This is intriguing read about one of the most powerful capitalists in the history of this country. For those who love to shop at Marshall Field, or those just interested in Gilded Age history, you must get read this book. This biography covers five generations of the fascinating Field family.

I'm still reading but wanted to mention that if you have never taken a French class, it is very hard to pronounce most of the names in the book.

Although very insightful finding it a hard read.

This book was extremely interesting to read. Considering Chanel's habbit of often lying about her past, many biographers had given up on trying to tell her story. That's probably why the book lacks reasoning behind certain facts of her life, although the author did the best he could to provide his own viewpoint about some of the unenswered questions. The book is wonderful and it leaves the reader with plenty of room to use his/her own imagination to reveal some of the mysteries behind Chanel's great genious.

It's a story of a vibrant, fast acting dreamer named William Durant who had his start making horse carriages in Flint, Michigan with his partner Dort. He being the salesman, then pre-sold orders for their carriages at a fair, contracted the work out, then worked in a frenzy to fulfill all those orders. It wasn't long until those working on the carriages understood what Durant and Dort were doing, and wanted their own piece of the pie. With a little luck, they managed to survive intense start up competition the first few fragile years, then, in 1908, Durant alone established General Motors through the strategic acquisition (and even more luck) of several existing auto manufacturers (including Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac). He also actively pursued vertical and horizontal integration into the manufacturing process by acquiring rubber plantations, etc. at the closest level to the source. It's fascinating to listen to the "who" behind the names of today's leading auto lines (ie. Louie "Chevrolet" - was a race car driver), etc. and to imagine that Henry Ford and William Durant considered a viable merger that would have completely changed history! From a financial standpoint now, it's easy to see Durant's forecast for financial ruin. It was his tremendous speed and passion which he acted, but often lacked methodical planning or prudence. His pursuit of being "big" and acquiring at least one new company every month, led to a repeated pattern of over-extension and debt feeding his ego; which eventually ruined him, not once, but three times. He then became involved with Dupont, Morgan and the other "high powered" names of history in an effort to re-build his own auto "empire" with a different name - each failed. Each time, his persistence kept him going - and that's truly admirable. He never gave up after each failure! It's inspiring to read (or listen to if you get lucky and find an audio version.)

This is another good book on my hero Mr. William C. Durant the creator of GM. Mr. Durant defiantly affected the early automobile history more than any other one man ever. He was the worlds largest cart maker back in Flint Mi. & went on to save Buick from certain bankruptcy. Also creating GM with Buick as the cornerstone car & then adding Olds, Cadillac & Oakland (the forerunner to Pontiac) & many others that didn't pan out. He also started Chevrolet with his famous Buick race car driver Louis Chevrolet. Some other good reads are The Dream Maker 1979 by Bernard Weisberger and Billy Durant by Lawrence Gustin 1973. ... Sincerely Lance Haynes President Durant Motors Automobile Club

Axel Madsen's THE SEWING CIRCLE purports to reveal the truth about Hollywood's lesbian social set--and if read in the same way one would read a gossip column it is an entertaining book, ripsnorting through the lives of as many stars as the author dares.

Portions of the book are clearly better researched than others, and consequently some exposes are easier to buy into others. Most of THE SEWING CIRCLE concerns the rumors that swirled around Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, and the various women who moved in their circle; in writing of this group Madsen has done his homework and the result is quite interesting. On the other hand, Madsen makes little effort to explore the lives of such figures as Agnes Moorehead--and then, completely out of the blue, attempts to posit Judy Garland as a lesbian, which is such a leap that it makes you begin to question his portraits of everyone else as well.

That aside, although Madsen's actual style is good enough, his structure is not, and THE SEWING CIRCLE jumps here, there, and everywhere in an effort to catch the reader by surprise. Still, the book is entertainingly written. Recommended for a rainy day read, but keep your grains of salt ready.

This book is very good and well worth a look at. The sociogists theorys are dicey at times, but apart from that its great.

I have a funny feeling that the one other review of this book is based on someone's being angry and disappointed that Mr. Madsen has "outed" some of his/her cherished movie stars. The truth is the truth and being gay doesn't make these stars any less nice, human or worthwhile. The book is well-written and interesting. What else can you ask of a book? I think it's so good I've bought several copies for friends.

Perhaps I should not write a review of this book as I did not finish it. I found the subject--Astor, who he was, what he did, and how and why he did it--very interesting, but Madsen's treatment an example of biography at its worst. Why? Because we are presented with the data of Astor's life, but where is Astor? There is virtually nothing communicated as to what type of person he was, WHY he was so ambitious, what he felt and thought about the various activities he undertook, his successes, relative failures, etc. In many instances of course the available data of his life do not necessarily communicate the subjective life of the psyche, only the objective actions. But it is the very task of a biographer--in my view the most vital task--to artfully connect the various "dots" of data so as to reveal the subjective life within, the drama of the mind and heart reacting to events as the events unfold. You don't get that here.

