Scan barcode
ferris_mx's review against another edition
5.0
One of the first serious history books I ever read, I expected this to be average and then I expected to donate the book. I'm not donating it.
Despite being personally and organizationally useful against crime, Hoover and the FBi had all the hallmarks of any successful totalitarian organization. The inviolable rules were in fact violable to benefit the few. What rules? Oh, petty and not so petty graft and abuse of power. Money paid the FBI by the networks was somehow subverted to Hoover's gain and a select few of the others. The rank and file of the FBI were taxed to support further graft. Inspectors visiting regional offices had to be bribed to give good performance reviews, whether accurate or inaccurate.
Peoples' careers were subject to the whims of those above them. This created a cult of personality. Anyone who advertently or inadvertently gained power or publicity rivaling the director's found his (yes, his) career shortly terminated. So the FBi wound up with a buncy of sycophantic administrators clamoring for Hoover's love and attention. So reminiscent of Stalin's administration.
"Criminals" were pursued less based on their crime than for personal or publicity reasons. Organized crime was ignored and even denied for years in favor of other safer and easier crimes and only pursued when local police action embarrassed the FBI and forced it's hand. What else determined which crimes were or were not pursued? Ability to classify the criminal as communist was a big one. Race was another big one. And same-sex orientation or other non-normative sexuality was yet another. Hoover's FBI was deeply racist and sexist and homophobic. Once Hoover made up his mind, it didn't matter whether the allegations were true. Careers were destroyed based strictly on allegations that a person was communist or was gay. Hoover did nothing he didn't have to to fight for civil rights, in many cases assisting the KKK in preventing civil rights.
How did he retain power so long? The ability to embarrass politicians by what he knew about what they had done. What crimes had the committed before getting elected, to get elected, or after? It seems like every single politician had benefited from graft, and many from election irregularities, especially Johnson and Kennedy. Many had sexual dalliances or same-sex experiences that could be used to destroy their careers. Every President Hoover worked for wanted to force him out, but none could.
Least of all Kennedy. Kennedy bought Illinois' results, even though it turned out he didn't need Illinois given Johnson's ability to control Texas' results. And his history of pre-marital and extra-marital affairs with spies, models, and actresses was astonishing. If Kennedy could have admitted those affairs then it would have been his business (except for those who worked in the White House, or were procured, as many were, by senior White House staff). But he couldn't admit them, and was held hostage by both Hoover, who ran the FBI as he liked, and also by organized crime. Hoover was free to continue to suppress civil rights contrary to Kennedy's wishes. And nobody's civil rights were suppressed more than King's who was subjected to suppression, and tapping, and ultimately Hoover tried to control him through his non-normative sex practices in ways that were appalling, like forging a letter purporting to be from an African American colleague to Corretta King describing King's sins.
The tone is understated, lending credibility to the author's tale. Much of the story is unknown or controversial, due to the FBI's and other parties' willful destruction of records. The author's take on history, no matter how shocking, is alluded or dropped without breathless delivery common in some of the other revelatory books I have trusted less. The author's slant seems liberal and pro civil rights, so the discussion of the Kennedys doesn't seem slanted.
Despite being personally and organizationally useful against crime, Hoover and the FBi had all the hallmarks of any successful totalitarian organization. The inviolable rules were in fact violable to benefit the few. What rules? Oh, petty and not so petty graft and abuse of power. Money paid the FBI by the networks was somehow subverted to Hoover's gain and a select few of the others. The rank and file of the FBI were taxed to support further graft. Inspectors visiting regional offices had to be bribed to give good performance reviews, whether accurate or inaccurate.
Peoples' careers were subject to the whims of those above them. This created a cult of personality. Anyone who advertently or inadvertently gained power or publicity rivaling the director's found his (yes, his) career shortly terminated. So the FBi wound up with a buncy of sycophantic administrators clamoring for Hoover's love and attention. So reminiscent of Stalin's administration.
"Criminals" were pursued less based on their crime than for personal or publicity reasons. Organized crime was ignored and even denied for years in favor of other safer and easier crimes and only pursued when local police action embarrassed the FBI and forced it's hand. What else determined which crimes were or were not pursued? Ability to classify the criminal as communist was a big one. Race was another big one. And same-sex orientation or other non-normative sexuality was yet another. Hoover's FBI was deeply racist and sexist and homophobic. Once Hoover made up his mind, it didn't matter whether the allegations were true. Careers were destroyed based strictly on allegations that a person was communist or was gay. Hoover did nothing he didn't have to to fight for civil rights, in many cases assisting the KKK in preventing civil rights.
