Comments on "My Hero, My Friend" Jimmy Bryan & DVD

[Big G 94]

Got my copy of the reissued book "My Hero, My Friend Jimmy Bryan" and the accompanying DVD "The Legend of Jimmy Bryan" earlier this week.

I know the book came out years ago in its first edition and is well known here, I'm just glad it's available again ... at a reasonable price; I'd never bought it before because it was so hard to get and expensive ... because it's superb. I really think you get more of the true flavor of the man by having the story told through the eyes of a kid than you would from a conventional birth-to-death biography, although there certainly could be room for one of those should someone be so inclined.

The DVD is excellent too, albeit a little brief, just over 30 minutes, kind of left you wanting more. There's more interviews with Jimmy, commercials he did, etc., than actual racing footage, which really isn't a bad thing because I'd never heard the guy's voice before.

The thing is ... and I'd heard this before, that whether from hard living, hard driving or a mixture of both, Jimmy really aged before his time, and the DVD touches on that (talks about him gaining weight, sort of hinting at least the way I perceived it that his racing chops had gotten rusty), and actually seeing him on film confirms that. The DVD has what is billed as the last filmed interview he ever did, and at least to my eyes he looked 54, not 34.

That begs the question ... and this also has been touched on over the years, although I need to tread lightly here given the fact that Jimmy still is a hero to a lot of people, me included ... as to whether folks like Rodger Ward, Clint Brawner and Eddie Sachs were right in saying that he really wasn't in shape to be at Langhorne on Father's Day 1960.

I know Ward and Brawner didn't catch heat for it, because they were generally respected and apparently said it to Jimmy's face beforehand, not in the press afterward. According to Denny Miller's book on Eddie (another great read BTW), Eddie said it in the press after the wreck, without very much tact, and pretty much got crucified for it (and I don't know when Miller did his interviews, but there were people like Charlie Brockman, who based on his comments throughout the book seemed to pretty much detest Eddie, who still were bitter about those comments probably 30 years after we lost Eddie).

But the thing is, only one man had the right to make that choice, that man made the only choice that was probably in his DNA to make ... and the rest is history.

[Niseguy]

Well his physical condition is moot. He qualified second fastest and was making an aggressive move to the inside of Branson for the lead when the car hooked a buried tire on the inside of turn "2". His physical condiditon in the later laps might have been an issue, but he never got to that point. As for Eddie, he shot from the lip often.

[Big G 94]

Wasn't the whole issue at least where Ward and Brawner were concerned ... Eddie did have diarrhea of the mouth occasionally but that was just part of his mojo and made him what he was ... that they were afraid that the combination of Jimmy's rustiness and physical condition and and his unfamiliarity with the suspension changes in dirt big cars that had been wrought since he became an irregular on the circuit lead to trouble?

[Niseguy]

Ward totally disliked Langhorne, considered it dangerous, was happy not to qualify in 1958 and didn't ever go back again. Brawner was happy to win and finish second there. Hindsight can allow for opinions of what did and didn't happen to sharpen with time. Sorry but the 4 bar car he was driving looked smooth in practice and qualifying. You would agree he knew the track and dirt racing. Now hooking the buried tire was just bad luck, or over zealous driving 15 seconds into the race.

[Big G 94]

Ward totally disliked Langhorne, considered it dangerous, was happy not to qualify in 1958 and didn't ever go back again. Brawner was happy to win and finish second there. Hindsight can allow for opinions of what did and didn't happen to sharpen with time. Sorry but the 4 bar car he was driving looked smooth in practice and qualifying. You would agree he knew the track and dirt racing. Now hooking the buried tire was just bad luck, or over zealous driving 15 seconds into the race.

Yeah, hindsight is 20-20. I think it was in the Sachs book, it was either Ward or Brawner quoted as telling Jimmy that in a specific situation (and I'm at the office and the book's at home so I can't elaborate), you had to do the exact opposite with the 4-bar car than you did with the cars he'd been used to, and either Ward or Brawner claimed Jimmy did the wrong thing. But I think there's been compelling evidence that something may have broken on the car, too. Maybe there was no one real "cause" to what happened. But again, hindsight is 20-20, and discussions 52 years hence won't change the history or the legend or what happened, just like the Sachs/McDonald discussion that's gone on for 48 years now doesn't either. And like I said, there was no way that Jimmy wasn't going to drive that car, and that day happened to be the day his number was up. To everything is a season.