I bought this book to learn about Astor and how he made his fortunes. The book goes into almost too much depth in regards to the fortune made in fur trading and shipping. Out of the 25 chapters, 23 were discussing nearly every detail of Astor, his men, indians, and his competition in regards to trading and shipping. In chapter 23, the author finally gets to where he claims Astor made his largest fortune, real estate. Since that is where he made the bulk of his fortune, then why did the author only devote one chapter to this topic? Most people who buy this book will do so to learn how Astor made his fortune, that is not explained well enough. I have to give the author credit, though, he did uncover many details that the other Astor biographers failed to see.

Madsen takes the reader through an interesting account of the early fur trade and the opening of the American West. There are interesting anecdotes from Astor's deaings with historical and political figures of the time. However, if you are looking for information on his later business dealings and the development of Astor into New York's largest property owner and landlord then you will be disappointed. Nine tenths of his book is devoted to the development of the American Fur Company and the travials of those who forged through the wild countryside on Astors behalf. There is nothing in this book about how he dealt with tenants, advertised properties, developed systems of management for properties, financing, leverage, nothing.
So buy it for an interesting histort of the time but don't buy it if your looking for information on how one of the great Real Estate investors of his time developed and managed his system of success.

This 1984 book examines this very popular TV show, which presents news as entertainment to become a long-running top-rated show. Sometimes, if you know something about the topic, you'll realize it is a one-sided presentation. But this applies to other shows on TV; or the radio.

The author investigated the "60 Minutes" investigators to discover why it is so successful. The answer is: they tell good stories! They identify a problem, explain it, and provide a simple solution. They provide the facts, and let you decide. Do the facts presented lead to the conclusion desired by the producers? With the given time constraints, they can only do so much.

The technique is to use a single camera, and record for many hours. After the answers, the newsperson is recorded asking questions (which may be phrased to fit the answers). Then the editing begins. With many hours of statements, they get to choose what they want. The end result is a story whose conclusion follows from the edited statements. They never show "out-takes"; page 186 explains "cutaways".

Chapter 4 tells how they get the story. It should be read for its inherent practical advice. The producers flatter the subject to gain their confidence. "TV news is show business, but uses show business techniques to convey information rather than to distort it" (p.54). "Drama is but life with the dull bits cut out" (p.60). Page 129 gives an example of editing; a twenty-page interview became two-pages on -air. "60 Minutes" provides multiples of the old 15-minute news, a variety that fills up the hour, and attracts more viewers than with a single subject, and avoids boredom.

Chapter 11 tells of the cases where they freed innocent people from jail. Pages 151-2 tell of a particularly corrupt case. A schoolteacher runs for city council, and is then arrested, tried, and convicted for a kidnapping that never happened! Paroled after eight months into a thirty-year sentence, as a convicted felon he could never again run for public office! Could this have happened in any other state?

Chapter 13 discusses the editing that goes into creating the finished story. Page 188 explains how they juggle questions and answers; network news forbids separating questions from answers. This cannot be done with live interviews. Page 190 gives another example on how this trick is done.

When I first came across this book, I was very excited, because I am interested in all aspects of how the various entertainment media manipulate the world and present only a selected vision of what it's really like. I looked forward to reading a detailed account of life in Hollywood and how hard it was to deal with oppression and prejudice and have to live a secret life. Instead of an inspiring, enlightening read, I got a scatter-brained, typo-laden gossip column. I can't believe, as was stated in another review, that the typos were the fault of the printer. The amount of effort put into researching and writing this book is reflected in the quality of the copy editing.

It could have been worth my money. Oh well. I'm glad I bought it from the Quality Paperback Book Club and not at retail price.

The subject of famous Hollywood starlets who were, in fact, deep in the closet is certainly a fascinating one--imagine the harsh, paranoid life one would have to lead, hiding one's true feelings and lying to protect one's careers while still seeking love. And I'd really love to read a well-executed, thoughtful study of this subject.

This isn't it, kids.

Axel Madsen's "The Sewing Circle" is, at best, a sloppy book, with plenty of rumor & opinion presented as fact & more typos than I've ever seen in any other "professionally published" book. For crying out loud, they misspelled Greta Garbo's name--at the head of the chapter dealing with her childhood!

There are some interesting tidbits here--the speculation as to why Garbo ended her career when she did, the behind-the-scenes gays & lesbians who drove the creative engines of Hollywood, the sad, ultimately lonely endings that many of these women met--but the presentation is so haphazard that it's difficult to get anything useful out of it. And if every mention of Mercedes de Costa were deleted, this wouldn't be a book--it would be a pamphlet.

This book sorely needed an editor, a fact-checker, a proofreader...it needed help. Had such help arrived, this might have been an interesting, trashy read. As it stands, it's just trash--recycle it & move on.

This book was pretty good. I think that Mr. Madsen is a good author and he should be commended. I believe there is a fair amount of information given about the characters in this survey, although the book "The Girls" is much better at covering Hollywood's lesbianism. It is a good read anyway, and I would recommend it. Oh, and I LOVE the cover photo! Too-shay!

