5 comments about Selected Letters of Martha Gellhorn.

1. As someone I would love to have known, Martha Gelhorn ranks right up there with Carly Simon...who, thankfully, is still alive. She is the only one of Hemingway's four wives who left him. This after an affair-turned-to-marriage that began when she walked into a Key West bar and introduced herself to him.
   
   Her extensive correspondence detailed in this book, and her life subsequent to Hemingway, reveal a woman, who though emotionally healthier than Ernest, had her own demons to contend with. She is nevertheless a fascinating personality, widely traveled, a prolific author, and by all accounts a very engaging raconteur. She deserves to be notable in her own right and spent much of her life in a fight to be accorded someone other than Heminway's third wife. Though with a personage as large as Hemingway, that was a difficult struggle, this treatment of a segment of her correspondence certainly helps her individuality along by revealing the brilliant and complex person she was



2. This book is beautifully edited by Caroline Moorehead, the one woman in all the world who knows more than any other about dear old, trying old, basilisk-fierce Martha Gellhorn. The odd thing is that the publishers sent out an advanced uncorrected proof claiming that this was Gellhorn's "COLLECTED LETTERS" and now, months later, the dust has settled and the book has changed its title to "SELECTED LETTERS," perhaps a subtle difference but one that makes you wonder what went south at the last minute. If only the beloved investigative snoop, Gellhorn herself, was still here to look into this minor mystery! Warning, there is indeed a lot in it about Hemingway, but that's why many will be drawn to Gellhorn in the first place, and the other half of the readers will be wanting to know how a dogged spirit stays independent, especially in the face of huge sadnesses, There's an inspirational feel about the collection, surprising as it may seem, and even though tragedy seemed to overshadow her fun no matter where she went.
   
   Her dedication to reporting is in itself remarkable. Wasn't there ever a point where she paused and wondered what on earth good it did to do this particular job, or did she merely shrug off the moral niceties. She doesn't seem to have cared whose feelings she hurt, even those she loved (one of her novels was withdrawn from the UK when a dear friend, whose love life Gellhorn had written up and lightly salted with fiction, complained, first to the author, then to the courts) and her ire hangs high against those who have crossed her (especially Lillian Hellman, who must have been scared silly every day of her life with that menace Gellhorn still out for her blood).
   
   She had a weakness for "sophisticated" (often bisexual) men and Moorehead prints some "NOTES ON A SCANDAL" style letters outlining her embarrassing obsession with Leonard Bernstein, his genius, his private life, and his body. Really everything about him. "He's got quite a nice voice, plummy and deep, as if his mouth was pure, as if he'd never had a filling. The complexion of a white peach. He's worth it, this one. He's the one I've waited for." (My paraphrase of Judi Dench.) Another set of letters between Martha Gellhorn and Betsy Drake, the former wife of screen star Cary Grant, elicits more rueful confessions, for Drake shared a great secret with Gellhorn, that it may be liberating to step away from an adored and celebrated spouse, but at the same time every day you look in your mirror and you know that your obituary is going to say, "Ex-Wife of Blank."
   
   Gellhorn's passion for action, in Africa, Spain, wherever, covering the war in Vietnam for the Manchester Guardian, is rather better covered in Moorehead's great bio of the journalist, than in this book of collected, I mean selected, letters. In fact if you didn't have Moorehead's notes coming in every now and then to re-ground the story and put it into real perspective, you might as well be on a cloud.



3. To turn the pages of a collection of letters in our time, is to return to a time when people wrote, at leisure, at length and in great detail, to one another about trifles, confidences, and assorted themes. In our age of e-mails it is almost inconceivable. Inconceivable too is that Martha Gellhorn's letters, by Caroline Moorehead, brings this world before us with such force, that we are held captive from page to page, from the start to the last. Yet while her correspondents are many of them famous, it is true, it is the letters themselves that shimmer, that gives us images rare, reflections profound, letters for all of time.



4. Intelligent, dauntless, and restlessly peripatetic, Martha Gellhorn refused to be encumbered by what she called "the kitchen of life." Travel, men, seclusion and adversity all were stimulants to Martha's agile mind. "Normal people depend on other people, I roam in space", she once remarked.
   
   Like most complex personalities, Martha is difficult to peg, and even an intrepid reader who makes the effort to negotiate these 500-plus pages of letters may come away feeling dissatisfied. Martha was a prolific writer--these letters represent a minute fraction of her output, most of which she managed to destroy. Her surviving correspondences reveal a fluid writer, fueled by a "passionate desire to find SOMEONE to communicate with."
   
   She is unfailingly candid and insightful. Only in a few instances is she less than cordial, and only in a few instances does she seem free to totally enjoy the act of writing. These instances are instructive, involving her adopted son--whom she wrote to in tones of fearfully harsh admonishment, and her stepson, to whom she allowed herself to write freely and playfully. Oddly enough, both of these young charges shared the same name: Sandy.
   
   It is tempting at times to compare Martha's character to that of Katherine Hepburn (who attended Bryn Mawr at the same time), or to Isak Dinesen. Both of these women seemed to share Martha's brand of independence. However, Martha crossed paths with both, and in her recorded opinions, does not express admiration for either of them. To Martha, Hepburn and the Baroness Karen Von Blixen were both too patrician. Martha was not at one with the monied class, which she found wasteful and vainglorious. Martha liked to have things both ways in her life--she loved to mix it up, defending the underdog, and she also loved the freedom of getting away from the hurly-burly, keeping life at a distance.
   
   What was most impressed upon me by these letters was how much Martha was devoted to, and suffered for, her fiction writing. Martha gained her reputation as a war correspondent, but these letters leave no doubt that Martha truly wanted to be remembered for her books of fiction. She often agonizes over writer's block, her failing memory, and the self-doubts that plagued her.
   
