No comments about People Weekly: Private Lives : The Year in Review : 1991 (People - Private Lives).

5 comments about Affair to Remember, An.

1. I found An Affair to Remember a truly remarkable portrait of Hepburn and Spencer's lives (before and after they met). The book was interesting and well written. A great pick for anyone interested in either actor.



2. These two screen giants met on the set of Woman of the Year in 1942 and were together until Spencer died of a heart attack, shortly after wrapping up Guess Whose Coming to Dinner in 1967. This book chronicles their remarkable, romantic pairing in an era where a movie star's private life could remain hidden from a prying public. Spencer was married to a devoted Catholic, Louise, and he refused to divorce her. He also felt a tremendous sense of guilty about his deaf son. So marriage was out of the question, but Kate didn't care, she just wanted she be with Spencer, and she was, following him all over the world to sit worshipfully at his feet.

   Andersen dutifully chronicles the nine classic Tracy-Hepburn films and gives some intriguing behind-the-scenes glimpses into each movie. There is also much information about Tracy's legendary bouts with the bottle, his brief fling with Gene Tierney in the early 50's and Kate's affair with Howard Hughes in the 1930's. All the bases are covered, but I wish Andersen would have interviewed more people close to the duo. Still, an engrossing read and essential for anyone enamored with either Spencer or Kate.




3. I have been looking for years for a Spencer Tracy biography and this is about as close as I could find. I have to say I was very pleasantly surpried by this book. First off, it is a quick and easy read and is especially well written for one of these Hollywood tomes. Secondly, rather than just telling the story of the Tracy/Hepburn love affair, it gives you so much background on both stars that I feel as though I have gotten my long sought after Tracy bio. Finally, the book helps the reader to understand that there really is no understanding a love like Tracy and Hepburn shared. Neither could put it into words and neither seemed interested in doing such. Rather than a lot of psycho babble that you usually get in these types of books, the author realizes that there is no accounting for taste and there is no explaining love.



4. I have always thought that Tracy and Hepburn were a Great couple in Movies, but they were amazing in real life too. The book was a very good history of each of their lives and how they became intertwined. I think it is one of the best books that I have ever read.



5. If you like/love Tracy and Hepburn in movies, you'll love this book. It's a true account of their lives and how their affair came about, how it was hidden to the world (insiders in Hollywood knew all about it). In fact, it was so well hidden (Kate used to always slip in the back way at hotels), that Tracy's wife upon meeting Hepburn told her she was shocked, that she thought the affair was only a rumor. A very good read, you won't be disappointed.

5 comments about Ringmaster!.

1. If you live in a mobile home, have to drive an old car with no wheel covers, do your laundry at a laundomat, or have a menial job such as operating a lunchwagon or cleaning motel rooms --- and you enjoy being mocked for it by a millionaire opportunist ---- then this movie is for you! This film exploits and is insulting to the black culture, women, members of broken homes, homosexuals, poor people, the religiously chaste, et al. Alas, we are all just a bunch of voyeuristic trash . . . except for Jerry Springer. Jerry, of course, is totally balanced but slightly befuddled as chaos reigns around him. BALONEY. He attepts to redeem himself near the close by browbeating a "religious fanatic" in the audience in defense of his guests. Then the teary-eyed closing scenes which suggest that "poor trailer trash people" might actually have some positive values and emotions (OH, REALLY?!). This guy is a parasite.



2. With 49 reviews currently in here, I don't need to go in depth on this one. I am sure that premise, synopsis etc. has been discussed at length by prior reviewers.
   
   This movie happened on me a few days ago, as leaves on trees clouded my sattelite dish and all I could receive was national television channels in Norway (including a couple of commercial ones). I had read nothing about it, and just came across the opening titles as I zapped through the 4 sorry channels at my disposal.
   
   It immediately caught my eye.
   
   I watched it all the way through, promising myself at the very beginning that once this film gets boring or stupid, I'll do what I had previously intented to do, which was watch a DVD I had borrowed from a friend. At no point during the film did I feel the urge to stop watching.
   
