If only they were speaking of the architect, but, no, this is undoubtedly a reference to Richard Rodgers, the composer. Secrest wrote the 2001 biography of Rodgers, Somewhere for Me.

I'd like to say that this was an interesting interview, but it was so short that it never seemed to go in depth. I could call it tantalizing, but I think a more suitable adjective is unsatisfying.

I assumed the author and Ms. Secrest were referring to the rather well-known British architect Richard Rogers, not the composer with the similarly spelled name. Rogers designed the Millenium Dome in London and many other notable structures.

Interesting short article, thanks. It made me want to find more about Salvador Dali, only touched on briefly in the article.

(and thanks to Rachel Aviv for the interview) -

I suspect that Frank Lloyd Wright's genius might have had something to do with becoming egoless through escape into the present; by, in his case, immersing himself in his art. I say "escape" because you describe what I take to be a fanatical use of egolessness. Though letting go of ego is the door to the sublime, one becomes fanatical going through it without cleaning up. Had he repaired his self-hate and untangled his resulting messy life - if he'd sincerely done a good long round of psychotherapy, say - who knows what his egolessness, as reflected in his architecture, might have brought him, and us?

But egolessness, yes - look to it for unlocking creativity. In many cases, fanatical or otherwise, it can make a genius of even just another person.

Best,

Monty

(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

Ms Secrest has written biographies of some of the most important artists of our time.

How terribly sad that in this interview, the name of one of them, Richard Rodgers, could not have been spelled properly. Call me a ninny, but this undermines credibility for me.

Secrest is a passionless biographer. Nowhere in her books on Bernstein or Sondheim or Rodgers do you get the sense of excitement that comes with creating a new show, or the accomplishment that is the finished work. Thus it doesn't surprise me a bit that that, having dropped a real bomb about the Rodgers book, she doesn't bother to say what the information was that lead to a death threat, or even whether she ultimately went ahead and published it.

Her books are a collection of facts, and facts aren't bad in a biography, obviously. But in the Sondheim bio I learned nothing new. It was all there already, primarily in Sondheim and Co., but in other books, as well. He was up front for the first time about being gay. But even considering that, what a dull, plodding approach she took towards this aspect of his life. I guess she didn't want to be exploitative, which is good. But putting the reader to sleep isn't such a great choice, either.