As Hollywood memoirs go, this one is especially weak. While there are a few good anecdotes, it's only a few. The author certainly embellishes his earlAs Hollywood memoirs go, this one is especially weak. While there are a few good anecdotes, it's only a few. The author certainly embellishes his early life. His memory of what he did on "Grand Prix," writing he did all his own driving, does not line up with what others have written about that great film. This makes one question the rest of what is written.
There's a certain amount of lack of awareness. He writes he's a peaceful guy, but he also recounts getting into several fistfights. From his own anecdotes, he's got road rage. He admits no one wants to golf with him except his closest friends because he's a jerk on the course. He writes awards don't matter to him, but for every film or television program he's been involved in that won awards, he lists them in detail.
While he started out as a weak actor with a pretty face and grew into a producer, he gives no credit to others who advanced. He judges Reagan not based on what he did as Governor or President, but based on Reagan's first year a union president.
What irritated me most was that Garner goes out of his way to write and repeat that veterans deserve our respect, of course they do. Then he spends a page denigrating Senator John McCain, a man Garner never met.
For anyone who crossed Garner in business, they get ground down and chewed up in detail. Garner also gives almost no credit to his business partners.
Garner's ghostwriter should have mentioned the 1973 military records disaster, which certainly had an impact on Garner's lost Korean War records.
Reading about other people playing golf is pretty dull.
I wish I had not listened to this book. I liked Garner more before I did....more
This is a print on demand paperback book made up by a series of articles and features focused on the most important of the pulp magazine: Weird Tales.This is a print on demand paperback book made up by a series of articles and features focused on the most important of the pulp magazine: Weird Tales. The book covers the contents, history, and creators. Because the articles are written by many different writers, more than one take is provided on some of the most important aspects of Weird Tales. There are also remembrances by some of those who wrote for or worked on the magazine and who were also long lived.
I enjoyed most of the book and learned a lot. It's a book for fans. While there are many different writers contributing to this book, they are all fans of the material, with very little in the way of criticism.
The only parts of the book I did not care for were the summary chronology of contents, "Then Howard's story appeared, then Glenn's, then Bob had a good 5-parter." Yawn. There was also one article about writers whose work did NOT appear in Weird Tales. Hey! Did you know I did not win a Pulitzer?
For pulp fans and fans of Arkham House, this book is a must....more
Covers some of the same ground as "I am Spock." There's more detail about what Nimoy was doing the decade before landing the spot on Star Trek and howCovers some of the same ground as "I am Spock." There's more detail about what Nimoy was doing the decade before landing the spot on Star Trek and how he had been slotted into the part of Spock from the very beginning. There's also a lot about what he was doing the 3 years immediately following Trek: movies, Mission Impossible, state, photography, and writing.
For us Trekkers, there's plenty of good behind the scenes stuff, including some notes Nimoy wrote about particular episodes. He is clear he was unhappy with season 3, following Coon's leaving the show. Unlike the complaints of some other cast members, Nimoy felt that Shatner's tickering with scripts was good for the stories and added to their cohesion. Nimoy also lists his favorite episodes. I enjoyed reading that he liked "City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison because he thought that episode allowed Shatner to do his best acting on the series. It's listed as his second favorite.
Nimoy writes that he was offered many chances to play Sherlock Holmes following Star Trek, and that he did play the character for a series of short educational films for kids. In 1976, not long after the book was written, I saw Nimoy on stage as Holmes in a national touring production of "Sherlock Holmes." It was very well reviewed.
This is an easy read and highly recommended for Star Trek fans....more
Enjoyable and light autobiography of a member of one of the most successful bands in rock history. It should be subtitled, "Oh lucky man," as Illsley Enjoyable and light autobiography of a member of one of the most successful bands in rock history. It should be subtitled, "Oh lucky man," as Illsley was in the band on a fluke. He was an adequate bass player when the band got rolling, not a songwriter or someone who practiced 4 hours a day. He's honest in that he gives Mark Knopfler the credit, many times and deeply, for what made Dire Straits special.