   Obviously, a lot of people will thrash a movie like this. It's main charachters engage in lewd, obscene and morally questionable acts all the way throughout the film. Many people will be put off by this nasty and/or downright trashy behaviour, but it resonnated with me.
   
   I know people like this. I have at least one friend who has slept with bot mother and daughter in some backwaters place in Florida. I have at least one ex-girlfriend who has done a guy that also her mother has done. And as to this x-gf; the things she put me through, would have been solid Jerry Springer and/or Ricki Lake show, had we had those in Scandinavia. And she had similar stories with most other boyfriends she had done. I'd compare her with the trailer trash daughter in this movie without a second of hesitation. According to the eyes of the beholder, she could be either slightly more or slightly less sexy than this charachter in "Ringmaster".
   
   After seeing it, I conferred with my Video & DVD guide, a book from 2003 (paperback). It awarded the film with a turkey symbol, and discarded it as pure and utter sleaze. Well, this particular paperback has families as target audiences, but still, that was too easy a dismissal. I couldn't quite believe that everybody would miss the point completely, and later conferred with Rottentomatoes.com. It didn't have a 0% fresh rating, as one might expect. Instead it had an 18% fresh rating. Most memorably, Roger Ebert, arguably America's (and perhaps the world's) finest movie critic, awarded it two - 2 - out of four possible stars, and provided a decent and just comment on it.
   
   But Ebert probably never experienced people and/or conditions like these in his own life. Had he had such experiences, I believe he would have awarded it three stars.
   
   I give it four out of five stars. I don't see how a movie like this one could have been made much more realistically. The finish is very much like that of a TV movie, but I gather that it was in wide theatrical release. I believe the TV movie finish is justifiable, as these are NOT larger-than-life charachters on display here. On the contrary, they are everyday people of the somewhat less fortunate kind, and should be portrayed as such.
   
   This story is not earth-shattering. It is pretty much a feel-good film, and has no big central theme that is intended to be revelatory or remarkably uplifting. It is a movie that paints probably a quite fair picture of both ex-politician (mayor of Cincinnati, was he?) -turned-talk-show-host Jerry Springer, and of the knd of people who one would think constitutes a mean average of the ususal fair he and his TV show collaborators and henchmen deal with on a daily basis.
   
   For the sake of entertainment, the charachters are to varying degrees more animated than one would expect from such a demographic, and maybe in some instances slightly less. Like Ebert states, the actors mostly do a fine job of portraying their charachters in a decent but somewhat superficial manner (this IS a comedy-drama, not pure comedy or pure parody), and no charachter is taken to the level of ridicule and/or outright parody.
   
   We can empathize with these people - or at least we can if we have actual real life experience that compels us to believe that these people could be for real. (If one reflects upon it, an all-out-realistic and down to the nitty-gritty movie about people from these demographics, could just as well have played as Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers"; all-be-it at the opposite and most extreme end of the scale of mild-to-excessive portrayal of the denizens of trailer parks and such).
   
   There are touching moments, such as the very plausible emptyness, lonelyness and doubts felt by the trailer park mother when she is all alone in her hotel room.
   
   I can recommend this movie. It's not Saturday night fare or a "date movie". It's something you could watch on your laptop while on a Greyhound-bus or an interstate train. It's something to watch in your dorm room on a night that your schedule is empty, or if you're in sick from work with the flu. It won't change your life, but it'll be a whole lot more easy-going on your senses than actually watching an episode of the televised Jerry Springer show... Where the TV-show is chaotic and in-your-face, this little flick gives you enough background to actually empathize, more or less understand and possibly even believe the "guests" Springer has on his usual shows.
   
   No small feat that.



3. Another Round DVD, it plays a movie. If you're seriously interested in this movie, you're probably still using Beta Max tapes...



