|
Post by Shaun on Nov 2, 2006 13:31:52 GMT -5
Two people have posted scathing comments on his blog. It will be interesting what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by dreamer on Nov 2, 2006 13:54:18 GMT -5
Here are some of the posts from Amazon:
Lyric wrote, Oct. 11, 2006
Metsfan wrote, Oct. 16, 2006
Mr. Mann wrote:
Lyric wrote, Nov. 1, 2006
|
|
|
Post by dreamer on Nov 2, 2006 14:51:54 GMT -5
In Acknowledgements he wrote of the devotion and the insights only true Hepburn fans would have.
Now he writes:
What falls outside boundaries? – we are not in the stone age – we live in 2006.
He has misunderstood quit a lot – the personality of a person is not defined though its sexuality, not today – again he proves, that for him it is sexuality as if it defines a person – at least it seems to me as if he defines Kate through what ever sexuality she had. And I mean what ever, because who of us know?
Mann wrote on Amazone, Oct. 19, 2006:
And the way he writes. There is a polite way to say things and another way (he writes as if he wants to convince not just tell) – also the words counts, how it is being said. I’m asking myself if he admired her as he started out, as he said he did:
Mann worte on Amazone, Oct. 2, 2006:
He is cooking things up – that is my opinion.
|
|
Hepburner
Full Member
'Enemies are so stimulating'
Posts: 180
|
Post by Hepburner on Feb 1, 2008 22:20:46 GMT -5
I just got this. It's not really new anymore is it?
However, I think the book has been ruined completely for me. and i'm still in the preface (why do books have prefaces??- POINTLESS. I hate them).
Anyway.
BUNK! As an actress, Kate was many, many times greater than Davis. He makes it sound the other way.
This line is cut me deep. I'm so angry.
Bette Davis my eye!
|
|
|
Post by Shaun on Feb 2, 2008 0:49:59 GMT -5
He goes on to say she didn't have the emotion of Judy Garland, etc. To sum up this book in one sentence, Katharine Hepburn was a lying, manipulative, lesbian, asexual whose acting abilities really weren't greater than your average B player. That's RICH!.
I love me some Bette Davis. She and Kate were on par with each other. End of, Mr. Mann.
|
|
Hepburner
Full Member
'Enemies are so stimulating'
Posts: 180
|
Post by Hepburner on Feb 2, 2008 8:15:59 GMT -5
I see. So I shouldn't continue the read? I have seen discussion on here about it, but since I'd never seen the book here I usually didn't read the threads re: Mann's (seemingly) defamation littered "biography", but I saw it today and squeeled at the sight of the color cover of the classic Kate shot...and I then giggled over how red her hair looks in the picture. And thus, bought the book. But yes. I haven't read much because I've had much to do this evening...but this Mann homo (I should say that being one myself, but oh well...) makes the Dr. sound like the Mommie Dearest of Kate's life...good god. This said, you say, Shaun... Firstly, lying and manipulative. Hmm. Lying is a fairly hostile term to use - but Kate does seem to me to have embellished a lot of things about her life. I would never call her a liar (I ended a four year long friendship over something she claimed in her book, that a friend who'd read a Vivien Leigh biography debated, so I take her words as truth obviously). Manipulative! I think Kate was probably quite manipulative. And why not? I think it's a wonderful skill to have. I can be very manipulative myself. But shush. I didn't say that. Well, in fact I didn't say that. I'm telling you I didn't. Lesbian. I don't really think so. I think there are a lot of hazy sections of the Hepburn story that I would put down to suggesting...perhaps, bisexuality. What worries me Shaun, is you say with -apparent (correct me if I be wrong)- disdain at the idea that she may in fact be a lesbian. I couldn't care less myself. Well, being gay myself it would be somewhat hypocritical, but I would have no problem with Kate being called a lesbian (though I by no means think she was). The acting thing is way out of line however. (our disagreement on Davis -whose films I enjoy, the ones I've seen, but whose acting I find sometimes overly theatrical, and even (a la Meryl Streep) very mechanical at times- I am putting aside from this. But I will say that I still shed a tear at the end of Dark Victory. That's probably the least over acty I've seen Davis...it was great) Kate is probably the finest screen actress of all time. In the company of only Garbo, Crawford, and -in my opinion- Liz Taylor. Kate is just the ultimate. THE. Ultimate. All of this being said. I haven't gotten very far with the book. I will let you know how I go. But I have to say, so far: Fuck William Jackass Mann. [How mature of you Shanus, how mature...and now third person...tisk tisk tisk] Actually, you know what...my old english teacher - a moderate Kate fan - used to tell me that I am very much like