My review is probably for people who know the "basics" or maybe even more of the Monroe saga - and so far only covers the first 21 pages LOL.... Because so far I have only read the bit about her childhood. What annoys me most is these "there is so much crap out there and here FINALLY is the ULTIMATE truth". Naturally no biographer can say the FACT which is that the ultimate truth is NEVER TO BE FOUND, it is simply not there. Biographies belong to fiction shelves. And most of these who toot their own horn are utter crap.
Another thing I immediately paid attention to is that there is simply NO SOURCES listed. Yes, he gives thanks but I would like to know where he got the info he claims to be true.
For example he acts like Stanley Gifford being her father is his discovery, whilst, in most part, I think it is more or less established. I have a letter from James Dougherty saying Gifford was her father AND Marilyn knew it. Badman does give more info on Gifford trying to adopt her - which is interesting... but when I leafed the book... WHERE IS THE SOURCE? For a book that quotes MM saying "consider the source" (and she did say that but Mr. Badman does not quote the exact place, I just remember it too.)it is unforgiven to use a method where he is not giving people a CHANCE to concider the source. His list of books really has some dubious characters as well.
One of these examples is Mr. Kinnel/Kimmel being the "star boarder" and the "aunt" who punished her for telling on him when he made advances on her... he tells more about his profession (without a source) BUT the discovery of the star boarder being Mr. Kimmel/Kinnel is fairly new and first appeared in Donald H. Wolfe's book in 1998. (If I recall the year right.) He never gives credit to Wolfe - or more correctly, as I understand, Mr. Roy Turner whose discovery it was, and he gave the info to both Spoto and Wolfe when only Wolfe chose to use it - and that was the one major breakthrough in his otherwise very inaccurate book. One should always acknowledge and credit the ones who came before and not act like all discoveries are their own, especially if they are such big ones.
Another thing that annoys me big time is that biographers (usually male) downplay the trauma that her childhood caused her. Okay, so it was not 12 foster homes - but for a child never to be able to grow steady roots, never to feel SOMEONE loves her unconditionally (except for aunt Ana - who also had to send her away), to have been in an orphanage and the one person she trusted to take her there CAN cause her to remember these "few" places (and being forced to marry at 16) as 12... and the orphanage as a gloomy place. And then to have been taken sexually taken advantage to boot - you don't need to lose your virginity to have been a victim of that and as for me - I don't have a hard time believing AT ALL that a young, vulnerable girl would be taken advantage. One study claimed every fourth female has suffered something like that in their childhood (forgive me I don't have the source right here ;D)- or maybe I am just cynical. We do know she exaggerated and even lied, but we also know sometimes our memories turn happy memories into extreme bliss and sad memories sometimes to utter torment. However, one sad memory I just don't buy is that she remembers Christmas 1926 when she "made her way to the tree" and only got a cheap trinket while other kids got nice toys I don't buy. I DON'T believe a six month old could make her way anywhere, let alone feel left out - even if it came from her own mouth. My kid was happy to just play with the wrappings until he was two ;)) So whether this really came from herself (I don't recall it) you can always use common sense. Or maybe Mr. Badham does not have children? (As I said she DID lie - look at Belmont interview - she says her mother is dead even as late as that. Whether she lied to gain pity or to protect ppl's privacy is not the point, the point is - she DID lie.)
Another problem is Gladys. I have read from A. Miller's book she tried to suffocate her and that was adopted by Barbara Leaming. In no other book has it been Gladys, always Della. Now Badman says it WAS Della, but that Gladys tried to kill her three times and MM talked about it all the time... where is the source? How did she try to kill her? Where are the interviews about MM saying someone else besides Della tried to do it. Maybe Miller confused Della with Gladys? Could happen! Anyway, before I see or hear an interview from MM herself saying ALSO Gladys tried to kill her or the suffocator was Gladys, I believe what SHE said and that it was Della - we have witnesses for that (The Bolenders heard the hassle as she broke the door and died soon after in a mental hospital.) Here - for some reason - at least I believe Mariyn's memories (unlike the Xmas sstory - might have happened, but someone has then told her later), Della was going mad and we do have adult witnesses. Also, Badman does not mention Lester was also an orphan but adopted by the Bolenders, nor Bolenders' claim they wanted to adopt her (whether true or not) but Gladys wouldn't let them. These are all speculations and depends who you believe - was she felt left out in a strictly religious home or did the nice Bolenders take good care of her and wanted to adopt her? If Gladys indeed lived there too (here he even gives the source) that IS a new finding.