4. Laura Morton is a co-author and owns a television production company. Gerald Springer earned a BA in political science from Tulane University, a law degree from Northwestern University, and became one of the country's youngest mayors in 1977 Cincinnati. He became a top-rated news anchor, then world-famous for his interview show. This book has no index. I've heard Jerry on his radio talk show; he is smarter than the character he plays on TV. You can read this book for a clue to his personality. Will he run for Senator from Ohio? I think he would be as good as Warren Harding (seriously). [If you take away the music and singing, an opera like `Carmen' is like a Jerry Springer Show.]
   
   Chapter 1 tells about the beginning of the show. Why does anyone watch it? Strictly for laughs, or schadenfreude. Jerry shows his irreverence (p.8). Why show bigots (p.15)? His show is like an exception report (p.16) It's great fun and pays very well (p.41). While at law school Jerry took a summer job in Cincinnati at a prestigious law firm. He worked on Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign, then to lower the voting age to 19 (p.49). After he ran for Congress he was called up for active duty in the Army (p.52). In 1972 he was elected to the Cincinnati city council. He improved the transit system and lowered the fare (p.59). Jerry explains the check to that health club (pp.59-61). After this he was elected mayor of Cincinnati. Later he ran for governor, and lost. Jerry became a news anchorman during the 1980s. In 1991 his TV station assigned him to "a fluff talk show" (p.85). It started as a copy of Donahue, and then evolved based on their ratings. They would show life as is rarely seen on TV (p.101). Entertainment, not information. He doesn't pander to mainstream tastes (p.104). Jerry explains himself (p.106).
   
   Chapter 8 explains how business works behind the scenes. Truthful stories that are outrageous are preferred (p.109). They don't pay guests except for expenses (that alone can attract thrill seekers). They don't fake shows, but can be fooled (p.110). Are their critics hypocrites (p.113)? News programs can exploit people (p.140). ["How do you feel about that?"] His co-workers get pages to tell about their work. The owners of the show want "life as it is, even if it isn't pretty" (p.189). Does Jerry really believe that entertainment is causing "kids walking into classrooms with their guns" (p.191)? Doesn't his show make weird behavior seem normal? They were allowed to do anything to attract viewers (p.203). They surpassed Oprah, the first talk show to ever do this. Is TRUTH a coincidental by-product of the news business (p.211)? "The truth is, whenever the senses are involved, what is most pleasurable or most intense isn't necessarily good" (p.241). [His personal experiences?]
   
   Some claim that Jerry's show is a fake, they have actors on. How different would that be from most of the television that has paid performers to entertain the viewers? Can they make that stuff up? [Jerry's breakfast seems very wrong. He should eat a hearty breakfast and a light supper.] The fault of this show is to present the abnormal and outrageous as if it were just daily life. Readers of true crime know how these romantic triangles are often resolved.



5. I just can't understand Jerry Springer. He is a prominent figure in left wing politics, he was even the Democratic mayor for Cincinnati. And while many liberals actually care about the financially less fortunate, Springer uses them to further inflate his already oversized bank account. Whether it be rural "white trash" or people from the ghettos and barrios, his goal appears to be selling the moral plight of the poor to an audience that views this underclass with contempt. The problem is that the lion's share of his audience is the underclass. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that Springer is not presenting his program through a TV, but through a mirror.
   
   Movies like Ringmaster make me mad at people who say the movie studios are going to the dogs. That is an insult to that wonderful animal. Anyhow, this was nothing more than a cheap attempt to cash in on someone whose star rose way too high. Some solace can be taken because near rioting broke out in major cities from people trying to be as far away from the theaters as they could be when this turd of a film opened. Yet, the damage was done. I'm sure that some ambitious, idealistic filmaker got his/her project rejected so this crapola could get greenlighted. Hopefully the studio exec that did so got fired and found a job that suited his personality better - Such as scraping condoms off a Walmart parking lot, or selling cheap Souljah Boy ringtones at a mall kiosk. Or better yet, maybe he's going to be the jilted alcoholic Neo-Nazi lover of a lesbian midget with Irritable Bowel Syndrome on next Tuesday's episode.

