Thursday, December 30, 2010
Thanks for the E-mails
I check the blog emails about once a month but didn't get to December's until today. I just spent over two hours answering all of your emails and I thank those of you who took the time to email me with your ideas, reviews, questions, and concerns. I want you all to know how much I appreciate your interests in the Natalie Wood case, and many of you offered helpful information. One emailer received Nastasha, by Finstad, Pieces of My Heart, by Wagner and Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour as a "package gift" for Christmas and she asked my opinion on what to read first. (she already had Natalie Wood: A Life by Lambert on audio, so that is what she has "read" first). I answered her but won't say here what I suggested. She looks in on the blog, so maybe some of you can make your suggestions, even if they are different from mine, I'm curious, too, in what order readers believe these books should be read. I'll post what I suggested to the emailer after reading comments. Thank you all for signing the petition and for taking the time to email me. I appreciate it. If you have any questions you'd like to post here, I'll be happy to answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm glad I read them in the order they were published. Finsadt, Lambert (but she read that first which is fine), then RJ's, then GNGS. That is the order I suggest. You get the flow of the people involved when read in order. Then, Marti, you get final say and I love the way you addessed the other books in your book.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I read them in order, each as published...was always left with questions, until GNGS.
ReplyDeleteI read GNGS before Wagner's book. It was very hard to stomach his book at that point but I'm glad I read it as it adequately validates GNGS.
ReplyDeleteI would read Natasha last. It takes longer as it's a complex read, good to savor for Nat fans.
ReplyDeleteWell, to be honest, Lana's book was the first one I read about Natalie, then "Natasha", then Gavin Lambert's, "Natalie Wood: A Life" (which I did not care for) then GNGS. I've read parts of Wagner's book but haven't read the entire thing. I think GNGS should be read first, then "Natasha" then Wagner's bio. IMO, of course.
ReplyDeleteIf I had it all to do over again and they were all in front of me for a first time read and hindsight prevailed, I'd throw Harris' book in the trash. Then, I'd go with RJ's first and then Lana, Lambert and Finstad finishing off with GNGS last. My reason; by the time I got to GNGS I could dispell all the twaddle from the others and concentrate on the truth without all the glossy movie star trappings of the other books clogging my brain. By then, one could only hope that the lingering rancid taste of RJ's book of myths and narcissistic clap trap would have left me.
ReplyDeleteNow, I shall tiptoe very quietly back out the door...
I hadn't realized I had Lambert's book title wrong until your post, Colleen. Ooops...I mixed it up with Lana's title. I corrected it.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:38 I agree that GNGS is good to read last, and that's what I had suggested, although in any order I think any astute reader will be able to pull the truth from these works, and see where the lies continue. I had suggested reading in order of publication as many of you said because it's the way the saga actually unfolded. I think Wagner thought by the time he wrote his book that Dennis was far in the distant past. It is Wagner's book that actually motivated me to publish. By 2004 I had semi-given up, but to see the history of that night go down the way Lambert and Wagner presented it just would not settle with me.
I think, by reading GNGS last, where the lies are addressed, readers can then really decide for themselves. At the end of the day, there is still a woman who perished--a legendary figure, a beautiful person and mother of two--who DID NOT HAVE TO DIE! Natalie could very well be alive tonight, celebrating the coming of a new year with her family and friends. It is ALL so tragically sad. It could've been the year she won an Oscar! We will never know. And it won't be on that note that I offer my new year wishes...I'll save it for a post. It REALLY is disturbing and sad.
I don't even consider Lambert's book as biography of Natalie it was more of a flag waving ceremony for Robert Wagner. That book was written for Robert Wagner, at Robert Wagner's request as a means of responding to the allegations that Finstad made about Wagner in her book. In reading Lambert's book and then Wagner's book you notice Wagner's contradictions and embellishments.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are numerous contradictions and outright lies, especially about "seeing Natalie at her vanity."
ReplyDeleteI found it surprising, and pompous of Wagner, that he admitted the bottle smashing although he eliminated Natalie from the scene. That's quite smearing it in the authorities' faces. But, they ignored it, if they knew about it at all before I told Salerno.
I agree that Lambert's book was not really about Natalie, he wrote it for Wagner, and to try to refute what Suzanne Finstad revealed in "Natasha". The photos were the best thing about "Natalie Wood: A Life". Wagner has contradicted himself whenever he chooses to talk about that night.
ReplyDeleteI can see your point about reading the books in order of their publication, Marti. It's probably the best way for people to hopefully separate the the truth from the lies.
Natalie should be here and she's not because of a terrible, completely preventable tragedy. I don't know how Wagner can live with himself.
I don't either, Colleen.
ReplyDelete