Customer Reviews

Martha: On Trial, in Jail, and on a Comeback

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Most of Robert Slater's newest book covers Martha Stewart's supposedly scandalous business life at the turn of the century: from the phone call she got from stockbroker assistant Doug Faneuil on December 27, 2001; to her trial, sentencing, jail time, and re-entry into the business world in 2005. If you didn't follow these events as they were happening, then you will find this recap enlightening. If you're a Martha fan, then you may even glean a few insights into her personal life and mindset. One has to wonder how much of the introspection is real, however. Slater admits that he didn't get a chance to talk with Stewart directly, and he doesn't name all of his sources. So every paragraph that describes what she was thinking at any given time is open to suspicion. And yet, it might all be true.

Slater's repetitive style, so overwhelming in the Trump profile, "No Such Thing as Overexposure," still folds the storyline over at times. The chapters can read as if they were written as stand-alone magazine articles, assuming that most readers are not privy to previous or subsequent information. Characters are needlessly reintroduced; minor backstory events are repeated. The magazine or newspaper feel continues with sub-headlines that break the storyline in progress and not at natural breaks in the action. Quotes are even pulled out of the text and repeated in gray-boxed sidebars. While those techniques may entice readers skimming through periodicals to stop and grab at a few morsels, they are annoying and unnecessary when employed in book format. The end result doesn't honor the reader. Neither does the placement of the author bio at the beginning of the book, almost making the subject Slater and not Stewart.

The bulk of the book (197 pages) is given to the trial, with a brief recount (15 pages) of her incarceration at Alderson. Perhaps the most valuable portion of the book is the culminating focus on Stewart's objective to reinvent herself and to launch a successful comeback after serving her time. For the most part, she's fulfilled that mission, and this book champions her efforts. Unfortunately, just after this publication was released, Stewart was engaged in a verbal tug-of-war with Donald Trump over the cancellation of her Apprentice series. Trump's words of support for Martha as they appear in this book will leave readers shaking their heads at the newest development in their relationship. Sadly, this book is already out-of-date.

One has to wonder. If Slater's conclusion is true -- that Martha wanted to put this whole nasty business far behind her and emerge stronger than ever -- then a book that rehashes it all once again, in black and white, goes completely against that objective. And yet, the author maintains that he didn't "want to produce a negative book about Stewart." One has to wonder.

Robert Slater's writing disappoints me. It disappointed me with his recent book about Donald Trump, "No Such Thing as Overexposure", and it disappoints me in the Martha book. It reeks of the "let's write and publish a book as quickly as possible using secondary sources" school which appears increasingly common in our bookstores. Slater repeats the same points over and over again, often using the same words, and in many cases within a page or two of the previous mention. Since he didn't get to interview Martha, the conjecturing and theorising about her life are, at best, superficial, and, at worst, make-believe. I am no fan of Martha Stewart as I am not into homemaking, but read the book as part of broader reading about comebacks. Slater's work contributed little to my thinking.

I find her account to be genuie and truthful. The narrative depicts the fall and rise of an extraordinary woman who has the courage to confess the truth.

At least this author mentions the "mockery" strategy Martha/Mdiddy tried to use to "fog" the public. The "real issue" of whether Martha/Mdiddy committed the crimes, and lack of an effort to encourage an answer to the question "DID MARTHA STEWART" lie, demonstrates some complacency. Is it this complacency Martha/Mdiddy and her pr team try to encourage and promote? Is it the "greyness" of white-collar crime that Martha/Mdiddy was trying to play on? Is society the ultimate judge about a person's guilt or innocence? If so, what has Martha/Mdiddy been judged?
Be "thoughtful"
~Shawn