1 comments about The Last Days of T.E. Lawrence: A Leaf in the Wind.

1. I have read several books about TEL, but none, outside of Jeremy Wilson's bio of Lawrence, present such a minutely detailed and meticulously researched collecton of information as is shared by the authors of this gem. Extensive description is given regarding the work he performed at his last RAF station at Bridlington on the Yorkshire coast, and about the route he apparently took bicycling south to Dorset after retiring. Somehow they even found and reproduced a supposed diagram of the damage exhibited on the wrecked cycle. Listed in it's pages, even, are details about the arrangement of rooms and furnishings in the Clouds Hill cottage, and a more extensive roster of the names of attendees at his funeral service at the Moreton church. It is a veritable mine of recollections about TEL which only those ever fascinated by this complex, gifted, and enigmatic hero can truly savor.

5 comments about The Princess Who Changed the World (Diana Princess of Wales).

1. This glutinous tribute to England's Great Whore and Traitoress made me want to spew.



2. This book seems to be either an attempt to just make money from Diana's death, or perhaps a belated apology for the trash he had written about Diana in his earlier book. This book is more sympathetic to Diana, but not as extensive in the biographical coverage of Diana's life, mostly about the last days of her life.



3. A good book about the lovely and wonderful Diana though perhaps not the best I've ever read. Still, those of us who truly loved and admired this wonderful woman will want to read it.

   To the "Reader From Oxford England" whose nasty review appeared above: Why bother to share your vapid and meaningless thoughts? My suggestion for you is to go and find other Diana-bashers, such as that two-faced Robert Fellowes, and have a great big BLOW-FEST with one another!!




4. I felt the author attempted to shed new insight on a beautiful woman who died far too early in her short life. Prince Charles said it best once...he felt that in time she would have come back to him, possibly very ill, and he would have taken care of her. I do believe, in spite of what he had told the press in his famous BBC interview, that he did love her. She was the mother of their boys.



5. I get so tired of hearing people "trash" a woman who (although she made her share of mistakes--like everyone else),did so many things that brought joy and happiness to the lives of so many people--usually the less fortunate.. Sure, she was a Princess, and wealthy and famous, but she also lived a life full of pain. Money and fame cannot take away the pain other people caused her. She was thrown into a lifestyle and a family who did very little to help her. She wanted to learn! No one wanted to bother to teach her. Just throw her to the wolves...She did very well, despite all of the troubles she had to deal with in her own life. She tried to put her unhappiness aside to help others. How many people do that in the world we Live In today. All people seem to care about is themselves. Frankly, even though Diana made mistakes, she also tried very hard to deal with her problems, while helping others with theirs. And she couldn't have possibly been a better mother to her children. She just wanted and needed love, like everyone else in the world! I am very proud that I knew a woman who did as much to help others, as Diana did. Anyone who wants to "knock" her, should try living the life she had to live and see how well they do!!!

No comments about Kerry: Story of a Survivor.

No comments about Three Queer Lives: An Alternative Biography of Naomi Jacob, Fred Barnes, and Arthur Marshall.

3 comments about The Passions of Howard Hughes.

1. OK, I didn't read the real book. I got the abridged cassette out of the library because I thought it might be fun. Who isn't interested in learning more about the "real" Howard Hughes, he of the legendary germ phobia and foot long fingernails. His ex-wife, Terry Moore, has teamed up with Jerry Rivers,more than likely a reject from The Star or National Enquirer, to come up with a trashy expose that belongs in the annals of the truly tasteless. Do we really need to hear repeatedly about Howard's throbbing member (I'm using these words because I don't know if reviewers are allowed to use the slang vulgarities used by Moore routinely), or starlets doing things to him that Monica did to Bill behind closed White House doors. Not to mention how she describes the wiles Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn employed to keep Hughes interested. Thank God Davis is gone, and Hepburn too old to care. All of this squalor is delivered by Moore in a peppy (and loud) harangue reminiscent of a high school cheerleader. What was anyone thinking when they released this lemon? And how does Moore know enough about what went on behind closed doors to quote dialogue? Was she in Bette Davis' bathroom when the great Davis emerged from the bath like Venus on the half shell to unbuckle Hughes pants and ...? You get the idea. Save your money and cling to your own image of Howard Hughes. It has to be less demeaning than the one presented here.