Illsley does answer a few questions I've always had about Dire Straits, why did people leave the band and how did they get Sting to sing on their biggest hit? He does a good job describing how they came together, their early gigs, meteoric rise, album by album recording history, burnout, and wind down. He gives brief descriptions of many people to whom he owes a debt of thanks. He isn't great at anecdotes. There are a few, but very few. For instance he mentions Billy Connelly is funny a few times, and writes that several people are characters, but he doesn't show us that with illustrative anecdotes. He does mention a few people who were not cool, which is refreshing, as sometimes in these sorts of autobiographies people will talk about the bruises but not where they came from.
He writes about how hard big tours are, and here there is a bit of a blind spot. Their manager had never managed a band before. When Dire Straits schedule is brutal, even when they have become one of the biggest bands on Earth, they are doing that to themselves. They choose to work every night, where many bands choose to do shows 4 nights a week. They choose to travel in a convoy, where many bands travel apart from the crew so that the musicians get more hotel sack time. Their manager sends them to do many concerts in Italy, where they make no money and feel there is real danger, while other bands do not visit Italy or do a single show in Rome. They perform shows under the thumb of the Teamsters, while many bands refuse to do so by avoiding certain venues. I was left wondering, "Is there manager choosing, 'work them as hard as possible?' or is Knopfler directing the manager to 'push it'?"
Of course we have no idea how reliable the author is describing himself. He had been in 5ish serious relationships by the time he was 35 and produced a couple of children from 2 of the women involved. Any rough edges these facts lead one to expect are not seen in this book.
Odenkirk self-narrates his professional memoir. I call it a professional memoir, as 92.5% of the books is about his entry into and work in comedy, telOdenkirk self-narrates his professional memoir. I call it a professional memoir, as 92.5% of the books is about his entry into and work in comedy, television, and film. There's a chapter about his early family life and another about his married life. The focus of the book is a quip filled project-by-project review of Odenkirk's c.v.
It's an enjoyable and light story. Odenkirk doesn't throw anyone under the bus, other than himself. He is self-deprecating throughout. While he does offer some professional advice, essentially work your ass off and make friends, it doesn't offer anything further--except Bryan Cranston's insight that you should work your ass off.
Odenkirk's repeats, many times, that he doesn't like Trump, Republicans, or Conservatives. Really, quite annoying and unnecessary. He loves their eyeballs getting him paid. Mentioning it once would be fine, but he's not one for restraint, which is essential to comedy. Certainly his friends will applaud his "bravery" for letting everyone know where he stands, while his Liberals ruin the country with their rampant inflation, open borders, mutilation of children, anti-racism racism, and poverty created by high fuel costs. Like so many people in the creative arts, he is blind to the fact that without Capitalism there is no excess production which give society the resources necessary to pay performers so that they can make a living as performers rather than miners or farmers. So in a way, Odenkirk's pettiness is a black mark on an otherwise enjoyable light memoir.
This is the 4th rock autobiography I've read or listened to (Peart, Helm, R. Robinson). By far, it is the worst. If we add up everything Frantz writesThis is the 4th rock autobiography I've read or listened to (Peart, Helm, R. Robinson). By far, it is the worst. If we add up everything Frantz writes about meals eaten 40 years ago in restaurants that no longer exist and compare that to what he writes about Jerry Harrison, the restaurants win the word count competition by a large margin. How could Frantz not get a damned editor? It is clear from reviews of this book, for instance in the WSJ, that the reviewers did not actually read this book.
Chris' editor should have said/suggested/demanded:
"Chris, you've know Jerry Harrison for 40 years. Come up with 10 pages of stuff to write about him. Are you guys friends?"
"Chris, you never studied music before starting Talking Heads, but you became a successful producer, write about that."
"Chris, no one gives a goddamn that a person you met is related to or interacted with someone who was famous but whom you never met, and you fall into providing this useless information 100 times."
"Chris, lots of people want to know about your style, method, approach to, or philosophy of drumming. You have to write a few pages about that, because to drummers, this is VERY important."