her. Cheekbones, high, prominent; Offbeat way of sitting, leg often over one arm of a chair - never in a "normal" position - you should have seen me in class, I was always a mess in the corner; mouth turning down at the corners. Personality-wise too, he said. I am supposedly arrogant, not very modest, extremely private, but also very public. Like attention, but only that which I generate. Very mindful of critics; the harshest - myself. Unique way of talking, odd emphasis on odd places of odd words. Common sense the main strength. Vocal of opinions. Intolerant of idiocy. Narcissistic (I am after all, talking nicely of myself, and comparing me to Katharine Hepburn...actually, this scares me now. I'll stop). But my teacher used to go on and on about how he thought I was just like her, and how narcissistic in itself it was, that I be such a big fan of the girl... I used to say "good for you". I also once played in As You Like It I was Touchstone though. And I was brilliant. Though, for the assessment I actually performed as Rosalind, and was equally as good as she. In fact, I think I got top marks for that.
|
|
|
Post by Shaun on Feb 2, 2008 12:45:03 GMT -5
Oh no you've misunderstood me Shane. My summation of the book is simply what one would gather on Kate after having read it. It's not what I think about Kate Hepburn at all. That line I wrote was definitely a smack at William Mann. And I wouldn't give a rat's toot if Kate were gay. Though I don't think she was, I just meant that, again, that is what one would gather about Hepburn after reading this book since Mann puts so much emphasis on it. So the lying, manipulative, asexual stuff is pure Mann. It's is NOT my opinion on Kate. I hope I have cleared myself.
|
|
|
Post by martha on Feb 2, 2008 14:26:19 GMT -5
shane:
and just general commentary on this kind of 'biography' that appears in the lives of our kate (and others i adore like judy garland) with some regularity. you often have to make a choice whether to dive in at all .. then once you jump in and see that way the interpretation (and 'analysis' or 'research' .. or lack thereof) is going ... to just stop reading. OR you continue in order to be deeply informed in your opinion in order to share that opinion with others.
but it might just drive you crazy to respond to each and every part of this biography (i suspect, given what has been written here already) that offends you .. as you go along.
deep breaths. perhaps it will be helpful to think of your 'read' of it as a researcher/fan ... take notes and report on the most egregiously ill-informed portions. as you have begun to do here. i would appreciate being informed in this way. i have no intention of reading this book .. at this point. it would just aggravate me i fear.
|
|
|
Post by dreamer on Feb 2, 2008 15:04:34 GMT -5
shane: and just general commentary on this kind of 'biography' that appears in the lives of our kate (and others i adore like judy garland) with some regularity. you often have to make a choice whether to dive in at all .. then once you jump in and see that way the interpretation (and 'analysis' or 'research' .. or lack thereof) is going ... to just stop reading. OR you continue in order to be deeply informed in your opinion in order to share that opinion with others. but it might just drive you crazy to respond to each and every part of this biography (i suspect, given what has been written here already) that offends you .. as you go along. deep breaths. perhaps it will be helpful to think of your 'read' of it as a researcher/fan ... take notes and report on the most egregiously ill-informed portions. as you have begun to do here. i would appreciate being informed in this way. i have no intention of reading this book .. at this point. it would just aggravate me i fear. And I for one (have read the eeeh 'book') would appriciate if there weren't that much talk about it here. The less publicity he gets the better. Now I have said it The writting and the context of the book is suspicious. That man (refuse to write his name) had nothing nice to say about her. The book is calculating and manipulative. What he wrote about her career was rehash from other books. Most of it was made up/changed in order to fit his own agenda - or better said - what he wants the reader to think. And I mean think - because through the entire book he leads the reader by his hand - explaining that there is no doubt what you have to think. The writer does not even back off from using false evidence (Kate's FBI file). According to friends of mine - he added to the file (they have it). One last word - the writer did not want to interview certain friends like Lauren Bacall because she wouldn't tell him what he wanted to hear - because she would hold back information. IMO that is not trustworty and the entire book is for the bin. So PEOPLE PLEASE DON'T give it more publicity than needed?