This book is an insult to Barbara Stanwyck's memory. It is full of untruths, imaginings, and unsubstantiated fantasy. Mr. Axel Madsen is very Lucky Barbara is not here to sue the pants off him.

The best thing I can say about this book is that it has some nice photos but one can find these elsewhere. Don't waste time on this garbage.

If you want to read a good biography of Barbara Stanwyck read: Barbara Stanwyck A Biography Author: Al DiOrio ISBN 0-698-11247-4 copyright: 1983

People are reacting pretty strongly in their reviews of this book, I suspect primarily because of the claims that Madsen makes about Stanwyck's sexuality. But the fact is that while this isn't a terribly good book, it is also not a truly horrible one, either. If one wants a basic, serviceable biography of Stanwyck, which lays out the main facts and events in her life, this one will do.

The virtue of the book is that is it fairly thorough and comprehensive. One gets a feel for her life, for the way she viewed both herself and the world, and for some of the dynamics in her relationships. A portrait emerges of a woman who was both very admirable and quite disappointing. One admires her drive and enormous professionalism as an actress, and is impressed by how giving and helpful she was to her fellow professionals. Away from her vocation as an actress, however, Stanwyck emerges as someone less than admirable. Other accounts of her life have emphasized her difficulty with intimate relationships, her failure as a mother (not quite "Mommie Dearest" but definitely not a role model), and her lamentable political commitments. Although not the political activist that her husband Robert Taylor or his friends John Wayne and Ronald Reagan were, she nonetheless was pretty much part and parcel of the Hollywood Anticommunist movement that ruined so many people's lives in the 1940s and 1950s.

On the negative side, Madsen's prose is drab at best. Madsen seems to be the essence of the "professional" writer, who lives by writing a certain number of pages in a certain amount of time. There is a workmanlike dullness to his pages, and multiple signs of minimal rewriting, such as almost verbatim repetition of passages and restatement of quotes. Constant repetition is a prime mark of sloppy writing and inattention in the final editing.

But I suspect that most people will hate or love this book based on its portrayal of sexuality. I am an utterly nonhomophobic, and really couldn't care less what someone's sexuality is. Some of my greatest personal heroes were gay, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Marcel Proust, and Cole Porter, and some of my favorite Hollywood actors and directors were gay or bi. I have three general statements to make about this issue in regard to this book.

First, I speculate that Mr. Madsen is himself gay and sees it as his job as a gay writer to "out" a famous individual who was gay but is not popularly perceived as being gay. I assume he is gay partly because of his constant reference to individuals as being gay when the issue of their sexuality is utterly irrelevant. Thus, he might mention that Barbara knew a certain individual, a "gay" producer. Not a "producer," but a "gay producer," though his being homo, bi, pan, or asexual is without the tiniest bit of relevance. But part of the assumption of the outing movement is that if all of us--straight and gay--realize how many people are gay, our attitudes towards homosexuality will change. I can't argue this point at length, but I find "outing" to be reprehensible, especially when evidence is minimal. I also assume that he is gay because bi sexuality has featured as a dominant issue in some of his other books. It is unquestionably an issue that preoccupies him.

Second, though Madsen alludes to Stanwyck's bisexuality, he doesn't really adduce any actual evidence of this. Much of his "evidence" seems to be based on the perception by many lesbians that she was "one of us." There are also multiple references to a possible lesbian relationship with her publicist, but when looks closely, this appears to be more speculation than fact. Although it has long been held that Robert Taylor, Barbara's husband, was at least bi and perhaps gay, the evidence for Barbara seems to be pretty weak, at least as presented by Madsen. And glancing through the pages of Madsen's THE SEWING CIRCLE, which discusses love relationships among women in the thirties and forties, I didn't find anything much more convincing that was contained in these pages.

Third, to those who are so terribly offended by suggestions that Barbara Stanwyck might have been a lesbian or bisexual, I have to say: haven't we gotten past stuff like this yet? To be blunt, who cares if someone is gay or bi? Is THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD less enjoyable because Errol Flynn was unquestionably bisexual? Although Madsen's evidence isn't very convincing or substantial, if it were, it wouldn't really matter all that much.

In the end, Madsen's biography is disappointing as much because it is flatly written than because he successfully or unsuccessfully uncovers Stanwyck's sexual secrets. But the book also fails because he is never able to help us get a sense of the immense excitement that Barbara Stanwyck generated in dozens of films in a long film career. Dislike this book if you must, but please dislike it for the correct reasons.

Poor Barbara Stanwyck! She made the unpardonable error of living a relatively scandal-free life in Hollywood. If what Madsen says about her sexuality is true, he fails to back it up with any substantiative evidence; Stanwyck made few enemies during her reign in Hollywood; with the exception of Maureen O'Sullivan, and who was she? Whatever she did, she was discreet, unlike her contemporaries Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Her personal life was her personal life, and while many of us would give our left arm to really know the more intimate details of her personal life, you have to respect her for keeping a hermetically sealed lid on it.

Also, Madsen does not use enough photographs in this book, it would have been nice to see more.