"Chris, lots of people want to know about your style, method, approach to, or philosophy of producing other people's recordings. You have to write a few pages about that and how you split the work with Tina."
"Chris, lots of people want to know a little about the economics of being a rock star without many publishing rights. You need to touch on this with more than the story of Tina counting the money before you were a hit. Did you get rich? You went from not enough money for lunch to buying a yacht and multiple homes, but you're not on the credits as the writer. Where does the money come from?"
"Chris, no one cares, NO ONE, about the dressing you had on a salad 40 years ago."
"Chris, you took a lot of drugs. When you had kids, did you feel differently about drugs? You mention that Tina did, but how did you FEEL? What do you think?"
"Chris, why didn't you make more Tom Tom Club music?"
"Chris, Talking Heads ended 30 years ago. You need more than 3% of your book to be about this half of your life. You wrote more about what you ate while touring for 'Talking Heads: 77' than you wrote about 30 years of your life."
"Chris, what does a rock star say to his 16-year-old kid? What kind of father are you?"
"Chris, your book will be much better if you drop 100 fewer names and provide 100 fewer menus from meals."
"Chris, what do you do for fun? What do you read? Do you still paint? Where do you live? Have you kicked drugs? Do you still drum? Is there anything left in the music tank?"...more
It's a light read with some decent interviews of the producers, directors, and stars. Good choice for rabid Morse fans, like me.It's a light read with some decent interviews of the producers, directors, and stars. Good choice for rabid Morse fans, like me....more
I'm sure Professor Smith would be pleased to know I've listening to this book. I'm not really sure how this book got on my "to read" list. It would haI'm sure Professor Smith would be pleased to know I've listening to this book. I'm not really sure how this book got on my "to read" list. It would have been excellent material for one of my undergraduate courses. The author probes the legal and ethical considerations when a journalist buddies up to a subject, but then writes something that is not flattering. There are similar issues at play when a detective talks to a suspect or a salesman sells a lousy car.
It was a pleasant coincidence that one chapter is specifically about recordings and transcripts. I had told a friend, "Vindman said x, I watched the testimony." Finding in the recording where Vindman had said x was very difficult. It didn't read the way it sounded. The author discusses why this is always true and how journalists adjust for that, adjusting quotes so that they read correctly even though they were not spoken in a way meant to be read.
This was an interesting book, even though I knew almost nothing about the underlying conflict between journalist and subject. In 1970, Jeffery McDonald was convicted of killing his wife and children. In 2015, the case was still be adjudicated, as McDonald has steadfastly declared his innocence, and has been able to convince others he's telling the truth. Maybe he's a nut job killer, or maybe he's a poor communicator in the same way Lindy Chamberlain was a poor communicator. A dingo killed Lindy's baby.
Author Joe McGinniss was recruited by McDonald to participate in this defense and write about what he saw. McDonald thinking he'd get his story of innocence out through McGinniss. Instead, McGinniss became convinced McDonald was guilty, and that is what he wrote in his book. The book was a hit and was adapted into a movie. McDonald sued McGinniss for breach of contract. The case settled for $325K.
This would be a good book for any journalism or communications student.
The narrator is good, but this would have been better if a second narrator had been included. At one point in the book we hear outtakes from letters going back and forth between McDonald and McGinniss. A second voice was called for here....more
As an undergraduate, I was a Communication major. Most of the stuff in this book was covered in classes I took 35 years ago. The news media's left winAs an undergraduate, I was a Communication major. Most of the stuff in this book was covered in classes I took 35 years ago. The news media's left wing bias has not changed since then, the only difference is the media used to pretend they were balanced and people pretended to believe it. Today there's no pretending.
In the past the media was worried that being wrong would undermine its credibility in the future (see Evelyn Waugh's "Scoop"), but clearly the media no longer cares. Certainly this is one reason their circulations and ratings are in the toilet and the trust people place in the media's reporting at all time low. This is one issue that Levin did not take up, and it can be said to be missing. He doesn't really get to the consequences of the media's abandonment of historic norms.