Anyway, I don't want to get astray from my recommendation of the book (and any of you folks who don't have Spencer Riggs' Langhorne book, you have GOT to track it down too, may be my favorite book in my racing library, with tons of stuff about Jimmy and all the other greats).

[JBindy1958]

New kid on the block here and HUGE Jimmy Bryan fan. I have been fascinated by this discussion for years. Was wondering if there was any information out there or in the relatively new book about Jim Hurtubise and his possible involvment (by accident, of course), with Jimmy at Langhorne in 1960. I know that Clint said he had an "up close and personal" view of the accident and may have even possibly brushed tires with Jimmy? Just curious if there's anything to it?

[Niseguy]

Herk had to drive under the gyrating car. They did not touch.

[Big G 94]

The Bob Gates book on Hurtubise basically says Bryan hooked a rut and bought it, nothing more or less.

Here is an excerpt from Clint Brawner's book, which I have typed up verbatim. But I say in advance, nobody probably will ever know absolutely with 100 percent metaphysical certitude what happened that day, and even if they did, again it could've been from multiple factors rather than one. But Clint says he was standing in Puke Hollow that day, which basically makes him an eyewitness:

Pointing at the white Dean Van Lines car, the Eddie Kuzma-built machine he'd won so many dirt races in, and that was now nearly nine years old, Bryan remarked softly, “This is the one I should be driving, not the one I'm sitting in. It feels spooky to me.”


The reason the Leader Card car felt spooky to him was that Jim had been away from dirt racing too long. In his absence, a new front suspension system was being tried out on certain cars. Known as a “four-bar” suspension, it featured torsion bars not only on the a** end, but up front too. With the older, spring-type front suspension Jim was used to, a driver just barreled his car deep into the corners, heaved it sideways, then accelerated. That spring really pinned the right front wheel to the ground.


A four-bar suspension, however, had a “softer” ride, a very different feel. It felt “loose” all the way around the corner. A driver was supposed to keep his foot on the throttle regardless, just allow the car to sort of hang loose all the way around the corner.


Hearing Bryan say that the Leader Card car felt “spooky” made me feel even more uneasy.


“You take it easy,” I admonished him. “You've been away a long time.”


Then I spoke up some more, and probably shouldn't have. I said: “Bryan, remember when you were still driving for me, and how I quit bringing you to Langhorne?”


“Yeah.”


“Well,” I continued, “I never told you, but the real reason was this place always scared me too bad.”


“Good luck, Clint,” Jim smiled, and then he started legging it over to his Leader Card car.


I watched that broad back of his for the last time, noticing again the black cowboy boots Jim always raced in. Then Jim climbed inside the car and buckled himself down. He tied a red bandana around his mouth. His expression was grim.


Eddie Sachs was getting ready to go in the Dean car. By pre-race plan, one of my crew members was to signal Eddie from the pits. Meanwhile I was going over to the first corner, Puke Hollow. I'd study where the racing groove was, help try and figure out whether Sachs should be running the car high or low.


The 18 cars started their pace lap. Branson rode low on the pole in the yellow and red Bob Estes Special. Bryan was high on the outside, looking like a bull in the white Leader Card machine. Sachs was starting seventh. God, it was hot.


I climbed onto the back of a parked pickup truck and stood on its tailgate.


I had a perfect view of the first corner and all that transpired.


The engine roar built from the direction of the backstraight, then swelled, and the field of 18 jammed off the corner right from the green. Typical for Langhorne, all the cars were already broadsliding and the race hadn't even begun yet.


Bryan, from the outside, out-jumped Branson. Leading by a car length, his powerful arms flailing at the wheel, Bryan's Leader Card Offy started skidding wildly across Puke Hollow. Branson, also skidding, rode close behind. So did Hurtubise. The engine noise was hellish.


Even from as close to the corner as I was, it was impossible to tell the precise moment when Bryan's controlled 100 mph slide became an out-of-control skid. But slowly, almost lazily, the tail of his white car started coming around. It was about to spin.


Bryan must have felt the a** end starting to go, because I heard him momentarily lift his foot off the throttle, to get things straightened out. He wasn't used to the new suspension, and had charged into Puke Hollow a little too hard.