2. After suffering through this book, I am questioning the credibility of the Author's claim to be married to Howard Hughes. It was not a poignant story of a wife about her husband as I thought it should have been. Instead, it was a sordid expose of his sexual conquests mixed in with his last days on this earth. Although Hughes made many problems, I felt that this book gave a low blow to our memory of the man. In addition, a question kept repeating over and over in my head?
   
   How would she know all of this stuff? She wasn't even there.



3. I liked this book. Yes, Howard Hughes did some great things and they are mentioned in the book. But he also had a human side which was also shown in the book. A real page turner and well written.

5 comments about Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst.

1. I call this book a must read for anyone interested in learning about our history during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Although its not a history lesson like you would get in school, it is a fascinating look at how W.R.Hearst was able to shape it through his publications. This man was someone who seemed to think that his money supply would never run dry. He spent coutless dollars on art masterpieces and other antiquties. If you have ever been to or just been curious about his castle at San Simeon CA then you will find it entertaining to learn how he went about putting this landmark together. You also get a look into his personal life that is equally interesting. I found this book to be one of those books that really does keep you up at night turning the pages. A well written book indeed.



2. It isn't often that one reads a well-respected, full-length biography of a prominent American personality, only to put the book down with a newfound, passionate and complete disgust for the central character. That is how W.A. Swanberg's 1961 classic "Citizen Hearst" made me feel about William Randolph Hearst. I can say that about no other biography I've ever read.

   Indeed, the derogatory adjectives that apply directly to William Randolph Hearst are virtually inexhaustible: irresponsible, pampered, egotistical, hypocritical, lascivious, presumptuous, adulterous, rapacious, etc. One searches in vain for admirable or redeeming qualities in Hearst. Even supposed acts of benevolence and charity - which usually centered on the one thing that meant nothing to him, money - always seem to smack of insincerity and self-interest. None of this, of course, is meant to detract from Swanberg's phenomenal account of the publisher's life, which is truly engrossing and highly recommended by this reader.

   Hearst was born in the lap of luxury and never knew the value of a dollar earned by a day's work, yet for over half-a-century he fashioned himself the defender of the common man and was a leading voice in Progressive politics. Far from creating a profitable media empire, Hearst's newspapers lost money at a staggering rate for well over a decade (Swanberg's account is frustrating in that he never clarifies exactly when Hearst's efforts turned profitable). The simple secret of Heart's success was that his deceased father's mines could churn out precious metal at a faster pace than he could squander the profits on his newspapers and chasing the chimera of the presidency. He took a mistress half his age when he was in his fifties and married with five children, and devoted all his immense energy and resources into making her the biggest film star in the world, despite her rather limited talent. An early hero to the radical left, in old age he reversed course and emerged as one of the earliest and most virulent anti-communists and opponents of the progressive income tax - a measure he once championed.

   Swanberg delivers this amazing life in an extremely fluid and engaging - indeed, exciting - narrative. He notes that people have never been able to adequately explain William Randolph Hearst. The instinct was - and still is - to use the world "great" when describing him, but great in what way? Swanberg offers up his own conclusion: Hearst was the greatest loser of his generation. Not exactly a flattering assessment, but nonetheless a very accurate one. In the end, Hearst failed in business, in politics, in marriage, and in the movie business. For better or worse, he left an indelible stamp on the American experience, and for that he should be remembered, if not exactly revered.