A terrific beach read. Not all the stories appealed, but the poetry in this issue is especially strong. Certainly the best article is "The Gnome PressA terrific beach read. Not all the stories appealed, but the poetry in this issue is especially strong. Certainly the best article is "The Gnome Press Story." An old essay by Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., concerning his effort to interview Lord Dunsany, is also a treat.
Oddly, a particular copy of a particular book I know a friend once owned is mentioned in one of the articles....more
This is an odd 5-star rating. If one loves the Kneale teleplays, as I do, this is a lot of fun to listen to. For people unfamiliar with the stories, tThis is an odd 5-star rating. If one loves the Kneale teleplays, as I do, this is a lot of fun to listen to. For people unfamiliar with the stories, this radio program will be uninteresting at best.
I had always thought the third Quatermass story was about the danger of television. The author intended something completely different, if these memoirs are to be believed....more
This is a hodgepodge of material which was mostly read on planes and the ferry. My ratings for each item varies from 1 to 4. Overall I enjoyed it veryThis is a hodgepodge of material which was mostly read on planes and the ferry. My ratings for each item varies from 1 to 4. Overall I enjoyed it very much, in part because of the variety. None of the fiction did much for me. The articles on, L.B. Cole, Mulholland Drive and Nictzin Dyalhis are excellent. The interview of Clive Barker is superior. The article Horror as Misrepresented Literary Fiction couldn't be more wrong; 20 years from now I'll remember it for its wrongness.
This book isn't for everyone, but it's perfect for me. I love the history of magazine publishing. I got curious about this niche when working at CapitThis book isn't for everyone, but it's perfect for me. I love the history of magazine publishing. I got curious about this niche when working at Capital City Distribution. The short histories of many magazines and publishers are very interesting to me, but I think many would find them trivial.
The selection of cover reproductions is excellent....more
Some of the moments in Medved's life are very interesting and the book is crisply written, but he doesn't do a good job of answering the question he sSome of the moments in Medved's life are very interesting and the book is crisply written, but he doesn't do a good job of answering the question he sets out for himself at the start of the book: what exactly changed him from lefty to righty? Was he an anti-war righty the whole time, so there was no change other than a religious conversion from soft Jew to practicing Jew?
Medved's chapter on premature birth and its effect on one's view of abortion mirrors my own, and this is probably the portion of the book that is the best written.
The book would have been better with 80% less coverage of past girlfriends. Last year I read Levon Helm's autobiography. Levon must have gotten laid by 1000x more women than Michael, but Levon provides a written after-action on one-fourth the number of women than Michael reports on. Levon chose the superior reporting ratio in this regard. ...more
I read Levon Helm's version of events first. I think Robertson is more honest, in that Levon was not straight in writing about how drugs were breakingI read Levon Helm's version of events first. I think Robertson is more honest, in that Levon was not straight in writing about how drugs were breaking down The Band or affecting his behavior. The two books differ on how Robertson got the writing credits for The Bands' songs.
It is troubling that Robertson is a very immoral person. He steals from friends and the grocery store, sleeps with teenagers, takes boatloads of drugs while seeing drugs are killing his friends, traffics in stolen merchandise, does his best to lengthen a Ponzi scheme a distant relative is running, lets his drunk friend borrow the car--a friend with a history of crashing cars while drunk, lies in court (with no clear upside), and is an absentee father. He's also a vicious gossip: "I heard x about person y."
Unlike Helm, who wrote of his thankfulness to people who helped The Band up--connecting them with Dylan, helping them get out of trouble with the law, being champions for an artistic vision--Robertson writes as though people helping him is expected and normal, almost beneath mention.
On the flip side, Robertson was always blamed for breaking up The Band. If what he writes is true, who can blame him? Robertson is writing the music, getting the albums produced, scheduling the group's activities, all while Helm is griping and three members of the group are stoned to the point of barely being able to work. After 2 or 3 years of that scene, who wouldn't bail?
In later years, when Helm was griping that Robertson won't rejoin the group, knowing they'd make a lot of money if Robertson did. If Robertson's book is 50% true, one can also understand why he declined to do so.
