Scan barcode
tcharrette's review against another edition
1.0
The content of the book was interesting but it was so badly written and had such a feeling of disorganization that it was hard to read. There also seemed to be a lot of repetition and filler information that was not necessary but rather a way to lengthen the book.
pdonnellan's review against another edition
3.0
Explains how Eadweard Muybridge's "moving" photographs of Leland Stanford's horse inaugurated the birth of motion pictures. A disjointed narrative, but I enjoyed all of the unexpected San Francisco history.
kathykekmrs's review against another edition
2.0
This was not a well-written biography. Yes, I know it is about two vastly different people with different personalities, but the writing itself was not great. First the text is two choppy. It jumps from scene to scene with little coherence in events. Since it was about two people, maybe one person' story should have gone first and then the other person's until they met and did the project together. Then there could have been the separation once again as their lives went along different paths. Another pet peeve I had was the fact that Edward Ball kept talking about building size as if it had a footprint. Buildings are on measured lots and then are measured in square feet for tax purposes. I do not understand this concept of footprints except as a term used by environmentalists in regards to fuel usage. Were people using that much fuel in the "Gilded Age"? A history book should give the reader the sense that he has been transported back in time. A well-written book describes the sights, sounds and smells for the reader and in this book it felt like Ball wanted to bring the past to the present.
The inventor was Eadweard Muybridge who invented moving pictures, but not a way to show them that would make a profit. The other supporting inventions would not come about until after he died. Thomas Edison, who is not well-liked by Ball did find a way to show them but not with sound. The tycoon is Leland Stanford,he who built a railroad and gave his fortune to the school named for his son. These men came together over horses. The movement of horses to be exact. Stanford was curious to know if the feet of horses left the ground during a gallop. The only man who had any experience with this kind of photography was Muybridge. He invented things for the camera that allowed for multiple shots, but not how to sell them that way. Book of still photographs were expensive and apparently boring to consumers. Cinemas did not yet exist and the first one would not come about until a year after Muybridge died.
This is not to say the book has no merits. I learned about California and of course the economic stranglehold that the railroad had California under. I just did not like all the jumping back and forth over decades in events while I was reading. There needs to be a natural progression when reading history and this book did not have it.
The inventor was Eadweard Muybridge who invented moving pictures, but not a way to show them that would make a profit. The other supporting inventions would not come about until after he died. Thomas Edison, who is not well-liked by Ball did find a way to show them but not with sound. The tycoon is Leland Stanford,he who built a railroad and gave his fortune to the school named for his son. These men came together over horses. The movement of horses to be exact. Stanford was curious to know if the feet of horses left the ground during a gallop. The only man who had any experience with this kind of photography was Muybridge. He invented things for the camera that allowed for multiple shots, but not how to sell them that way. Book of still photographs were expensive and apparently boring to consumers. Cinemas did not yet exist and the first one would not come about until a year after Muybridge died.
This is not to say the book has no merits. I learned about California and of course the economic stranglehold that the railroad had California under. I just did not like all the jumping back and forth over decades in events while I was reading. There needs to be a natural progression when reading history and this book did not have it.
rainbowbookworm's review against another edition
2.0
I would actually give this book 1.5 stars. I only like it because of the glimpses into early movie-making. Overall, though, the book is repetitive and doesn't offer in depth information about either of the titular subjects.
p0tat0's review against another edition
3.0
I learned a lot from this book, but had one major criticism: I appreciate that Ball did not want to tell a linear narrative of the lives of Muybridge and Stanford but it seemed like the order in which their life events were told was random and failed to build suspense.
bronwynmb's review
4.0
Really interesting book about the beginnings of capturing movement on film. The set up of the book, though, was distracting, jumping from person to person and back and forth in time.
lizdesole's review against another edition
3.0
Although it was a fascinating story at heart, the writing style marred the story for me. It is about Edward Muybridge, the man who invented moving pictures. Oh, and he also happens to be a murderer. So far, so good. My problem was that the language in the book had a tendency too much towards the flowery. It almost seemed as though the author submerged himself too much into the times and felt he needed to write it as if it were the late 19th century. I do read and enjoy novels from that era but here it felt forced
jerzgrl626's review against another edition
3.0
I learned so much from this book! While it was a bit light on the murder portion and really covered more of the murder trial, I didn't think it even needed it because there was so much to gain from learning about Stanford and Muybridge separately and how they came together to make history.
mikesmith's review
4.0
This reminded me of The Professor and the Madman. It is a fascinating story about the lives of both Stanford and Muybridge. *spoiler alert* But it is also presents a warning since it seems neither of these men of great deeds ended up happy - not even with each other. The very traits that drive them to success drive them away from others.