   The final portrait that emerges here is of Martha as an unflaggingly energetic, unvanquished personality who periodically engaged with the world, and then fled to solitude in order to write about it. Her unflinching honesty and her humorous dismissal of all that was "bulls---t" are the qualities that drew people to her, and she is worthy of far greater renown than she currently holds.
   
   Carolyn Moorehead has provided two great touchstones in the biography, "Gellhorn: A Twentieth Century Life", and this large volume of letters. Now, I will move on to the volumes about war, and the available fictional works that Gellhorn left behind.



5. Martha Gellhorn did not cooperate with her biographers when she was alive and she did not make it easy for them after she died. She made her opinions on this matter quite clear: "...writers are diminished by having their lives known: they should only be known by what they write." She left many of her manuscripts and some letters and other papers to Boston University before she died, but she deliberately destroyed most of her letters. She probably hoped her correspondents would destroy the letters she sent them as well, and even specifically requested them to in some cases, but she knew a clean sweep would not be possible.
   
   Well, then. Should we respect her wishes and read only her many stories and articles? Or should we pry into her private life, in the hopes of learning something valuable that will add to her published writings? Or should we be completely honest and read her biographies and letters, knowing full well that although we will find out nothing that adds to her journalism or literature, we'll get an adventure story that rivals anything she ever wrote.
   
   Having tossed aside my misgivings when I picked up the first biography of Gellhorn, Nothing Ever Happens to the Brave by Carl Rollyson, I didn't hesitate when Caroline Moorehead's Gellhorn: A Twentieth Century Life came out. It was a foregone conclusion that I would read The Selected Letters of Martha Gellhorn. Sorry, Martha.
   
   In The Selected Letters, as in the Moorehead biography, we find out that Gellhorn was a difficult person. She could be rude and something of a bigot, although it may not be fair to judge her based on letters she wrote to friends. Still, suffice it to say that if I were to quote her on African Americans, or the Chinese, or the Italians, my review would not be published on this website. And while she loved to discuss and argue with friends and colleagues about politics, apparently she would not listen to anyone who disagreed with her regarding the Palestinians.
   
   Her relationship with her adopted son was painful to read about. Much has already been said about whether she was a good, or even a fit, mother, so I won't add my amateur opinion. However, it is interesting to note that, like so many parents in the Sixties, she considered her son's recreational drug use altogether different from her own frequent and liberal use of alcohol and amphetamines.
   
   An odd discrepancy occurs in a letter she wrote in 1991 to an old friend from the Spanish Civil War. In it, she mentions having taken four marriage vows. Even counting her early relationship with Bertrand de Jouvenal as a marriage, which it probably wasn't, she was married three times. Curious.
   
   The Selected Letters is a fascinating companion to Moorehead's biography of Gellhorn, although I can't honestly say it is a valuable addition. Gellhorn's best stories have already been told by Gellhorn herself. The letters show an unpolished side of Gellhorn's writing, for what that's worth. She wrote so many letters and such long letters that one is tempted to speculate that writing them was a way of putting off real writing, or perhaps a way of writing through all the clutter in her mind that had to be cleared out before the real writing started.
   
   Regrettably, Gellhorn was right about a writer being diminished by having her life known. But she would surely understand that the curious reader can't resist getting to the bottom of a great story.

5 comments about Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House.

1. The value of this book to me, quite frankly, was no more than a dollar. Most of it is complaining about how stressful his job was. There is no insight into how the Bush administration works, no apology for Fleischer's years of deliberately hazy answers to important questions during the Iraq invasion, and almost no memorable content.
   
   The one chapter which made this book worth a dollar was a long transcription of his favorite repartees with Helen Thomas. Even Fleischer had to admit she was the toughest character in the press room. I give him credit for having that deep respect for news reporting, and I give her credit for making his book interesting. Helen, I'd pay much more than a dollar for a book by you. Keep it up!



2. Ari provides an interesting book in his autobiography as President Bush's White House Press Secretary. I always hate to review books like this because they are so politically charged and ideologues on either side tend to get in a huff over what you say. I will endeavor to keep this as neutral as possible. This book sets out to accomplish many objectives but only hits half of them. First and foremost it is one of the best looks at the role of the press secretary and the sheer stress the job has on a person. Whether you like or hate President Bush there is no one who can deny that the role of press secretary is a hard job especially under a tight lipped and secretive white House. Andy Card's goal as chief of staff was to keep leaks to a minimum which frustrates the press leaving their only source of information the press secretary. When the press secretary is instructed not to discuss military matters it becomes even more adversarial. One of the interesting things learned from the book is what viewpoint the Press Secretary is supposed to have. I found it fascinating that he is only there to represent the views of the president and that does not necessarily have to be the wishes of the branches of government that report to the president.
   
   One of the other objectives was to provide a critical narrative of the press and give insight into the White House Press Crops. I found his look at the White House Press fascinating and he really does put you inside the room of the toughest reporters in the United States. He illustrates well his points about the adversarial nature of the press and the desire of the press to create conflict which leads to stories. Many times the same questions are asked over and over hoping for a slip that the Press Secretary cannot afford to give. One of the angles that I think he does handle poorly is the bias of the press. While there are voluminous studies to show that the press is slanted right Ari seems to not acknowledge that all media is biased in one direction or another. The White House press does not give passes to any president. People today do not trust the news they get from the press and rightly so due to the biases that are present be they Fox News or MSNBC. While he highlights the point of on the liberal media it is done far better by Benard Goldberg in his book Bias.
   
