This book should definitely be used as a fine example of relationship pathology. It has nothing to do with the artistic life of a genius, just about a woman's idea of her importance by association. Reading it is actually nauseating on so many levels; and this dysfunctional relationship claimed an innocent victim at the end. Spare yourself this self-referential piece of trash.

Not that Pollock was a great person himself...but dont read this creature's book...she is a vain, superficial,predatory,skank...her ticket to her success lies directly on Pollock's death and death only...had he lived..he would of tired of her or she would of found a more immediate artist to use...and would even be th"c" celebrity she is today...

Although Ruth Klingman is a clumsy writer (ie we silently went into the silent house.), the book was of value based on the time period it explores.
The story takes place in Jackson Pollock's last year, when his life became totally unravelled. He has alienated his friends and colleagues;started an affair with Klingman; his wife seperated from him and he spent most of his time either drunk or otherwise unable to function. If you can get beyond Ruth Klingman's overblown efforts to make this a romance story (which it is not), It tells of Pollock's unnerving behavior in the final few months before his death.
There is significant art world gossip about Ruth Klingman during this time. She is said to have asked for a list of the best painters in New York at the time and when she was told the best was Pollock, was said to lay claim on him immediately. Within a year of Pollocks death she had started an affair with #2 on the list (Willem de Kooning) which lasted on again off again until 1962. I think the only reason she didn't also have an affair with Franz Kline (#3 on the list) was because he died before her final break up with de Kooning. Because of these stories, her claims in the book that she loves Pollock forever and that he is the only person she ever loved is hollow. It seems she wants the reader to think she is both a sympathetic character and more important than she really was. It comes off as pretentious. It would have made her both more believable and more sympathetic if she would have told of what she has done with her life since the accident in 1956 and perhaps included an honest assessment of her life in the afterward.
However,I would recommend this book, not as a sole source for his biography, but to flesh out other biographies on Pollock.

A poorly written, self-serving book written by a bit player who is still feeding on Pollock 47 years after his drunken, ignominious death. Pathetic.

Ruth Kligman's account of her "love affair" is tacky, self-serving and poorly written. It's a shame that this adultress continues to live off of a "fame" taken at the expense of the suffering of others through the exploitation of a great artist's demise, a "friend's" death, a undeserving wife, etc. etc.