How did he retain power so long? The ability to embarrass politicians by what he knew about what they had done. What crimes had the committed before getting elected, to get elected, or after? It seems like every single politician had benefited from graft, and many from election irregularities, especially Johnson and Kennedy. Many had sexual dalliances or same-sex experiences that could be used to destroy their careers. Every President Hoover worked for wanted to force him out, but none could.
Least of all Kennedy. Kennedy bought Illinois' results, even though it turned out he didn't need Illinois given Johnson's ability to control Texas' results. And his history of pre-marital and extra-marital affairs with spies, models, and actresses was astonishing. If Kennedy could have admitted those affairs then it would have been his business (except for those who worked in the White House, or were procured, as many were, by senior White House staff). But he couldn't admit them, and was held hostage by both Hoover, who ran the FBI as he liked, and also by organized crime. Hoover was free to continue to suppress civil rights contrary to Kennedy's wishes. And nobody's civil rights were suppressed more than King's who was subjected to suppression, and tapping, and ultimately Hoover tried to control him through his non-normative sex practices in ways that were appalling, like forging a letter purporting to be from an African American colleague to Corretta King describing King's sins.
The tone is understated, lending credibility to the author's tale. Much of the story is unknown or controversial, due to the FBI's and other parties' willful destruction of records. The author's take on history, no matter how shocking, is alluded or dropped without breathless delivery common in some of the other revelatory books I have trusted less. The author's slant seems liberal and pro civil rights, so the discussion of the Kennedys doesn't seem slanted.
sfletcher26's review against another edition
3.0
An exhaustive and exhausting read.
Don't get me wrong Gentry is a great writer and knows his subject well. The problem though is that he is not prepared to comment or offer his own opinion on anything. He simply lays the information out and let's the reader decide what to think. take for instance Hoover's supposed homosexuality, yes he touches on it but offers no opinion on the veracity of the charges.
Now for some that's fine but for me it's less than fulfilling.
Don't get me wrong Gentry is a great writer and knows his subject well. The problem though is that he is not prepared to comment or offer his own opinion on anything. He simply lays the information out and let's the reader decide what to think. take for instance Hoover's supposed homosexuality, yes he touches on it but offers no opinion on the veracity of the charges.
Now for some that's fine but for me it's less than fulfilling.
kaygray78's review against another edition
4.0
Holy moly.
First of all, it took me a month to read this book. I picked it up after I saw the movie J. Edgar, with Leonardo Dicaprio, and wondered how historically accurate the movie was. I also realized that while my education taught me a lot about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and tons of European history, it was woefully inadequate when it comes to recent US history.
Also, there were several reasons it took so long, besides the fact that it's 700+ pages long.
The author spent 15 years writing this book and it is meticulously researched. The amount of info in the text is mindblowing. There are also a lot of people, and sometimes I would lose track of who someone was and have to backtrack to remind myself. It's also heavily footnoted, which slowed me down.
The government really loves its initials too. FBI, CIA, OSS, HUAC, ABC, XYZ...again I frequently had to backtrack to remember what a particular agency or committee was all about. And having never heard the expression "feet of clay" before, sometimes I had to look things up.
I also, like many reviewers, would put the book aside to do further reading on topics covered very minimally in the book.
Like many reviewers, I found this book to be slightly one sided. It's obvious Gentry has a deep dislike for Hoover. I'm not convinced that his attitiude is unwarranted--Hoover was a frightening man. (As a side note, I'm sure Hoover is spinning in his grave these days. It's entertaining to wonder what he would make of Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer et al, gay marriage, 9/11 or Cindy Sheehan.)
All in all, I really really enjoyed it.
First of all, it took me a month to read this book. I picked it up after I saw the movie J. Edgar, with Leonardo Dicaprio, and wondered how historically accurate the movie was. I also realized that while my education taught me a lot about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and tons of European history, it was woefully inadequate when it comes to recent US history.
