln Kirstein in the following way. And this is what everyone--wives, patrons, students--was to be up against.



Bebe Berard by Henri Cartier-Bresson

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx...=T&DT=Image

And the later Balanchine (familiar, but uncropped) by Henri Cartier-Bresson

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx...=T&DT=Image

I agree with all of the foregoing. It is remarkable that they were able to put all this behind them years later and dedicate themselves to what seems to have mattered most to both of them, their art.



I think Moira Shearer said something similar in her book long ago, and I think you're both on to something. (However, his feelings toward Vera Zorina, as I've heard them described, sound like real desperation.)

You know, Balanchine was simple - and then again he wasn't. I suspect he was highly self-protective. I'd like to know more about his earliest years than we'll ever know now.



Well.....Balanchine would still be as important without Farrell. As Leigh Witchel and others have observed, he never made a great ballet for her until late in life, and the Balanchine canon would be as impressive, although not as rich, without those ballets. The blunt fact is that if it hadn't been Farrell, it would have been somebody else. He was always good at working with what he had. But thank goodness she was there.

Not so sure I agree with that. I believe Arlene Croce was talking about how he tried to mold Von Aroldingen during the period Farrell was away. This was in an essay that is (I think) called 'Farrell and Farrellism', and Croce was having quite a field day with the minor talent she found in Aroldingen and how what Balanchine was trying to do with her was not working. I found a quote from David Daniel on the net saying something like 'Farrell already existed by inference...' and went to say how much of what Balanchine found to work with in the Farrell material, as it were, had already been evolving in Kent and LeClerq. He's not the most unbiased observer (could be quite the Kool-Aid drinker, I knew him fairly well) to be sure, but I thought that was interesting. In the piece where I found this, someone wrote then that, given Farrell's various attributes of strength, musicality, intelligence (I can't remember this quote perfectly) he had in her a dancer from whom he could ask anything. And, of course, he got a great deal of it, I'll leave it to someone else to say if she delivered all.

So that--he would have continued to work with someone else, or many other people, but at this point I think it does go into that area in which she alone contributed what was hers uniquely--and that she was thereby indispensable in the late period. Because the Balanchine/Farrell collaboration is special, ultimately. Although I think it is good to phrase it as you did, because it goes along with what Neryssa and I were talking about, with the 'monopolizing' aspect: I know you weren't necessarily trying to do that, but there is something a little off-balance about the Muse Hierarchy, so that making accurate assessments is troublesome, i.e., Farrell does sometimes seem to be too emphasized, on the other hand it is like Tallchief said soon after Farrell's first arrival at SAB: 'the talent! you could see it, it was everywhere...' Which does remind me how much I do like to hear Tallchief speak, there is a lot of strength in every thing she says--she just seems to know.

There would have been another muse, but are you implying there would have been another romantic fixation? Immediately before Farrell was Adams, but it was never suggested (to my knowledge) that Adams threatened Balanchine's marriage to Le Clercq.

I think that to B'chine, SF's greatest gifts were her absolute trust and sheer guts. She was not afraid of anything, including looking "wrong" onstage. She had no ego. Also, I suspect that after Farrell, one of the things that might have attracted him to von A was an ability to intuit what he wasn't saying. So many of his works for the Ravel, Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky II festivals were made for KvA and SF, who probably didn't need a lot of verbal elaboration. It's probably why he didn't make a ballet for Kistler, with whom he didn't have the kind of relationship where he could condense a paragraph into three or four words and take for granted that she'd understand.

Time for me to trot out the Arlene Croce quote to the effect that, if not for Balanchine, Farrell might have been another Isadora Duncan. To me this ia a compliment, but we'll leave aside the matter of dirty feet.

From Farrell's book, I believe Adams was a great friend of Leclerq's; if I remember correctly, Farrell wrote that Adams used to go to Leclerq's to play cards.

But I think as muses go, there was Kent between Adams and Farrell, and Leclerq, until she became ill.


Her trust was religious. She leapt and never looked back. Bejart attested to that when he said in "Elusive Muse" that he knew she belonged to Balanchine when she worked with him. She was on loan.


He hadn't had a family life since he was a child, before he went to the Mariinsky school, except for some vacations. She had a family, and I've read in several accounts that Balanchine liked her husband. There was a delightful series in Ballet Review in which von Aroldingen wrote about how he'd come over to her apartment, they'd share a glass of wine, and then they'd get down to cooking. It sounded very simpatico, simple, and affectionate.

For someone with little energy to spare, he expended a huge amount of it pursuing Farrell. I always got the impression that he wanted a sense of peace after that. Look at the great gift he gave von Aroldingen in "Davidsbundlertanze", so nuturing and kind.

