The Sad and Tragic Ending of Lucille Ball: Volume Two (1961-1989)

The two volume biography was interesting and insightful. The books written by Darwin Porter are always a good read and contain information you would not find in other biographies.

Can you imagine anything less worth your time than reading dozens of descriptions of individual "Lucy" shows? (Not "I Love Lucy", by the way.) "Mr. Mooney and Lucy, with the help of Lucy's friend Mary Jane, blah, blah, blah."Plot after plot after plot! It's like being cornered at a party by Rainman.And the authors do the same with the work of Lucie Arnaz and Desi Arnaz, Jr. We learn about the plots and co-stars (those biographies again!) of their feature films and TV movies.But wait! There's more! There are long, dull biographies about almost every person mentioned in the book. And I mean everyone!It is all just filler, and boring filler at that. If you're dying to read about Lloyd Nolan's radio and TV career, at last someone has finally written a book for you!After a while, I began to dread turning the page and seeing the name of an actress, actor, director or producer, because I knew I was in for another biography. I stuck with it until I had read 75% of the book, and finally gave up. I just couldn't stand one more boring word.Because this is a Darwin Porter book, there is his usual insistence that everyone in old Hollywood was gay. Even if this were true, so what? What else have you got, Porter?I'm no angel. I thought this would be a fun, trashy read. But really - filler about the career of Dinah Shore's first husband? It's a snoozefest.The book is full contradictory statements. It claims that Miss Shore never worked with Lucille Ball, then later in the book devotes a page to Dinah's appearance on the "Here's Lucy".There are the usual criticisms of Lucille's appearance and deep voice. Too, there are the nasty stories about her being an unreasonably tough boss, and a vulgar, profane conversationalist.For many lovely stories about how warm and generous Lucille Ball was on a consistent basis, read Paula Stewart's fascinating memoir, "Lucy Loved Me." And for a more balanced look at this interesting woman, try Coyne Steven Sanders' "Desilu". (Just like his book about the Judy Garland variety TV show, the book is based on interviews with the author - on the record.)It is funny how Porter and his co-author omit the genuinely funny things that people said, on the record, in other books, and in documentaries. They keep missing the punchlines.Perfect example: in the Porter book, Lucie Arnaz is quoted as saying that Vivian Vance encouraged her to work in the theatre.Funnier, though, is Lucie Arnaz on the record saying that Vivian Vance saw her working with her mother, Lucy, on "Here's Lucy" and encouraged her to get theatrical experience because, "You don't want to play straight man to Big Red for the rest of your life."Also, there isn't a shred of an authors' interview anywhere in the book. No one is quoted directly from conversations with the authors. It is all second- and third- hand information from things written about Lucy and her co-workers, employees, family and friends.In fact, just about anyone could have pieced together a book like this from a) a stack of better books about Lucy and b) an ill-intentioned imagination, and c) a desire to destroy the memory of Lucille Ball.There are factual mistakes, and many typos.Lucille Ball fans, old and new, deserve much better.

…it would be this book, a collection of salacious assertions submitted with little or no supporting documentation. Very few of the direct quotes are bolstered by citations (how do we know that these exact words were uttered? Who overhead them?). Adding to the dubious nature of the quotes is the phrasing of them. (Would people actually speak this way during informal conversations?) The book contains countless diversions having nothing to do with Miss Ball. (I assume they are included to increase the book’s length and, therefore, its cost.). Not only is the content poorly organized and sometimes repetitive, but it contains numerous factual errors. My advice: skip this one.

Mostly pulled from newspaper and magazine accounts. Goes off on long tangents about other Hollywood celebrities. Then drops into first person (quoted) conversations. Must have been tape recorders attached to everybody in those days. All the usual rumors about rampant sex escapades among the Hollywood “greats” — with an obsession on gay encounters (so passé now in 2022, who cares?). Looking at other titles by this writing team, this seems to be their “forte” — sex, drugs, addiction…….

Decent read, but the author has so many errors it’s hard to believe anything is true. The author flip flops between calling Desi, Ricky and has so many names wrong. He said George Burns died in 1966… try 1996. It goes on and on. Needs a simple editor to catch these mistakes. But it’s a good “take” on old Hollywood. He trashes The Lucy Show despite its ratings and wins. Nice story but doubt any is true since he can’t get simple facts correct.