<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Great One was a Great Big .....
Review: ...I had a hard time liking this book for anything other than trivia nuggets. The author seems to endlessly delight in pointing out errors or outright lies in any and all Gleason anecdotes. He also makes sure to include every unflattering thing anyone ever said about Gleason, with very few kind things to balance them out. While I enjoyed learning new things about Jackie Gleason, I finished this book with an overall feeling that the author not only disliked him, but is almost jealous of Gleason's success, and tries to compensate for this by portraying Gleason as negatively as possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Seems well researched but bitter
Review: As far as I know, this is the only biography written by someone who was not a friend of Gleason's, and it shows. While the book is well-researched, the author takes an inordinate amount of pleasure in pointing out as many of Gleason's faults as he can. I was left with the impression that the author was jealous that Gleason enjoyed such enormous success despite not always being a pleasant person.Audrey Meadows commented at the end of her book "Love, Alice" that the author skewered Gleason for not living up to his (the author's) standards, and that sounds about right. To pay Meadows back for this, the author tries to discredit her story about how she won the role of Alice on "The Honeymooners," but only ends up looking vindictive again, as Meadows has published the photos taken of herself auditioning for Alice that prove her story true. This is only one of several instances where Henry tries to attack people who try to disagree with his negative view of Gleason. There are many instances in the book of phrases like "Gleason said..." or "Gleason often commented..." but very few of these quotes are backed up with any kind of source in the text itself, and there are no endnotes in the book. In addition, many other people quoted in the book are identified only as "colleagues," with no one specific being cited as the source(s) of many of the stories about how horrible Gleason really was. I noted the comments from various celebrities on the back of the dust jacket, and was surprised to hear praise from people who call themselves Gleason's friends. It makes you wonder just what kinds of friends they were.
Rating: 
Summary: Bitter, hypocritical, and misinformed
Review: On the first page of the book you hit the statement that Jackie was "the laziest man alive." For me, that statement sets the tone. A quick look at the picture of the author will show he doesn't know much about excercise himself. I found it laughable that one of the big gripes William makes about Gleason was he proported musical talent was his that belonged to others, when whole paragraphs from the previous two biographies mysteriously found themselves into this book, word for word at times. Whereas the first two books were written by friends of Jackie's, William never had even a personal conversation with him, and spoke to NONE of the family. While he did speak to coworkers, I got the feeling from the beginning that he had set out to write a "Jackie is a smuck" book, and filtered everything accordingly. Within the first few chapters, I lost count of the number of factual errors that I found. Mae's mother had 11 children, not 5. They never actually lived in Ireland. Jackie's darkness didn't come from some ancestral Spainard sunk of the coast of Ireland, but from a maternal Great-Grandfather from Portugal. Herb, the father, was not a decade older than his wife, but three years. These were all easily researched items and were wrong. This cast a long shadow of suspicion over the rest of the book which consists of people's accounts of things long past. We all know how memories can be. The bookcover said the author treated shortcomings with compassion, but I found it closer to intense condemnation, such as with the statement, "the laziest man alive" because Jackie didn't walk 12 blocks in New York. Have to wonder if the author would have hoofed it, or hailed a cab. There may be some facts buried in the pile of misinformation and bad feeling, but it may be hard to find, or to identify. For me, I see Jackie's ever changing stories as a way for him to keep the truth private and just for himself. I certainly hope no one out there really believes that Tom Cruise is telling us the truth about his life, or Julia Roberts. Just because they do something, doesn't mean we deserve the intimate details of theirs lives. And just because Jackie wasn't upfront about his, doesn't change that mystical magic that happens when people watch the Honeymooners. He wasn't perfect, few of us are, but he gave us smiles we didn't have before. His life was sad and hard, but to be so spiteful and mean about it makes William's life even sadder. Imagine implying Jackie shouldn't feel upset because his mother died when he was a "man of nineteen" instead of boy of sixteen. I can't imagine having lost both parents by nineteen and to only have one cousin at my wedding for family. This book will only give you what you want if you already know that it has been written by someone who looked for the bad and down played the good, or quite possibly, simply didn't include those accounts. The book wasn't that interesting, and I certainly could put it down. It left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rating:
Summary: Bitter, hypocritical, and misinformed