I've always liked her, and was at NYCB the night Balanchine died. I remember 'Piano Concerto No. 2' with Von Aroldingen wonderful in it, lots of lightness. I didn't know this was the same as Ballet Imperial till the Kirov in April. Then took someone to see Farrell and von Aroldingen in Davidsbundlertanze in 1985 or 1986, and so glad I got to see it with much of the original cast (Adam Luders too, but not Peter Martins by then.)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-pr...article_id=3487

That's the preview of the Joan Acocella review from NYReview of Books 1990 or 1991, which Cristian may want to read. I'd have thought it was free, but it isn't, and I've long lost my copy of it. Was very interesting and is called 'Dancing for Balanchine'. Don't know whether Ms. Ashley picked up her title from that or not.

Anyway, her take on Farrell's ego or 'non-ego' was very intelligent, whether or not one accepts it. I liked most of what Ms. Acocella wrote here--she thinks for herself, that's for sure.

..He,he, i smell Cult material all around...

I'll just spit it out: I hated this book. There. I said it.

I love Suzanne Farrell, I'm impressed that Toni Bentley was a ballerina with the NYCB & became a writer (I enjoy her articles in the NYTimes), but I just found it utterly painful to read this book.

Maybe my timing was off. Immediately before reading this one, I read Taper's bio of Balachine and Kirstein's book about the 30 Years of NYCB. Both books were a joy to read and I had very high hopes for Farrell's bio. Instead, utter disappointment. I'm thankful for the information, but I was just so put off by the writing style (I know, I'm no great stylist, but I'm not a professional writer. This is only my opinion.) I must have underlined the phrase "of its own accord" thirty times? For some reason, the repetition of that phrase annoyed me to no end.

This is the reason I've been avoiding Winter Season. I'm scared of it. I want to know about the real life of a dancer, but if it's anything like Holding onto the Air....

I agree, Davidsbundlertanze. I enjoyed reading the book because it was about Farrell by Farrell and will thus have enduring value, but as autobiographies go it's not top of the line.

I didn't care for Winter Season overall because I thought the style was hopelessly mushy, but it also presents a valuable snapshot of NYCB, Farrell, and an ordinary dancer's life and so it's worth reading. I just passed over certain sections for reasons that will be obvious once you get to them. Bentley's writing has gotten much better over the years. I admire her book on Karinska.

I absolutely enjoyed "Winter Season". I thought it was a true representation of life in a company as large, competitive and demanding as NYCB. That is one of the reasons why I rushed out to by Farrell's book because it was co-authored by Bentley. I found it to be very dry. When I left it by accident on a flight from NY to Portland (are there really any accidents?) I did not run out to replace it.

What was I thinking? I will definitely read Winter Season for Farrell info. Thanks dirac! I will also try to read her book on Karinska.

Before taking a 12 hour flight last year, my friend gave me John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany ("I love this book! You must read this book!") Ugh. I wish I had left it on the plane. Or better yet, thrown it at the propeller.

The book is an inside look as a member of the corps. It is mostly about Bentley but a very good read!!!

Ok...so i went back to Farrell-(just until i get Baronova's)-and i just noticed something. Whereas Villella and Kirkland both mention her in their autobiographies, Farrell hasn't, SO FAR, mentioned none of them. I'm curious if she will...

In a way, Villella and Kirkland had no choice. Very hard to talk candidly about dancing at New York City Ballet in the Sixties and Seventies without discussing Farrell and her effect on the company, even in her absence.


Farrell does mention Kirkland briefly, saying that she saw her dance only once, and one gets the impression she didn't approve of Kirkland's book, big surprise. (I think in some ways her book is a response to Kirkland, and deliberately so.) Apart from d'Amboise and Martins (and Jorge Donn), Farrell doesn't have all that much to say about her partners, it's true. I'm not saying the others go entirely without mention, but she tends to say little except things like thanking Adam Luders for his support in her last struggling years.

Farrell mentions Villella early in her book, in connection with his dancing Oberon to her Titania. "But Titania's real dancing is not performed with Oberon, but with two other partners." She's talking about Conrad Ludlow (Titania's cavalier) and Richard Rapp as Bottom. "Dancing with Conrad, which I was to do many times over the next years, was quite simply, heaven; he seemed to be able to absorb every possible misstep or snag and leave his partner looking calm and impervious." She had more trouble dancing with Rapp as Bottom, until she got a kitten and got to know how to cuddle a pet.

...so she just left Balanchine, got married and moved with Bejart...let's see...(oh, and surprise for me, in between she danced a full Swan Lake as a guest artist somewhere, in which she collapsed during the black swan coda. I wonder if there's any pic of her in the black tutu ). For those of you who read it already...does it gets more interesting...?

No, but there's a reason the curse in China is "May you live in interesting times."