   Finally Ari tries to make a defense of President Bush and his policies/leadership style. Some of his book seems to be aimed at knocking down the arguments in the Price of Loyalty. While this is another viewpoint again the truth probably lies in the middle. Some of his defenses of trying to shift blame to the press for starting up the Iraq war are fairly ludicrous. Ari does not sit in on any of the national security briefings and the president preferred himself to comment on those matters leaving Ari in a hard position to comment on them after the fact. One of the things he does refute well that many agree with is the loyalty that Bush shows to those who are loyal to him. There is a clear look that Bush's leadership style does work within his White House and he is respected by the staff. Ari also seems to take it upon himself to set the record straight and show the country that Bush did not think of the war in Iraq in a vacuum that many other people including the press also had the same idea along the way. He is largely successful in this although he glosses over one of the critical mistakes. The landing on the USS Lincoln with the banner Mission Accomplished was one of the great errors in the press of fighting the war and it is skipped over here. I think Ari is right in saying that the press views any war that is long as a quagmire and Vietnam and any war where we win quickly is Desert Storm and must be over in a week. There is a lack of reality by the press which filters to the country.
   
   Overall an excellent book and very well done. Ari provides unique insight into the Bush White House and while it is biased it does not make it useless. He raises critical questions that require issues to be reexamined and while he is loathe to critize his former boss for the things he did wrong we still see a good look at Bush the man and the President.



3. When I found this book (on CD) in the sale rack I thought maybe I'd found a rare jewel. Figuring the early Bush years were old news and this book was sent to the sale rack been because of that.
   
   First off Ari should have never read his own book. He came off as a real complainer. A man who had written a book to continue to make excuses for his decisions. Notice I didn't say mistakes. He rarely stated a move of his without showing us how he was forced to do so. It was very sad. Even at one point the old Clinton administration pushes him around.
   
   The few moments he gives us of true inside action where wonderful. There may have only been three in the whole book. The Colin Powell condom story was one of them. Ari that's what the reader wanted in the book.
   
   What scared me was that Ari came off as extremely angry at the press. There is one woman reporter who he mocks endlessly in his vocal impersonation of her. I hope she doesn't hear the CD version or she is going to be super mad. Ari spends a very long chapter expaining how the press is unfair and bias. He uses graduation numbers instead of true stories. We all saw the press eat Bill Clinton alive...so it was hard to believe they were nicer to Bill then they were to George. That chapter should have met the shreader.
   
   Ari did show some spots of careless reporting but his use of "you should have believed the White House" was a weak response. After past White House administrations trying to "out sly" the press Ari should have known the press would not simply take him at his word. He came off sounding like a naive high school student.
   
   Several of the world stituations that happened while Ari was in office where handled with amazing skill in real life but Ari made it sound like he was rolled over. The moment where Bush took the megaphone in NYC was the most powerful moment in his presidency. Luckily I saw it because Ari barely mentioned it.
   
   Ari ducked and dodged the press for years. He's mad that he did it. He's still mad at them. The amazing strategies the Bush administration used to keep the American people informed are not mentioned in this book. I wanted to learn something. Instead I see Ari scolding a press member for a inaccurate story that hurt the White House then giving the same guy a hot breaking story in the next breath by accident AND letting the guy run it. What was his reasoning? It sounded weak and also like bad management.
   
   Was Ari out of his league? The book makes it appear so. Luckily I watch all this on television as an American citizen. I know the book paints the wrong picture. To the public Ari did a stand up job and he worked well to keep the American people informed. So next time you write a book Ari stick to your guns and be proud of what you did. It would make for a much better read.



4. Absolutely rip-roaring hilarious!! It appears that he is actually not trying to be comedic but when one reads "I will always admire the President's calm and self control" (pg. 140, referring to Bush listening to "My Pet Goat" after being informed that his contry is under attack), it should be obvious that we are in the presence of a comedic master or an idiot who manages to be very funny. Either way, one of the funniest books I have read! Minus one star for some tedious passages trying to show himself in a good light without being funny.
   The dialogues of george bush that are presented are totally unrealistic and seemed to be calculated to put him in a good light. For eg., he says Bush was a superb military commander as he left all the major decisions to the generals but then conveniently ignores Shinseki. In fact, most of the Iraq war dialogue is very funny now that we know more about what actually happened.



5. Did my opinion of the president change after reading this book? Not really. I read the book with a somewhat-open mind, in that the book is written from the personal perspective of someone who was there. Fleischer wrote from his perspective; gave his testimoy; in that respect, the books is very well written. We're also talking about someone who trusts the President implicitly, so he's going to defend him. So I can't consider this a totally "objective" account of what was going on in the White House during the time the war was being debated.
   
   I don't particuarly appreciate President Bush's policies and his way of thinking, but I do appeciate the fact that he doesn't change his mind once he makes a decision. (Most might say he won't admit he's made a mistake - that's a risk that's run with standing your ground.)
   
   What I did appreciate about the book was the insight into President Bush's character. It explains to me why he thinks the way he does, and helps me understand why he says what he does. Doesn't mean I appreciate what he says, but understanding a person goes a long way in formulating an opinion.
   
   I also appreciated the behind-the-scenes view into what was going on in the White House during the tense fall of '01.
   
   I loved the insight into the media. Do I think they're biased? Absolutely! The book explains the media as much as it does the White House. Being interested in journalism, I was wrapped up in that part of the book. Doesn't excuse their recent behaviors....but the atmosphere of pressure to get the news out as it happens makes people take corners. I can understand that too.
   
   Bottom line: if you're a Bush supporter, you'll love the book. If you a Bush loather, I don't see this book changing your mind. I wish, however, that you might be able to read it to understand why he is how he is...