The pack of cars closed in on him. Branson and Hurtubise both swerved low to the inside. But just as Bryan let up on the throttle, his car shot forward and some part of it … the grille, probably … clipped the rear tire of the passing car of Hurtubise.


When that happened, it was all over.

[Big G 94]

Since we're speculating ... say Jimmy regained control of the car, kept going, finished the race without further incident, said "I'm back" and resumed full-time racing. Say he got himself into shape and got the rust off his driving chops.

Barring additional tragedy, how long do you guys think he'd have gone on? Would he have kept at it until the rear-engine days? He'd have been 38 in 1964 and 39 in 1965, a bit long in the tooth but look how long Branson kept at it.

Would we ever have seen Bryan in a rear-engine car (and yes, that would have been a rather tight fit)? Or would he have said the heck with the way the sport changed and confine himself to dirt, even passing up Indy?

[Niseguy]

I'm sorry but that rendition is Scalzoesque. Branson was leading from the flag, had the clear lead, his momentum took him high entering puke hollow, which is when Bryan tried the cross under move when he hooked the rut/buried tier marking the inside of the track. The car snap rolled then did a gyration nose down with JB stretched with arms out. Herk cut low/under.

Whether the conversation happened that way??? Yes the front end did not give feedback like the leaf spring jobs did. Johnny Thomson complained about that when he moved to the Hoover Motor Express car after this race. (He had sort of retired after the Milwaukee race but came back) He still won a pole at Syracuse though.

I defy anybody being able to tell who feathered a throttle in turn 2 at the start of a race there!

[JBindy1958]

Niseguy: I think you just effectively wrapped it up in a perfect explanation. Makes sense and jives with everything I have read on the subject. I also agree with Big G 94, unfortunately, Bryan had aged greatly beyond his 34 years. In a sense, he really was the end of the era of the 1950s. It is almost Shakespearian the way his accident even closed out that era. It was like the line in "My Hero, My Friend JB" that retirement was slowly tacking more out of him than racing. What I am still so upset with, is how he not included in the Greatest 33 list. What is some vindication, is his induction into USAC's first Hall of Fame class. About time!

[JBindy1958]

In the "Legend of Jimmy Bryan" DVD, there is a shot of Jimmy sitting in the 1960 Metal Cal car, with just the frame of the car around him. He looks so cramped and what is remarkable is that car was an even tighter squeeze for him than the Belond Car...which barely fit Tom Sneva this past May who was half Bryan's size!

[lotuspoweredbyford]

What I am still so upset with, is how he not included in the Greatest 33 list. What is some vindication, is his induction into USAC's first Hall of Fame class. About time!

Bryan should have been on the list ahead of Graham Hill or Tony Bettenhausen, or Dan Gurney, but Billy Arnold should have been on before any of them.

[Big G 94]

Well, given that Scalzo co-wrote Clint's book, I'd hope it would be Scalzoesque, LOL!

I basically posted the snippet because of JBIndy1958's inquiry about the Hurtubise book, after I found no real details in that book. I absolutely respect your description of what happened, it actually is pretty much verbatim the way Eddie Sachs described what happened, as per the Miller biography, minus the commentary on whether Bryan needed to be there at all. (Serious question, not meant to be flippant or contentious, but respectfully and out of sheer curiosity ... were you at Langhorne that day?)

The thing is, there are so many different stories out there. Spencer Riggs, who wrote the definitive book on Langhorne, said in a magazine story a few years back and in his book that Bryan's car brushed Hurtubise's, so it's not just Brawner via Scalzo saying that. Sachs' story mirrors what you've said. In the Miller biography of Sachs, however, Henry Banks, Charlie Brockman and Walt Chernokal are quoted as saying that a part on the car broke and nothing Jimmy did contributed to the wreck, it was strictly a mechanical failure. Which to me sounded like they were twisting themselves into pretzels trying to be defensive and protective of Jimmy, that there was no way he was capable of making an on-track mistake and it's an insult to his memory for anyone even to contemplate such a thing because he was the greatest dirt racer ever born of a woman. (Which he arguably was in his prime, but was that necessarily the case on June 19, 1960?). And there probably will continue to be multiple renditions unless somebody comes up with actual film of the wreck, which I don't think exists, the only thing I've ever seen are stills of them coming around to take the flag, and that horrible AP shot of Jimmy coming out of the car.