Also, there were several reasons it took so long, besides the fact that it's 700+ pages long.
The author spent 15 years writing this book and it is meticulously researched. The amount of info in the text is mindblowing. There are also a lot of people, and sometimes I would lose track of who someone was and have to backtrack to remind myself. It's also heavily footnoted, which slowed me down.
The government really loves its initials too. FBI, CIA, OSS, HUAC, ABC, XYZ...again I frequently had to backtrack to remember what a particular agency or committee was all about. And having never heard the expression "feet of clay" before, sometimes I had to look things up.
I also, like many reviewers, would put the book aside to do further reading on topics covered very minimally in the book.
Like many reviewers, I found this book to be slightly one sided. It's obvious Gentry has a deep dislike for Hoover. I'm not convinced that his attitiude is unwarranted--Hoover was a frightening man. (As a side note, I'm sure Hoover is spinning in his grave these days. It's entertaining to wonder what he would make of Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer et al, gay marriage, 9/11 or Cindy Sheehan.)
All in all, I really really enjoyed it.
sammystahl's review against another edition
3.0
Exhausting, but filled w fascinating details on Hoover and his nearly 50 years running the FBI. I read this in fits and starts.
rheannachristine's review against another edition
3.0
this was an amazing biographical/historical type book. Amazing. I learned a lot I didn't know, I learned more about things I already knew. The one downside is that it is an extremely information dense book. Wow. This book took me awhile to read because I occasionally had to take some breaks from reading it, and read something else to let my brain take a rest. I would recommend this book to someone that likes this type of book. Keep your smartphone or laptop near by because you're going to want to look stuff up. I looked up many names I couldn't remember from earlier, and many times I would look up stuff to learn more because the book made me want to learn more about it. I learned so much that isn't in your average history book and I learned perhaps too much about Mr. Hoover.
lilygwendolyn's review against another edition
4.0
An in-depth (& dense! hoo boy) look at the life of a man who was the director of the FBI for 40+ years. Took me awhile to get through, but I'm glad I read it. Apparently there is a movie coming out next year about him, with Hoover being played by Leonardo DiCaprio. It will be interesting to see how they show the Hoover/Tolson relationship at the very least. And now when I go I can be that nerd that educates her companions on the background information to the movie :P
rustyatencio's review
4.0
Like a heart rate monitor with erratic motion, it felt like I had too many flat lines during the course of this biography. His was a life that did not lack plots, enough to produce hundreds of movies on different eras. Starting when he was a young committed lad in the Bureau of Investigations during the Woodrow Wilson administration, until his demise 10 presidents later. This was a hard read, specially in conspicuous chapters of anomaly and cover ups that occurred in the long history that JEH has been Director of the FBI.
On the outside, he was seen as a hero who displayed integrity in serving under justice system. But for those who challenged his position or crossed him personally, intentional or not (often the former), he was a viscous villain who can make or break careers, relationships at some point life.
Albert Einstein did not sit well on Hoover's suspicions about him during his fearful years in the looming WW2. JFK and his brother Robert tried to be good boys to the man despite their higher rank than JEH, until both of them got assassinated. Frank Sinatra's flirtation with Italian mob. Marilyn Monroe's favors and controversial death. All these and more of Hoover's control, manipulation, intimidation, and the necessary bag jobs he took that made the FBI what it is today.
On the outside, he was seen as a hero who displayed integrity in serving under justice system. But for those who challenged his position or crossed him personally, intentional or not (often the former), he was a viscous villain who can make or break careers, relationships at some point life.
Albert Einstein did not sit well on Hoover's suspicions about him during his fearful years in the looming WW2. JFK and his brother Robert tried to be good boys to the man despite their higher rank than JEH, until both of them got assassinated. Frank Sinatra's flirtation with Italian mob. Marilyn Monroe's favors and controversial death. All these and more of Hoover's control, manipulation, intimidation, and the necessary bag jobs he took that made the FBI what it is today.
cspiwak's review
3.0
interesting- as many awful things as Hoover did, I felt like the author took every chance he could to speculate on the fact that he was probably more awful, even though proof was not yet available.That felt inappropriate.
The things that evidence exists for filled hundreds of pages with some prettyupdetting reading. an education
The things that evidence exists for filled hundreds of pages with some prettyupdetting reading. an education
More...