5 comments about Ernie Pyle's War: America's Eyewitness to World War II.

1. This is a fascinating book, and this from a reader more into fiction than historical biography - but the best fiction writer would be hard pressed to come up with a character like Ernie Pyle.
   
   A page turning look into World War II from someone who could have been your neighbor but was far more than what you would have expected.
   
   I have no idea why a modern rendition of this story has not hit the big screen - it seems a natural, captivating story that would educate as well as entertain.



2. this must be THE book to read on war - what it's really like in all of its aspects - his description of the beach, after D-Day was gripping and haunting and it has stayed with me many years later -
   
   and how he relates the everyday and ordinary in war -
   
   and how, in any group or organization, it's often a small percentage of the people who are carrying the load - that's just one example of the many insights and truths in this book that relate to all of life, not just life in a war zone -
   
   and it is a great book for anyone to read - a stunning life achievement for ernie pyle -



3. James Toban has written a stunning book in "Ernie Pyle's War: America's Eyewitness to World War II". Toban has succeeded in giving readers the rare opportunity to see the human frailties concealed within one of America's greatest and most valuable World War II correspondents.
   
   James Toban present a picture of the complex Ernie Pyle; a man that entered the World War II carrying only a broken Remington typewriter and a deep desire to describe the life and hardships of the horrific world of the infantrymen to the American public. The reader will learn of the contradictory Ernie Pyle. The Ernie Pyle who despised war, but who could not stay away from the physical and emotional anguish of battle. The Ernie Pyle who loved his wife, but who continually left her behind to travel to the front lines. Ernie Pyle, the seemingly frail and terrified journalist who demonstrated his bravery by traveling to the front lines to be with and write about "his boys". Ernie Pyle, a genius for writing about the common soldier, but who needed constant reminding that he was the best at what he did. His articles became legendary and the hope and news link for Americans with loved ones in the front lines.
   
   James Toban's "Ernie Pyle's War: America's Eyewitness to World War II " is a must read for World War II readers and all readers who wish to know about the human spirit and about a plain old fashion brave American.



4. "Ernie Pyle's War" by James Tobin was a thorough read. Tobin described Pyle down to the very last detail, uncovering almost every aspect of his life. After reading this book, the reader had a clear view into Pyle's mind and was able to recognize the feelings he possessed about his professional and private life. The way Tobin intertwined Pyle's messages home with biographical details along with interviews of acquaintances, made this story an easy read. "Ernie Pyle's War" earned five "stars."
   Tobin's style of writing was one reason this book was so effective. He used partial quotes from Pyle to title his chapters, which brought an immediate sense of intimacy to the story. Tobin began the book with a chronological introduction to Pyle. This style of writing, although typical for biographies, was well suited for this story and not at all cliché. Readers were able to become acquainted with Pyle as a young man and then mature along with him as he grew into an established adult. By describing Pyle as a young man, readers were able to understand more clearly why he was the way he was as an adult.
   Tobin used vivid descriptions to paint a picture of Pyle in the minds of the readers. This was an important aspect because Pyle's physical demeanor was one of the main problems and/or benefits in his life. As a child and young adult, his size hindered his relationships. But, as a war correspondent, the people saw Pyle as more of a hometown boy rather than a studious journalist. This added to his success as a war correspondent.
   After transitioning into Pyle's career as a war correspondent, the story line became more tedious. Pyle was in and out of combat and the surface facts of his life were boring. Tobin, understanding the paleness of biographical data, used Pyle's messages home to spice up the story. Like most people, Pyle's life was not what it seemed to be. Besides leading a "glorified" life as a war correspondent, he had major problems at home. Tobin showed the audience this by weaving together Pyle's biographical information with the messages he sent home. This gave the reader a sense of what Pyle was actually feeling. Using these messages instead of his columns allowed reader's to see the "real" Pyle.
   Tobin uncovered personal feelings about his professional and personal life, which gave the reader a feeling of empathy toward Pyle. Showing that he did not feel like an outstanding reporter, let readers see Pyle was human. Tobin successfully showed the man behind the pen by opening up Pyle's mind to the audience. He did this by using Pyle's own letters and messages home that contained intimate details of his life. Without the added touch of Pyle's actual writing, the story would have failed to be as successful.



5. About the only complaint I can offer about this outstanding biography is that the title is slightly misleading. Ernie Pyle's years as a war correspondent are the subject of about three-quarters of the narrative, which is appropriate. It was the period in which he did his greatest work and achieved international fame. But this is more than just the story of those pivotal years; the first 25 percent of the text is an excellent overview of Pyle's childhood on an Indiana farm and his pre-war adventures in journalism, including a six-year stint in the thirties and forties as a kind of Charles Kuralt in print. Pyle and his wife roamed across the nation in their car, and he wrote about the people he encountered along the way--ordinary people, the sort who don't usually find themselves the subject of newspaper articles.

   When the war came, Pyle knew he had to answer the call to go overseas. But thankfully, he realized that he didn't need to provide the same sort of coverage every other journalist was doing. He would let them handle the stories of the grand strategy, interviewing the generals and prime ministers. He would tell the story of his average Joe, now transformed into G.I. Joe.

   James Tobin has a wonderful gift for storytelling and description. He introduces us to Pyle and the key players in his life so vividly we feel that we know them as flesh-and-blood individuals. He quotes from Pyle's works liberally enough that we get a true sense of the man's unique gifts, but not so much that the flow of the story bogs down.

   This is an almost perfect biography of one of the true greats of 20th century journalism.--William C. Hall

No comments about You Must Remember This: A Reporter's Odyssey from Camelot to Glastnost.

No comments about Diana Vreeland.