Review: On the first page of the book you hit the statement that Jackie was "the laziest man alive." For me, that statement sets the tone. A quick look at the picture of the author will show he doesn't know much about excercise himself. I found it laughable that one of the big gripes William makes about Gleason was he proported musical talent was his that belonged to others, when whole paragraphs from the previous two biographies mysteriously found themselves into this book, word for word at times. Whereas the first two books were written by friends of Jackie's, William never had even a personal conversation with him, and spoke to NONE of the family. While he did speak to coworkers, I got the feeling from the beginning that he had set out to write a "Jackie is a smuck" book, and filtered everything accordingly. Within the first few chapters, I lost count of the number of factual errors that I found. Mae's mother had 11 children, not 5. They never actually lived in Ireland. Jackie's darkness didn't come from some ancestral Spainard sunk of the coast of Ireland, but from a maternal Great-Grandfather from Portugal. Herb, the father, was not a decade older than his wife, but three years. These were all easily researched items and were wrong. This cast a long shadow of suspicion over the rest of the book which consists of people's accounts of things long past. We all know how memories can be. The bookcover said the author treated shortcomings with compassion, but I found it closer to intense condemnation, such as with the statement, "the laziest man alive" because Jackie didn't walk 12 blocks in New York. Have to wonder if the author would have hoofed it, or hailed a cab. There may be some facts buried in the pile of misinformation and bad feeling, but it may be hard to find, or to identify. For me, I see Jackie's ever changing stories as a way for him to keep the truth private and just for himself. I certainly hope no one out there really believes that Tom Cruise is telling us the truth about his life, or Julia Roberts. Just because they do something, doesn't mean we deserve the intimate details of theirs lives. And just because Jackie wasn't upfront about his, doesn't change that mystical magic that happens when people watch the Honeymooners. He wasn't perfect, few of us are, but he gave us smiles we didn't have before. His life was sad and hard, but to be so spiteful and mean about it makes William's life even sadder. Imagine implying Jackie shouldn't feel upset because his mother died when he was a "man of nineteen" instead of boy of sixteen. I can't imagine having lost both parents by nineteen and to only have one cousin at my wedding for family. This book will only give you what you want if you already know that it has been written by someone who looked for the bad and down played the good, or quite possibly, simply didn't include those accounts. The book wasn't that interesting, and I certainly could put it down. It left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rating:
Summary: Bitter, hypocritical, and misinformed
Review: On the first page of the book you hit the statement that Jackie was "the laziest man alive." For me, that statement sets the tone. A quick look at the picture of the author will show he doesn't know much about excercise himself. I found it laughable that one of the big gripes William makes about Gleason was he proported musical talent was his that belonged to others, when whole paragraphs from the previous two biographies mysteriously found themselves into this book, word for word at times. Whereas the first two books were written by friends of Jackie's, William never had even a personal conversation with him, and spoke to NONE of the family. While he did speak to coworkers, I got the feeling from the beginning that he had set out to write a "Jackie is a smuck" book, and filtered everything accordingly. Within the first few chapters, I lost count of the number of factual errors that I found. Mae's mother had 11 children, not 5. They never actually lived in Ireland. Jackie's darkness didn't come from some ancestral Spainard sunk of the coast of Ireland, but from a maternal Great-Grandfather from Portugal. Herb, the father, was not a decade older than his wife, but three years. These were all easily researched items and were wrong. This cast a long shadow of suspicion over the rest of the book which consists of people's accounts of things long past. We all know how memories can be. The bookcover said the author treated shortcomings with compassion, but I found it closer to intense condemnation, such as with the statement, "the laziest man alive" because Jackie didn't walk 12 blocks in New York. Have to wonder if the author would have hoofed it, or hailed a cab. There may be some facts buried in the pile of misinformation and bad feeling, but it may be hard to find, or to identify. For me, I see Jackie's ever changing stories as a way for him to keep the truth private and just for himself. I certainly hope no one out there really believes that Tom Cruise is telling us the truth about his life, or Julia Roberts. Just because they do something, doesn't mean we deserve the intimate details of theirs lives. And just because Jackie wasn't upfront about his, doesn't change that mystical magic that happens when people watch the Honeymooners. He wasn't perfect, few of us are, but he gave us smiles we didn't have before. His life was sad and hard, but to be so spiteful and mean about it makes William's life even sadder. Imagine implying Jackie shouldn't feel upset because his mother died when he was a "man of nineteen" instead of boy of sixteen. I can't imagine having lost both parents by nineteen and to only have one cousin at my wedding for family. This book will only give you what you want if you already know that it has been written by someone who looked for the bad and down played the good, or quite possibly, simply didn't include those accounts. The book wasn't that interesting, and I certainly could put it down. It left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rating:
Summary: The Great One was a Great Big .....
Review: What Mr Henry reveals in this biography is the true ugliness of Jackie Gleason. Yes, he was an outstanding performer. Yes, he was loyal to his "pals". Yes, he worked his way up from nothing to become something. But what, exactly, did Gleason become? "The Great One", a title he bestowed upon himself? Or a miserable, bitter drunk, who twisted and controlled everything and everyone around him just to project the image of a genius? I believe every word of William Henry's excellent book, even though Jackie fans most certainly do not. I believe it because Mr Henry went to the sources--he interviewed Art Carney, Audrey Meadows, Jane Meadows and Joyce Randolph; he interviewed The Great One's directors, producers, castmates and writers (the people that truly made him great)--and they all agree to a universal conclusion, even when they try to be kind: Jackie Gleason was a crude, cruel, manipulative man, even beyond what you may expect. Read this book and prepare to be shocked.
<< 1 >>
|