I'm sorry but that rendition is Scalzoesque. Branson was leading from the flag, had the clear lead, his momentum took him high entering puke hollow, which is when Bryan tried the cross under move when he hooked the rut/buried tier marking the inside of the track. The car snap rolled then did a gyration nose down with JB stretched with arms out. Herk cut low/under.

Whether the conversation happened that way??? Yes the front end did not give feedback like the leaf spring jobs did. Johnny Thomson complained about that when he moved to the Hoover Motor Express car after this race. (He had sort of retired after the Milwaukee race but came back) He still won a pole at Syracuse though.

I defy anybody being able to tell who feathered a throttle in turn 2 at the start of a race there!

[Big G 94]

Bryan should have been on the list ahead of Graham Hill or Tony Bettenhausen, or Dan Gurney, but Billy Arnold should have been on before any of them.

+1 ... Graham Hill was one of my favorite drivers and I've said here before that I think the 1966 race was utterly fascinating, but it was total, blind luck that he won it. He's not the first person and won't be the last person to win a race that way, and his mug absolutely belongs on the Borg-Warner, but having him in Indy's top 33 drivers is a joke. He was atrocious in 1967 and, other than qualifying, fair to middling in 1968.

[impact]

There are films of Bryan's crash. I have seen footage, but the flips are already in progress. Not certain, but I think the Wallen videos of the 60s is where you may find them.

Jimmy Bryan had laid off the champ trail following his 1958 500 win. He went only one lap in 1959 and 152 laps in 1960, finishing 19th after starting 10th. He returned to the champ trail basically, for financial reasons. He was my first racing hero and one of those that set the bar for what I considered race drivers should be.

[JThur1]

There's a thread on this forum debunking popular myths, where I've pointed to the number of times it happens around fatal accidents (also see: Sachs-MacDonald thread), and what happens?...yet another thread full of wild speculation and quoting various books as "sources" for what really happened?

One cannot, cannot, go solely by what was in print. Even more so, absolutely do not go with one story over another simply because it turns up more than once. Riggs mentioning the same story as in the Brawner book likely means he used it as a source for his Langhorne book. Nothing more. That's how these things perpetuate.

That the Brawner book was co-written by Scalzo says as much as one needs to know about it's factuality.

[JBindy1958]

There is footage of the accident and it is terrible to watch. (@impact: you are right...Bryan did set the bar for what drivers should be...and that is likely due to the fact that he was so approachable. I have met countless people who were kids when he was around and they all tell me the same thing: he was extremely kind and gracious to the fans. I think that is why he is still so highly regarded among fans who know the history of the sport. Beyond his racing feats, his personality is what resonated.

What was it about Jimmy Bryan's personality that made him such a hero to race fans?

[JBindy1958]

Question to JThur1: You raise the point of Scalzo and factuality. Are the questions about his factuality in his writings?

[Big G 94]

Agreed, and I'm sorry that what I posted as a positive review of this book and DVD went so far afield. The only reason I broached it was actually seeing the physical deterioration in Jimmy from the films of him in 1958 to the filmed interview of him in June 1960, having heard all the "he had no business being there stories" and having read in particular the Eddie Sachs book in which ... this is what I took from it, if these people were quoted accurately ... some pretty prominent folks were almost vehement in their insistence that what happened that day was a mechanical failure, period, end of discussion, and how dare anyone (especially Eddie Sachs) say otherwise.

However, I think I've been consistent in saying that IMO, no one probably ever will know with metaphysical certitude the complete, exact, every single detail and reason covered and absolutely confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt story of what transpired on June 19, 1960, other than a man wrecked a car and died ... just like in the example you cited, no one probably ever will know with metaphysical certitude the complete, exact, every single detail and reason covered and absolutely confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt story of what transpired on May 30, 1964.

And I'll unashamedly (venues like this wouldn't exist without a bit of speculation) repeat the other thing I tossed out for discussion ... if things had turned out differently on June 19, 1960, and in the four or five years afterward, would we ever have seen Jimmy in a rear-engine car?

There's a thread on this forum debunking popular myths, where I've pointed to the number of times it happens around fatal accidents (also see: Sachs-MacDonald thread), and what happens?...yet another thread full of wild speculation and quoting various books as "sources" for what really happened?