5 comments about Nancy Cunard: Heiress, Muse, Political Idealist.

1. If Lois Gordon was writing about a fictional character she could not have told a story of a more exciting person than Nancy Cunard. However, Nancy Cunard was indeed an individual who lived in the early part of last century whose exploits, altruism, and literary talent were extraordinary by any standards. She was a legendary beauty, with a great mind, who was extremely devoted to the disadvantaged people of the world and their struggles. This is an unusual and remarkable combination of qualities that is brilliantly depicted throughout this wonderful book. Simply, I could not put the book down once I had started reading. I can highly recommend it.



2. A facinating look at a most interesting woman. Well ahead of her time. Also many insights to a span of recent history often neglected.



3. This is a brilliant, sensitive, thoroughly researched biography which is a model example of how such things should be done. The author writes of the First World War experiences in London as if she had personally lived through them. Her understanding of the complex and bizarre Nancy Cunard, of her weird mother, of her strange friends, of her insane promiscuity, of her serial preying upon the creative elite by means of 'genital consumption', of her impossible psychlogy, of the whole phantasmagoria which Nancy Cunard represented, are really a triumph of empathy and insight, as well as of organisation of material. Lois Gordon's ability to master large volumes of action and hysteria without flinching qualify her for a top military command.



4. I just finished Lois Gordon's deeply moving tale of an unbelievably heroic, remarkable woman about whom I knew very little. I now feel I know the soul of Nancy Cunard, thanks to the author's wonderfully engaging, well-documented presentation. The book's fluent style and breadth of information are impressive. I agree with the majority here who have praised this fascinating biography. Buy this book, settle into your favorite chair, and prepare to meet the caring, complex, flawed, passionate woman that was Nancy Cunard.



5. Regrettably, this biography is seriously flawed, frankly a disgrace, in respect of Henry Crowder and throughout. There is hardly a page in the book without demonstrable error of fact, misrepresentation, unfounded speculation or garbled citation. Columbia University Press were twice alerted that there were problems when an advance proof fell into the present writer's hands two or three months before publication. The Press did not respond. Caroline Weber's New York Times review is foolish in the extreme. Anne Chisholm's 1979 biography remains indispensable. While Gordon has uncovered new material (not about Henry Crowder in which she is particularly deficient) she has not been able to make sense of it. The true story of Crowder is told in the book+CD Listening for Henry Crowder scheduled fall 2007.
   
   Although readers must judge for themselves, it is incumbent upon someone or other who has studied some of the particulars to point out the book's shortcomings, which are drastic. The book's flamboyant style may appear to be "a good read". All the more reason to alert the general reader. That Cunard's life was replete with extraordinary events and relationships does not confer upon the biographer the right to play fast and loose. Such treatment may befit an exploitative Hollywood movie but not a literary documentation with academic credentials. It may be that few care. Neverthless . . . In respect of, for example, Crowder, by Cunard's admission the single most important man in her life, a good deal of the information the author needed had been available to her for some years in an exploratory article in a journal, which was also posted online. Either she chose to ignore it or she did not find it, though it was easy to find. Unfortunately, she does not even get the facts right from the sources she does use and her misdemeanors extend far beyond that particular subject. (Crowder does not even figure in a list of Cunard's friends in an interview with the author on the publisher's website, while another, with whom she had no relationship whatsoever, is proposed as a lover.)
   
   In response to a comment on my original brief posting: I have mentioned my forthcoming book on Crowder's life (which will not receive wide distribution or review) and Anne Chisholm's earlier, easily available, elegant, sober, generous, decent biography of Cunard, which is grudgingly noted and casually mistreated by Gordon, in order to give general readers the opportunity to find other takes on Cunard, which they might otherwise miss, and so allow them to judge from a well-informed position.

5 comments about A Dash of Daring: Carmel Snow and Her Life In Fashion, Art, and Letters.

1. A very good biography of one of the legendary fashion editors of the 20th century. After reading 'Always in Vogue' by Edna Woolman Chase, her former boss, editor of Vogue and Bettina Ballard's own fashion biography this completes the picture of fashion in the 20th century. I enjoyed it, especially after seeing 'The Devil wears Prada' a couple of months ago. Having been in involved in Fashion as a designer and as a lecturer in design and creative cut for over 50 years it was also a trip down memory lane.
   Stuart Aitken



2. Carmel Snow is an extraordinary subject and Ms. Rolands did a marvelous job in recementing her legendary status in the fashion industry. The research she did for this book is outstanding but her writing skills could be more polished at times. I feel that the size of the book could be trimmed down a little bit, perhaps they should split it into two books, one biography and one coffee table book of photographs and illustrations. Ms. Rolands' view are also very biased throughout the book. She tried to discredit all Carmel Snow's competitors and critics in order to show Snow's greatness. It's unnecessary as Snow's work certainly speaks for itself and her contribution to the fashion industry is unquestionable. I highly recommend this book for fashion historians and fashion students.



3. When you crack open a 500 page book, it better be good. This biography of Harper's Bazaar fashion editor Carmel Snow is everything a heavy tome should be: entertaining, insightful, and thouroughly researched. The writing style is a perfect match for the subject matter: Penelope Rowlands' prose is as sharply defined as a couture garment, and, as a result, reading her book is the next best thing to actually owning a Dior original.
   
   But the most rewarding part of the book is the revelation that elegance is all about gutsiness. In fact, if you look objectively at the clothes women wore back then (the book is rife with photographic documents) all those proper little wool suits and belted silk dresses look quite frumpy in restrospect. But what poise those girls had! Where did their get their attitude? Reading A Dash of Daring is a lesson in real coolness.