|
|
|
Post by martha on Feb 2, 2008 16:22:09 GMT -5
and just to clarify ... my thinking wasn't to give the book publicity but to 'out' the bad writing and bad research ... it seems that doing that here on a board dedicated to people who appreciate/adore/love kate is the best place to do such a thing. parsing the bad / in fact your comments were useful to me. again: i wasn't interested in reading the book ... just was looking for ammunition for dealing with inquiries .. mostly kind hearted inquiries ... from others who know i'm a kate fan .. "oh, have you read X book"? as i mentioned before, as a judy garland fan too, i have long years of experience wading through the crud promoted as 'biography' .. and all the rest ... so it was that energy i brought to the inquiry here .. not promoting the work of this author but understanding its apparent agenda and lack of quality. there i've said that ..
|
|
|
Post by Judy on Feb 2, 2008 19:29:58 GMT -5
and just to clarify ... my thinking wasn't to give the book publicity but to 'out' the bad writing and bad research ... it seems that doing that here on a board dedicated to people who appreciate/adore/love kate is the best place to do such a thing. parsing the bad / in fact your comments were useful to me. again: i wasn't interested in reading the book ... just was looking for ammunition for dealing with inquiries .. mostly kind hearted inquiries ... from others who know i'm a kate fan .. "oh, have you read X book"? as i mentioned before, as a judy garland fan too, i have long years of experience wading through the crud promoted as 'biography' .. and all the rest ... so it was that energy i brought to the inquiry here .. not promoting the work of this author but understanding its apparent agenda and lack of quality. there i've said that .. There's an old joke about the difference between Los Angelinos and NYers that goes: In Los Angeles, when they say hello, they mean Fuck YOU. And in New York when they say fuck you, they mean hello. How does this relate to the topic, you're asking? He's got the pretense of admiration. He says over and over that the REAL Kate, the one he presents, that is, is much more worthy of admiration than the one made up by her and others in her lifetime. And he's just the boy to say hello to the real Kate. And then he spends 600 or so pages doing the latter.
|
|
Hepburner
Full Member
'Enemies are so stimulating'
Posts: 180
|
Post by Hepburner on Feb 2, 2008 21:26:14 GMT -5
Hahaha agreed!! with all of you.
I shall read the book, for new insight and perspective. So far, with Dr. Hepburn sounding like a Mommie Dearest moment I am much less than impressed.
But I must also say, that so far, nothing "factual" I've read seems that unlikely - it's more the assumptions and allusions that Mann is making -subjectively I might add- as to what these events and "realities" meant.
I don't know.
But I will take all of your word that it is slanderous, and shan't discuss it here.
|
|
Hepburner
Full Member
'Enemies are so stimulating'
Posts: 180
|
Post by Hepburner on Feb 2, 2008 21:28:52 GMT -5
oh and sorry Shaun, if I offended you.
I see what you mean now, I suppose it was quite obvious.
I once heard a woman in a dvd store pick up On Golden Pond, and her friend said "oh don't get that...katharine hepburn was a dyke". I butted in and said, "..says you with your Ellen Degeneres haircut and neck-er-chief. How DARE you be such an ignorant fool and throw around such ill informed judgments of anyone, let alone a legend like katharine hepburn", before leaving hastily.
hehehe i have a problem with my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Shaun on Feb 3, 2008 0:41:53 GMT -5
It's cool Shane. And damn you have gusto! I would have just muttered to myself, probably calling the woman a bitch. I hereby vow to never mention that book on this board again.
|
|
|
Post by Hep on May 18, 2008 22:16:35 GMT -5
|
|