One cannot, cannot, go solely by what was in print. Even more so, absolutely do not go with one story over another simply because it turns up more than once. Riggs mentioning the same story as in the Brawner book likely means he used it as a source for his Langhorne book. Nothing more. That's how these things perpetuate.

That the Brawner book was co-written by Scalzo says as much as one needs to know about it's factuality.

[Big G 94]

Scalzo's work can get a bit overwrought, to say the least. At least his own stuff. As far as the things he ghost-wrote for other folks, like Clint Brawner and Bobby Unser, does anyone know of those two folks disavowing the final results?

Question to JThur1: You raise the point of Scalzo and factuality. Are the questions about his factuality in his writings?

[JThur1]

Question to JThur1: You raise the point of Scalzo and factuality. Are the questions about his factuality in his writings?

Absolutely, and there are several glaring examples of it. To the point where all of it should be taken with a major grain of salt. Scalzo is a brilliant writer when it comes to making one feel like they are there as something happens. That is a very good, and rare, quality.

[JThur1]

Agreed, and I'm sorry that what I posted as a positive review of this book and DVD went so far afield. The only reason I broached it was actually seeing the physical deterioration in Jimmy from the films of him in 1958 to the filmed interview of him in June 1960, having heard all the "he had no business being there stories" and having read in particular the Eddie Sachs book in which ... this is what I took from it, if these people were quoted accurately ... some pretty prominent folks were almost vehement in their insistence that what happened that day was a mechanical failure, period, end of discussion, and how dare anyone (especially Eddie Sachs) say otherwise.

However, I think I've been consistent in saying that IMO, no one probably ever will know with metaphysical certitude the complete, exact, every single detail and reason covered and absolutely confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt story of what transpired on June 19, 1960, other than a man wrecked a car and died ... just like in the example you cited, no one probably ever will know with metaphysical certitude the complete, exact, every single detail and reason covered and absolutely confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt story of what transpired on May 30, 1964.

And I'll unashamedly (venues like this wouldn't exist without a bit of speculation) repeat the other thing I tossed out for discussion ... if things had turned out differently on June 19, 1960, and in the four or five years afterward, would we ever have seen Jimmy in a rear-engine car?

I'm simply pointing out that all should be taken with a strong grain of salt. Differing views of the same thing and opinions alone aren't facts, yes, even if they appear in a book. Aside from any obvious inaccuracies, the rest should be taken for what they are...one person's opinions or point of view. They may or may not have merit, and may or may not be that accurate.

I only cited Bryan and Sachs-MacDonald, but this scenario plays out over and over again, seemingly involving nearly every fatal accident (add O'Connor, Elisian and Smiley as more recent - or other recurring - examples of this sort of thing). What you state in your final paragraph applies pretty much across the board to any of these incidents or any other for that matter. Aside from certain cold, hard facts, the rest is speculation. Many times, even those cold, hard facts are ignored or conflated. Be it June 19, 1960, May 30, 1964 or any other...pick a date, any date.

[Big G 94]

What you state in your final paragraph applies pretty much across the board to any of these incidents or any other for that matter. Aside from certain cold, hard facts, the rest is speculation. Many times, even those cold, hard facts are ignored or conflated. Be it June 19, 1960, May 30, 1964 or any other...pick a date, any date.

How about Nov. 22, 1963? Hell, speculation over that spawned practically a billion dollar industry.

[MS]

Here's a youtube about Jimmy Bryan.

Warning: there is a still photo of the fatal crash in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL8fMpZf_2w

[Indyracin]

Just got it today. Great book.Price for the book and dvd combo are good.

[JBindy1958]

Here is the link to a sneek peek of "The Legend of Jimmy Bryan."

http://youtu.be/JePLLOhNgKY

[Big G 94]

Absolutely, and there are several glaring examples of it. To the point where all of it should be taken with a major grain of salt. Scalzo is a brilliant writer when it comes to making one feel like they are there as something happens. That is a very good, and rare, quality.

RE>Scalzo, have been thinking a few days about what to post. I offer this as a professional opinion, being that I used to be a professional writer and am now a professional editor.