4. This beautifully produced and perceptive biography of Carmel Snow, arguably the greatest fashion editor who ever lived, is a sheer delight to read. The author focuses our gaze on both the biographical subject and the milieu in which Snow lived and worked. Penelope Rowland's impressive research and extensive interviews, combined with her sure touch as a storyteller, have yielded an engaging and compelling story.



5. I have bought many copies of this book to give to friends. I think it is a very special. It is a fascinating story, beautifully told. It is not just for those interested in fashion. It is a masterpiece of biography.

4 comments about Through the Brazilian Wilderness.

1. Theodore Roosevelt was a man's man. A New York kid whose taste for adventure was sparked in his boyhood by a dead seal for sale on a Broadway sidewalk. Harvard student, soldier, Rough Rider, youngest President ever and one who survived the assassin's bullet, maverick politician, Nobel Prize winner, hunter and conservationist, and finally the man who, at 55 years old, explored an unknown region of the Amazon river basin. Imagine one of today's former-Presidents undertaking a similar adventure. For six weeks, in 1914, Roosevelt and his party paddled and carried their canoes down a previously unexplored 950-mile river now called the Rio Roosevelt. Men died, boats were lost, food became scarce, dangerous animals and natives were about, fever borne by insects sickened many in the party (and led to Roosevelt's own death five years later). This is the stuff of "Through the Brazilian Wilderness".

   Roosevelt's other works, including "The Rough Riders", are better known, and this one is not great literature. Instead, it is a remarkable adventure story by an interesting man. The book is essentially Roosevelt's trip diary, colored by his great enthusiasm for adventure and the natural world. Even before reaching the Amazon, Roosevelt stops at a Brazilian snake research lab that so captures his attention that he writes seventeen pages about it. At all times, he makes careful note of the wildlife he encounters, not quite with the depth of a professional scientist, but with the trained eye of a dedicated and experienced hobbyist. He squeezes in some amusing stories about piranha fish that he heard --and apparently believed. Naturalists of the day killed animals in the name of science, which places in context Roosevelt's joy in hunting and his comments: first on alligators ("They are often dangerous and are always destructive to fish, and it is good to shoot them") and later on conservation ("There is every reason why the good people of South America should waken... to the duty of preserving from extinction the wildlife which is an asset of such interest."). The book is most poetic in its description of animal life, and particularly in registering surprise that the myriad insects are far more pernicious than any of the better-known dangers such as alligators, big cats, or piranhas.

   The book's is not perfect, and Roosevelt is not a great author in a literary sense, rather making up in enthusiasm what he lacks in prose and penetrating insight. There is no attempt at political analysis, he simply praises Brazilians as good hosts who have started down the road to democracy. He sees the land he travels through as like the United States of perhaps a hundred years earlier, so there are frequent predictions that a promising location is ripe for development. The limited foray into politics is to praise Positivism, the ideology of the Brazilian military class that emphasized modernity and structure, and that not incidentally justified the many instances of military intervention in Brazilian politics over the years. Finally, the one annoyance is the recurring theme (perhaps a dozen times in all) of the true danger of the journey. Over and over we read that the river has never been charted, that it is truly dangerous, that the explorers are not your armchair-adventurer variety, and that such voyages will necessarily be easier for those who follow in the future. We get that.

   Roosevelt was an interesting man, his enthusiasm and taste for adventure are infectious. The book is not a literary triumph, but it is a fun read and an excellent journey through the Amazon




2. TR's account of his expedition to explore the River of Doubt shows a lot of the reasons we still admire him. First, he was a serious scientist. He was dedicated to discovering new species of wildlife (and could rattle off their Latin names with the best of them), mapping unknown stretches of river, and observing the ways of foreign lands. We know TR as a physical character and often forget what a highly intelligent man he was.

   Second, his writing is greatly under-appreciated. He doesn't breeze over his descriptions of wildlife or the landscape--it's pretty technical stuff--but he does it clearly and concisely. As someone who has labored through countless pedantic textbooks, I took comfort in his words, "Ability to write well, if the writer had nothing to write about, entitles him to mere derision. But the greatest thought is robbed of an immense proportion of its value if expressed in a mean or obscure manner."

   Third, despite the above, he could still endure enormous physical hardship at an old age. Battling rapids, hauling canoes, fighting disease, and hunting game, TR had the combination of brawn and intelligence that's seriously lacking in our leaders today, especially the lightweight that now sits behind TR's desk.

   This book is also a great window into a time and place forever lost to history. TR's writing projects a clear photo in your mind of undiscovered wilderness and great adventure.




3. As those familiar with his history know, Theodore Roosevelt was truly a unique, gifted and accomplished person. He was naturalist, historian, big game hunter, politician, statesman, conservationist and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rolled into one. If he had followed the interests and predilictions of his youth, he would have grown up to be a naturalist rather than President of the United States. As a boy he had a vast collection of frogs, squirrels, snakes, birds, insects that he called the Roosevelt Museum of Natural History.

   Science's loss was politics gain. However, T.R. never lost his interest in nature. Following his presidency, he set out on an expedition to explore and map unknown regions of Paraguay and Brazil on the 950-mile River of Doubt, a previously unexplored tributary of the Amazon River. The scientific endeavor became an ordeal to test the expedition's courage and stamina as it faced overpowering heat, dangerous rapids, wild animals, devouring ants, endless insects, fever, dysentery and more. The expedition collected thousands of species of birds and mammals, but Roosevelt would die a few years after completing the expedition. Roosevelt admired those who lived life with passion and for what he called "the Great Adventure." This story chronicles one of T.R.'s last great adventures in his typical inimitable style.




