I really wanted to give this book more than two stars. The premise is very interesting in itself. The author tells the story about her father, the man that hit famous author Margaret Mitchell in an unfortunate car accident in August 1949, snuffing the 48 year old author's life out. Throughout his life, he was ostracized and treated like a pariah. He never recovered from it.
The author, his daughter, sets out to make things right and tell the "true" story of what really happened. One of the first problems, and she does warn the readers, is that the spelling and grammar are atrocious. She wasn't kidding. My point here is you have an interesting story set to exonerate your father, you could find get a copy editor to look over the manuscript! What about an old-fashioned spell check that is on computers? There is no excuse these days for this type of disregard to readers.
When you write a story like this, you want readers to take your information seriously, and that your theories will garner respect. Perhaps with some royalties, the author will publish a second edition with corrections? It's a matter of pride that was lost in the translation of the story.
Some interesting aspects include the author's life in rural Georgia versus urban Atlanta. The background of her family was very intriguing considering the context. Ironies abound however. The first anecdote she shares is her father got a used car at 14 without telling his father, fixed it up and proceeded to race through ditches, creeks etc until he got caught. Funny how he became a cab driver, clearly drove too fast that fateful day and was accused of being drunk.
I do feel that Hugh Gravitt did not get a fair trial. He spent 11 months in jail and went back to his regular job, only this time as a cab mechanic. Did Hugh expect to really fit in and be accepted after hitting and killing America's and the world's most popular author?
It's true sometimes the rich and famous get away with murder, but the common person takes a hit. The author feels her father was a victim just like Margaret Mitchell herself. Perhaps he was. It is unfortunate when you critically injure a famous person, people don't want to listen to your story.
What really bothered me is the last section of the book. It goes into Margaret Mitchell and her husband's life. There are repetitions galore that make for challenging reading. I'm just not sure Mitchell's interest in erotica, not wanting to have children, being rebellious, made her a bad person. In fact, this information has very little to do with that day. What the author proposes is that the disgruntled husband literally pushed her into the upcoming traffic and he got out of the way, so she would perish. How can you possibly read murderous motives into this accident? As if the husband just planned to push her into an oncoming car? The author mentions he then burned all her manuscripts and clothing soon after her death. But reading other books on the subject, it is stated she wrote this wish out in her will.
She was with her husband for 24 years, and he died a few years later. Ms. Gravitt Moulder feels because he edited "Gone with the Wind" nay, practically wrote it, that he was angry for not getting the credit?
Many authors, including myself, have editors, beta readers and people who may help in various ways. I'm not sure how she can project this motive, intention and a scheme to rid himself of his wife really works here. I understand how angry Ms. Moulder is over the treatment of her father. I can't tell you how many times she brings up Margaret Mitchell's short time at Smith College as a way to comment on her sexual preferences, and then to give evidence about all the men she was involved with? So what??? She liked men.
It's clear that Ms. Moulder believed her father's story and what daughter wouldn't? But once again, it's hard to believe that whilst in the middle of the accident, he could specifically say that her husband pushed her backwards into the car?
Hugh Gravitt was in the wrong place at the wrong time on that fateful day. Supposedly, the Mitchell-Marsh couple was jaywalking, rushing to the theatre. This was in 1949 when there were no cameras to film the event on the street. Gravitt certainly was innocent of any murder. He received involuntary manslaughter, served his time and needed to get on with his life and ameliorate any guilt he had.
I am a person who is against maligning the dead in this manner. Just because Margaret Mitchell had "issues" and was bohemian is no excuse for blame. I'm not even sure what the point was with this? She was,in fact like Scarlett O'Hara, spoiled and rebellious.
Whether she received help from her husband writing the tome is between them and God. The maligning of this couple took up the later half of the book. It would have been much better to get corroborating evidence, aspects of the trial, other witnesses, etc.
It's sad there was so much angry projection in the book. Commenting on Mitchell's lack of education, lack of previous publicity, trouble with grammar, etc all to me sounded like a page from the author's own life. This could have been a stellar book if all the mistakes were remedied and the author stuck to the facts, not her angry projections about the Mitchell/Marsh marriage.
One good aspect of this book was is it got me interested in the subject of the life of Margaret Mitchell and I will probably read a few of her biographies to compare information. "Bargain with a Devil" could have been a very compelling book, if the author took the time, resources and energy to produce and publish a professional, readable book!