3. Everything I knew about William Randolph Hearst I learned from the movie CITIZEN KANE. So when I found a cheap, second-hand copy of CITIZEN HEARST, I decided to pick it up and educate myself. Not only was this informative, but highly entertaining. A man capable of rousing such fiercely diametric emotions from people reading his biography decades after his death must surely have raised the ire of his contemporaries something fierce. It is with very mixed emotions that the modern reader comes to understand the events of Heart's life, but those feelings probably aren't a million miles away from what was felt at the time. While reading this biography I kept leaping between admiration and loathing for the subject -- an experience I've never quite had before.
   
   My copy of CITIZEN HEARST is over six hundred pages and written in a smaller than average font size. Yet, as the biographer points out, with the sheer amount of stuff that Hearst accomplished (or at least attempted) in his life, it would be easy to dedicate an entire volume just to single individual activities. But, W. A. Swanberg does a great job of summarizing the main details of Hearst's life without being overly superficial. I even enjoyed the opening sections, dealing with William Randolph Heart's childhood. Many times in biographies, this ends up being a list of dates, schools and relatives; yet Swanberg defies the norm and gives the child Hearst an interesting story.
   
   Of course, the main account is everything that Hearst did after his early-twenties, when he took a fancy towards the journalistic world and obtained a newspaper from his wealthy father. Hearst's subsequent ideas of journalism, his later political ambitions (he fixed his sights on the White House, but never did get higher than the United States House of Representatives), and his obsessive collection of art and property are all laid out meticulously and clearly.
   
   And the information imparted is absolutely unbelievably fascinating. We think the media is pretty bad today, but after reading this I realize that the today's Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs have absolutely nothing on the yellow journalism of that era. Organizing divisions of reporters to arrive at the scene of a crime before the police do or staging an elaborate midnight rescue of a Cuban "princess" from the Spanish army -- can we really imagine Bill O'Reilly or Aaron Brown attempting those ratings stunts?
   
   In addition to detailing Heart's business and political aspirations, Swanberg also delves into an aspect of Heart's life that was brilliantly captured in Orson Welles' portrayal of Charles Foster Kane (the thinly veiled fictionalized version of Heart himself). Just as Welles' character was a ruthless and ambition man, who is also shown happily spending hours using silly shadow puppets to entertain a sad, lonely girl, Swanberg introduces us to a serious, focused, cutthroat and dangerous man who was exceedingly soft-spoken, kind on a personal level and who would easily break into goofy vaudeville-style dances to amuse his friends.
   
   This biography not only informed me, but also got me curious on a variety of related subjects that I intend to study further. I knew almost nothing, for example, about Hearst's intervention in the lead up to the Spanish-American War (Swanberg practically gives him sole credit for the entire enterprise). Now, I'm dying to read more about it.
   
   This is definitely one of the best biographies I've read, though certainly not about one of the best people. Based on the information provided, Hearst was an impossible man to pin down and understand. Swanberg posits a metaphor of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Hearst could be one man around some people, the other in different circumstances. In any case, this biography would appear to be an almost impossible task, and yet Swanberg has done a yeoman's service. I'd recommend this even to someone with no interest in the area because the writing and the subject are just too compelling.



4. William Randolph Hearst, an only child, was born at the time of the Civil War to a successful gold and silver prospector and a former school teacher. His mother had thwarted cultural ambitions and poured all her energy into raising her son. He was a victim of a drastic amount of spoiling, creating an emotionally unsatisfactory human being. All three Hearsts possessed physical vitality.
   
   His father bought the San Francisco Examiner to settle a debt. William's interest in newspapering began with his service on the Harvard Lampoon. He persuaded his father to let him take over the Examiner. The newspaper embraced the gee-whiz emotion. Hearst wooed the masses, not the rich. He surrounded himself with eccentrics including Ambrose Bierce and Joaquin Miller. The newspaper attacked Huntington and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
   
   To staff his New York paper, the Journal, Hearst raided the Pulitzer paper. Hearst had the capacity to offer enormous salaries since his mother had sold her interest in the Anaconda Mine and given him the proceeds. In the presidential election Hearst opted to fight for William Jennings Bryan whom the Wall Street interests hated.
   