4. T.R. was writing was very gradiloquent, and this book really gives readers a good example of this. Read about the journey that ended with T.R. having a river named after him (Rio Duvida renamed to the current Rio Roosevelt), and gave him the sickness that would eventually lead to his death less than five years later.

5 comments about The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons.

1. This book was surprisingly interesting about the life of screen gossip Louella Parsons and her shenanians in tinseltown. I thoughoutly enjoyed it. This would make an interesting movie.



2. I grew up the the 1950s and bought every movie magazine with articles by Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper that my meager allowance would afford me. Dr. Barbas has produced an academic, thoroughly researched work (there are a ton of footnotes)with the ring of authenticity to it. Fingers crossed that she devotes equal time to Hedda Hopper.



3. In the Fifties, there was a rivalry of sorts between gossip queens Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons -- take your pick. Ms. Parson was a premier movie gossip columnist until 1960 for the Randolph Hearst yellow journalism media. She was a tough woman who used blackmail when it aided her gossip mongering during the studio control of the industry's publicity; it is thought that she was also involved in the blacklisting of some of the major stars during the McCarthy fiasco.
   
   Working for Hearst, a superego who built a mansion at San Simeon for his mistress, Marion Davies, Louella was involved in every aspect of their lives there on Route 1 of California and L. A. He was a silly old man. Her husband, Dr. Martin died at the age of 61, though his photo showed him looking twenty years older due no less to the kind of lifestyle they lived. She went into decline and relied on alcohol to keep going. Hearst's daughter lived dangerously for a while on drugs before marrying her bodyguard.
   
   Hedda Hopper's popularity was mainly on television although her syndicated gossip columns appeared in Chicago and New York papers, like Landers and Abby. Now, would you believe, the gossip queens are Joan and Melissa Rivers! Who would have thought it? Walter Winchell may have been a columnist back then, but not the gossipy kind like goday's Oliver Reed and Truman Capote. No one was sancasant from these monsters of divulging confidential information about any and every movie actor/actress except for their sexual leaning. That was not allowed in the 30s, 40s, and 50s by the big studios who kept everyone in the closet and presented false images for most if not all of them.



4. I have waited over twenty years for an indepth book of Louella Parsons, and while there were alot of "the usual supects" including the deaths of Thomas Ince and Paul Bern- Ms. Barbas did a great deal of homework and the beginings of Louella's life has stuff I never heard before. While she generously throws in all the contrary things said about Louella's career, she also gives this journalist her due,and does not act like someone pulled her teeth to do it.



5. For Christmas a good friend gave me this exceiting biography (Hi there Mac!) and ever since New Years I've been on a race to finish it. But some books are so good you don't like them to end, and for the past few weeks I've been envying my former self who still had the whole book in front of him instead of a rapidly dwindling few.
   
   Louella Parsons was a woman or iron determination who summoned up the inner strength to leave her shame behind in the small town where she'd grown up, and go to New York where nobody would know her. With her she had a second husband and a small daughter, Harriet, who quietly like a pet, watched her mother with a mixture of fondness and venom. I wonder if Harriet the Spy was named after her! It sounds improbable on the face of it but both HTS author Louise Fitzhugh and Harriet Parsons formed part of the same glamorous Lesbian New York underground in the late 1950s, early 1960s, the years of Harriet's inception. Anyhow Louella soon rose to the top of the Hearst newspaper empire by a unbeatable combination of loyalty, native smarts, and an earnest brown-nosing that is almost endearing to view today, although how it must have irked her professional rivals way back then.
   
   Samantha Barbas is no John Didion but she lays out the facts with a great deal of skill. She has done her homework (and even conducted a handful of new interviews, such as one with Mamie Van Doren, a Hollywood starlet who claims to have been one of Louella's victims. For Louella (I suppose I should call her "Parsons") was very much a bogeyman, a prop employed by the studio system to keep errant stars in line. She crucified Orson Welles, who had the temerity not only to make a jackass out of Hearst in CITIZEN KANE but also to lie about it to Parsons' face. "It deals with a dead man," he told her when she pressed him about the rumors that KANE was going to be a demolition of Hearst. She never forgave left-wing leaning stars like Chaplin. And yet she had a soft side and people could cozy up to her, particularly the unpleasant songwriter Jimmy McHugh. Samantha Barbas shows us how McHugh "dated" Parsons for years, always stringing her along, never actually taking her emotional needs seriously but palming her off with a ditty called "Louella" which made her feel like a schoolgirl. It's a shame a once distinguished press like UC Berkeley can't afford a proofreader nowadays. Or else Dr. Barbas isn't very familiar with the stars of Hollywood--Parsons' beat--otherwise she wouldn't have written "Frederic March," would she?
   
   But what she's terrific at is discovering the roots and the extent of Parsons' feminism, which went far and wide and early. Even before women's suffrage (1920) Parsons was in there fighting for women's rights, and she did help a lot of women journalists find their way. Good for her, too bad she turned into a tragic old harridan figure, half Miss Havisham, half Cassandra, nearly forgotten by the time of her death. I feel sure that THE FIRST LADY OF HOLLYWOOD will remain the standard biography for at least the next few years, for what could supplant it? Anyone writing in the future on Parsons will be like a pygmy standing on the shoulders of a giant.
   
   I hope Dr. Barbas continues to give us more, perhaps next she should turn to the life of Harriet Parsons and clear up the speculations about "Harriet the Spy"?

5 comments about The Murrow Boys: Pioneers on the Front Lines of Broadcast Journalism.

1. Stanley Cloud and Lynne Olson's THE MURROW BOYS is very well researched and sourced. The writing is lively, and propels the reader happily forward. In this book, Cloud and Olson treat a fascinating and important subject that is largely forgotten in the contemporary world of news-as-entertainment.
   