I have 3 of his books, the Indy Roadsters book, the American Dirt Track Racers book and the Brawner autobiography, and have read the Bobby Unser autobiography. I liked the Brawner and Unser books he ghostwrote, although I think they are a bit dry being that they are in somebody else's voice and not his. As far as whether those two books are factual, I've never had the inclination to sit down and cross-check things. If he accurately repeated the information he received from those guys, then it's accurate in the sense that it reflects their side of the story. As far as whether it reflects the actual truth, again as noted the same people can see things different ways. I figure Brawner and Unser had to sign off on the final product and I don't recall seeing anything about them being displeased, although Uncle Bobby's never struck me as the type who'd be a big reader, I figure as long as the royalty checks came in, he was OK.

The other two books, I agree with you that Scalzo has the knack of making people feel like they actually were there, and I really enjoyed both books, but they absolutely are over the top. I get the impression that Scalzo is so caught up in that memorable but bygone part of racing history, is so caught up in trying to bring it to life for readers, is trying so hard to ensure that it and some of its most memorable characters aren't forgotten, and above all is so fascinated by some of the biggest loco weeds ... Smokey Elisian (he seems absolutely obsessed by that poor soul), Herb Porter, I'd even toss Smokey Yunick into that category ... who ever turned a steering wheel or a wrench in an era that was chock full of loco weeds, that he shovels stuff onto the pile with a front-end loader instead of painting word pictures with a "brush."

I've never cross-checked those books for factual errors either, although I don't doubt that some exist. But is it a case of him consciously making misstatements, or just being so caught up in the tale that he creates his own reality?

And surely he can't be as bad as Peter Golenbock, who must have a deal with his publisher that nobody can change a consonant or a vowel in anything he writes, given the factual errors that appear in every one of his works. His Bobby Allison biography, where he basically recites the paranoid rantings of Bobby and his brother Eddie, ought to be in the fiction department of the library. But I think Golenbock falls into the trap you've sort of indirectly touched on, in that he does a lot of "oral biography" type things and basically takes every word he's told by anybody as being gospel truth. News flash, and I know of where I speak having been there and done that and gotten burned too many times ... people remember things wrong, they say things with an agenda and at times, they out and out lie.

[JBindy1958]

Big G 94...I appreciate reading your thoughts on this subject. I have long been a fan of Scalzo and love reading his work. (Truth be told...I did not read the Indy Roadsters book, but everything else). My question to you is do you think the subject matter just lends itself to a kind of quasi Greek tragedy that keeps getting retold. In other words, it's hard not to look at these racers like Bryan and O'Connor and Vukovich and Bettenhausen and so on, and not instantly elevate them to iconic status. It's a theme that is visited in Woody Allen's recent movie...Midnight In Paris: every previous generation looks at the times of the past and claims those as the "Golden Age." Are we guilty of that with these iconic drivers and the times they raced in? I tend to think they were unique in substance and so its only natural that we want to hold them up to a different light because they were different! Not sure if I'm making sense here...but curious what your thoughts are on this. It's a subject matter I have drank a lot of beer to and discussed at length with fellow fans of the era.

[Big G 94]

Big G 94...I appreciate reading your thoughts on this subject. I have long been a fan of Scalzo and love reading his work. (Truth be told...I did not read the Indy Roadsters book, but everything else). My question to you is do you think the subject matter just lends itself to a kind of quasi Greek tragedy that keeps getting retold. In other words, it's hard not to look at these racers like Bryan and O'Connor and Vukovich and Bettenhausen and so on, and not instantly elevate them to iconic status. It's a theme that is visited in Woody Allen's recent movie...Midnight In Paris: every previous generation looks at the times of the past and claims those as the "Golden Age." Are we guilty of that with these iconic drivers and the times they raced in? I tend to think they were unique in substance and so its only natural that we want to hold them up to a different light because they were different! Not sure if I'm making sense here...but curious what your thoughts are on this. It's a subject matter I have drank a lot of beer to and discussed at length with fellow fans of the era.

You could have a point. I said at the start of this thread that I thought the Bryan book, that told his story through a kids eyes, IMO was more effective than a "scholarly," conventional, starting out with his birth and ending with his death, 600-page biography of Jimmy would be. Although certainly he's a significant enough person in American sports history to merit such a book. I don't know that you'd get the full flavor of the man with that kind of approach, it probably would come across as a clinical recitation of facts. And it's probably the same way with that era as a whole. IMO, Dick Wallen in "Fabulous Fifties" comes about as close to anyone as "getting it right," as in combining facts and flavor, as anything I've read.