If you go to dinner with Robertson, make it clear up front you expect separate checks....more
I have mixed feelings about this book. I loved the story of a poor kid who makes it big through a love of music. Loved it. He does a great job paintinI have mixed feelings about this book. I loved the story of a poor kid who makes it big through a love of music. Loved it. He does a great job painting a picture of being a poor or maybe lower-lower middle class Arkansas farmer.
I felt that Levon is not a fully honest writer, because he did not answer: -How did years of hard drug abuse affect him and his bandmates? Is that why Danko died so young? -Levon and Robbie were best friends who fell out. Levon does not write enough about his 1:1 relationship to other members of The Band. -Levon had a serious relationship with a rich married woman who was a mother, including having a child with her. He never writes about the fact she was married when they met and that he broke up her marriage. -Levon and the woman break up, but he doesn't say why.
Maybe he was not honest with himself on some of these questions....more
Very good, although short, history of the TV show and movies from Nimoy's POV. He goes out of his way to give credit where it is due and to address "cVery good, although short, history of the TV show and movies from Nimoy's POV. He goes out of his way to give credit where it is due and to address "controversies." He is not one for grinding his axe. I hadn't realized this was the abridged version, so I may circle back to read the whole thing....more
A fun, quick read. Not as good as its predecessor, but still good. Reading about the evolution of each movie's script, it is made clear there was no pA fun, quick read. Not as good as its predecessor, but still good. Reading about the evolution of each movie's script, it is made clear there was no person or small group guiding the Star Trek universe's evolution. The inside baseball of how the studio, producers, and directors worked/fought together is especially interesting to this neverwas studio executive.
Shatner is fair with Roddenberry, showing Roddenberry as something of a jerk, but still expressing his personal appreciation that without Roddenberry, Shatner would have never been Kirk.
My only quibble with the book is that it's too kind to the one film Shatner directed. That thing was a mess.
The book was written before Shatner and Nimoy fell out.
David McDonnell will be happy to learn Starlog is mentioned in the book....more
Ask people, "What's the most important book about journalism?" Most will answer All the President's Men. They're wrong. This is the most important booAsk people, "What's the most important book about journalism?" Most will answer All the President's Men. They're wrong. This is the most important book to have been written about journalism. It peels back the layers. CBS presents itself as a group of journalists, when in fact they are propagandists. The head of CBS News is a shill, as are most of the news divisions' stars. How they operate, dissecting and hiding the truth, rather than reveal it is presented here in a balanced way, despite the ugliness of the picture.
Attkisson also explains the current Administration's willingness to lie without remorse to achieve its policy goals. Dozens of lies that have entered the public consciousness as truth, often thanks to CBS, are examined.
Very well written. The facts are sourced. A very impressive book. I'll add my favorite quotes to this review later....more
I'd really like to give this book a 3.75. It's an odd autobiography, as it focuses on the things most personal to the author (sailing, skiing, criticsI'd really like to give this book a 3.75. It's an odd autobiography, as it focuses on the things most personal to the author (sailing, skiing, critics) and not on what the typical reader would prefer (events, NR, Firing Line) to read the most about. While he writes about growing up in his large family, there is little mention of his wife and son, and only a few about his siblings as adults.
The long section on Yale I found the most thought provoking. It's interesting that at least some critics of [I]God and Man at Yale[/I] admitted 20 or 30 years after the fact that Buckley was correct and they had been wrong. The best line in the whole book, and one that I'm still digesting is this, "[I]I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.[/I]"
One criticism I had of NR over the years has been their return to the topic of Alger Hiss decades following his just imprisonment. As a reader I'd roll my eyes at each year's several Hiss articles. The well-practiced eye rolls are applied to this book as well, with Whittaker Chambers' impact on Buckley made all too clear, repeatedly. Buckley was friends with Reagan and most of Reagan's cadre, but they are hardly mentioned, but Chambers is mentioned dozens of times.
It's beautifully written, as we expect from Buckley. Many of the anecdotes are terrific, but this reader feels there should be twice as many included.
One photograph is incorrectly captioned. My internal red pen shook with a passion. ...more
Loading...