   Edward R. Murrow had drawn together an erudite, talented group of thinkers and writers to form the first cadre of broadcast journalists. His crack team of radio reporters covered the tragedy and triumphs of what became known as World War II, in a way both immediate and personal, both intimate and emblematic, and above all literate. Occasionally, television journalism rises above popular tastes and pretty talking heads to inform and move the viewer on truly critical issues of the day, but never with the consistency and depth of insight of the Murrow Boys.
   
   The Murrow Boys, however, by and large shared a weakness with their later television counterparts: they were vain and egotistical, in short, "stars." Cloud and Olsen, aside from skillfully explaining the revolution in mass communications that radio journalism was, devote quite a bit of their book to the celebrity status of these prima donnas. This underscores the Murrow Boys' ultimate self-deception and hypocrisy: while they railed at the shallowness of television news production, programming, and personalities, they positioned themselves--each one out for himself--to grab as much limelight as possible. Ultimately, celebrity triumphed over journalistic integrity.
   
   Thus THE MURROW BOYs does come off as a fast-paced celebrity biography. As a celebrity biography, it is very successful: it is engaging and sophisticated. From that perspective, one might well treat it as one does an intelligent "beach read": light, entertaining reading that one does not have to hide.
   
   However that may be, the book gives one an appreciation for the significance of the Murrow Boys. Too bad, though, that the authors did not choose to include more text from the reporting of the Murrow Boys; that would have given the reader a greater appreciation of their eloquence. Better yet, a CD with some of these broadcasts would have made a nice accompaniment.
   
   And too bad that the authors did not choose to go beyond the Murrow Boys' celebrity to explain the impact of their reporting on the American public as well as how they may have helped to shape history. As an example of the misplaced priorities of the writers: There is an instance described late in the book about how Charles Collingwood was invited to North Vietnam in 1968 and how his reporting from Hanoi helped lead to the peace talks. This half-page is then followed up with three pages on the relationship between Collingwood and his wife, Rita, at this time.
   
   Despite these limitations, the book is still fun and informative. And it really ought to read as a reminder of the tremendous service delivered by Murrow's proud pioneers of the airwaves.



2. Written in lively and engrossing style, the Murrow Boys covers the salad days of Edward Murrow and his pioneering changes to war news broadcasts. Only after understanding how great a patriot and journalist Murrow was acknowledged to be in general public opinion, does it become clear how and why Murrow was able to take on Joe McCarthy virtually single-handedly. In addition, the internal politics of Bill Paley's CBS become even more riveting. So if you liked the movie, you will love the book.



3. What combination of forces put Murrow and "the boys" at the forefront of creating the style and format of the network news that is part of our daily lives? "The Murrow Boys : Pioneers on the Front Lines of Broadcast Journalism" by Stanley Cloud and Lynne Olson appears to promise an answer to the question. While the book is well written, exhaustively researched, and filled with anecdotes, Cloud and Olson fail to deliver any new insight. After an introduction which sets the background, the authors structure the book around one-chapter biographies of the newsmen, often succombing to the temptation of wandering off into the byroads of celebrity biography, losing overall focus. In many cases, such as the commentary on Howard K. Smith, the biography presented here pales before the honest, understated drama and insight offered by the subjects in their own autobiographies--as in the case of Smith's totally riveting "Events Leading to My Death." And when the last mini-biography has been recounted, the book ends. I'm reminded of Snoopy writing his novel and saying "In Part 2 I tie all this together." Except the writers never tie it all together. Thus, it is an well done book, and for those unfamiliar with the biographies of the players, it will be an interesting book. When one considers the historical information to which the authors had access, the book could have been so much more. None of the newsmen celebrated in this book would have closed the broadcast without cogent commentary into the meaning of these facts and anecdotes before closing with "Good Night and Good luck."



4. This look at the "Boys" who covered World War II for CBS radio is quite moving. I liked reading of Ed Murrow's battles with the CBS brass, and the portraits of William L. Shirer, Eric Sevareid, Larry LeSueur, Myra Breckenridge (the Murrow "Girl"), Charles Collingwood, etc. How odd that such talented journalists were often wracked by jealousy and self-doubt. How predictable that CBS eventually dumped most of the Boys - along with their high standards - after the advent of television. By forsaking such talent, CBS helped usher in the image-conscious, bleeds-it-leads mediocrity of today's news. Fortunately, Howard K. Smith, Shirer, Sevareid and several others left a rich legacy in books and memoirs, and at this writing one can still hear Richard C. Hottelet report for National Public Radio (NPR). This book should be required reading for all journalists and corporate news executives.



5. The names Murrow, Sevareid, Collingwood, and Shirer have created standards that have been forgotten. Thought has been replaced by good looks. Read this book to see how CBS News became a news operation of mythic proportion with brilliant, yet terribly troubled men creating such high standards that have become forgotten. (You'll see no one on your local five pm television news here.) For these men, the importance was in writing, not pictures. You'll also see how these legendary men were racked with insecurities and self-torture. It's also uncanny in terms of how each had a rise and fall at CBS. Sadly, it's all true. The authors didn't need to resort to poetic license. (Read other accounts of these figures and you'll learn that.) When you're done with this book, you'll wish Howard K. Smith or Robert Trout were still on television today. You'll wish that instead of having happy talk on the news, you had thoughful, intelligent people who respected their audience doing reports that provoked the viewer's intellect and not pander to him. Read how Howard K. Smith was fired from CBS, what prompted it way back then, and realize the standards have been steadily declining since then on all networks. It's an enjoyable, easy-to-read book that describes the creation and erosion of impeccable standards.