   Richard Harding Davis and Samuel Remington, an artist, were sent to Cuba. Remington complained of boredom. Hearst told him to send the pictures and Hearst would furnish the war. Stephen Crane and others covered the Greco-Turkish War.
   
   Newspaper jingoism is evidenced in the Hearst coverage of the Maine disaster. The public was deceived, misled, tricked. Hearst had a fixation about circulation, believing that advertising dollars would follow.
   
   The man was a mass of contradictions. His colossal egocentricity put him at one remove from others. Lincoln Steffens interviewed him five times to penetrate the mystery of his character. He was incurably romantic. Hearst was hobbled by his journalistic recklessness, political unintelligibility, and personal eccentricities in his path through life.
   
   The book, a life and times treatment, is filled with colorful personalities and events.



5. I got this book while visiting the Hearst castle which I felt to be so beyond ostentatious as to be offensive. And, truth be told, I read it over months. Not that it was bad. In fact the book was delightful. But there is so much to read about and Hearst is so, well, unimportant!
   
   I have felt for many years--ever more so after visiting the castle--that William Randolph Hearst was the US equivalent of Joseph Stalin. He had more power than he knew what to do with, more control than was reasonable, and less integrity than most. The book didn't surprise me much. If a reader is well informed on, say the Spanish American war, s/he wouldn't be surprised at the quote from Hearst that, you provide me with the photos and I'll provide you with the war. (To that effect).
   
   He was a mass of contradictions. He paid his staff well, better than the other newspapers, but he was also ruthless with critics and opponents. The author stresses that frequently, especially in the last chapter (where, for a second, I thought I was reading a treatise on Hearst's integrity. On the contrary, Swanberg denies that integrity.) But that "compassion" that Hearst seemed to express was to those who played the game according to Heart's rules. And that's the key trait of a hard-core narcissist!
   
   There was perhaps a little less stress on the sensationalist nature of the Hearst press in the text. (And, unfortunately, its low-brow nature I think has affected the nature of American media to this day!) But I don't want to downgrade the text any points as I may have gotten caught up in other details and lost track of that which almost goes without saying.
   
   While I tend to be cynical of the American electorate, the book suggests some items that redeem us: Hearst had run for office (I think he was elected to the House for one term) but he had his eye on the presidency. Not only was he not nominated or elected, but, as the author points out toward the end of the book, to be endorsed by Hearst was almost the political kiss of death. Candidates whom Hearst endorsed were almost sure to lose!
   
   And his self-service also affected his politics: He was ostensibly the candidate of "the little guy" earlier on, but once he reached wealth beyond belief, he was adamantly opposed to things like income tax--while he had supported the concept earlier!
   
   If I have a negative comment on the book, it may be, I confess, due to my preconceptions of Hearst: the author refers periodically (not obsessively) to Hearst as a "genius" because of his business expertise, etc. Well, I contend that if many people had the resources Hearst had, they could "make it" and be proclaimed genius too. Indeed, I'm amazed at Hearst's spending habits. Even deep into the Great Depression, if Hearst saw something he wanted, whether worth $50,000 or $14 million, he got it. And he got it again, for himself, for Miss Davies, his mistress, for his friends (those, again, who played his game). He finally, when things started looking pretty bad, had to sell a few castles and assorted other ostentations.
   
   When the economy came around, he took off again. Big deal. He still had virtually unlimited resources at his disposal so referring to Hearst as a "genius" gives him more credit than he deserves.
   
   The book was full of detail, and there were footnotes on nearly every page lending credibility to the detail.
   
   If you're into Hearst--either love or hate him--I recommend the book. But keep a few things in mind, e.g., Heart's incredible narcissism, and how he virtually destroyed Orson Welles after the release of "Citizen Kane," quite obviously a critique of Hearst. Of course, I can understand why Hearst may have been offended by it, but he had an inordinate amount of power by nature of his wealth and his ability to INFLUENCE through his senstationalist, low brow media. And that's unforgiveable.

No comments about Then - The Vision - Now - A New Beginning - New York.