Moving on to the actual bit he is concentrating on, and hoping it gets better. Plus to the style of writing, it is an interesting and fast read.
Almost done... despite some minor flaws, and doing what most biographers do omitting stuff to suit their purposes (the agenda they probably have chosen before starting to write the book and choosing sources accordingly) the rest of the book seems to be better researched than the beginning. (An example of omitting... when he lists people who said she was happy and in no way suicidal, he mentions Norman Rosten. Actually, Rosten said that at the time she did sound happy, but SO happy, that something was off and he should have noticed it --- again, if I remember correctly. Also George Barris is among these people. Yes, Barris did say she was happy and would not have killed herself; but Barris has always believed she was murdered; something Badman does not mention cause it does not click with what he tries to prove. Also he claims Arthur Miller was "surprised" and thought it was an accident, when I have understood that Miller always thought the accident WOULD happen sooner or later - accident OR suicide - which would not make him surprised...) Badman does have some dubious characters he seems to trust (James Bacon among others and most funnily, the UFO expert Dr. Donald Burleson! There were more, but I forget - should always write them down...), and if I were him I would not give Ted Jordan enough credit to even mention his name, even though he does not believe him. Further, he could have mentioned WHY Jordan definitely never even knew Marilyn - Jordan's first mistake is on the first page of his book, that they met when Norma Jeane was in the Blue Book Modelling Agecy in 1943 and 17 years old - when NJ did not even join the Agency before 1945. This already would have proved him a fraud, among dozens of other mistakes, but Badman does not mention them. It is important to discredit people like Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen, since they have been in all these documentaries and books so much, and clearly Slatzer HAD done is own research - like any other fan - and had maybe gathered some info that SOME biographers wanted into their hands and in exchange for that gave him the creditabiilty he so craved...so discrediting them is a must if one wants to convince people, but since Jordan was not "out there" more than in his own book plus maybe two others (he was the key witness to Marilyn having been reborn in the book Healing of the Soul... a fact that speaks for the kind of books that use him as a source), but since is basically nothing but a fame craving vulcher with nothing important to say, It is always better not to give him the time of the day. Even if you choose to believe Marilyn had a "red diary" - but in this case he is mentioned even though Badman doesn't even believe Jordan actually had it in his posession, so why bother?
Also one thing I don't undestand is how he claims both Wilder and Negulesco were usually very friendly and loving towards her and Wilder's cruel words (which he uttered before he knew she was dead) were surprising. (Negulesco's cruel words he doesn't even mention.) I have always understood Wilder's was a love/hate relationship with her (he was impatient and angry but loved the results of her work) and that Negulesco never really respected or liked her at all. Another weird thing is that when talking about Marilyn's father he uses ONE source that says she called him and he wouldn't have none of her. He must know there are at least three people who say she pulled the same phone stunt - some people believe she got so much sympathy from Dougherty the first time it (really IMO) happened that when in need of comforting she did it with others too. (Natasha and Skolsky.) Anyway, how people FEEL of certain people in her life that cause controversy, such as the Strasbergs and Greenson - are always a matter of opinion and how one feels about their actions or what they choose to believe, so I am not gonna dwell on that or this will not be a review but a book in itself.
I am by no means an expert when it comes to Marilyn's death, and frankly, I am far more interested in her life than in how she died. However, I have to admit that Badman's conclusion is the one I believe in, and have for some time. Also his conclusions when it comes to her relationship with the Kennedys is the same one I believe, (although he said JFK had her picture in his room - I always remember it was their father, Joseph...) same with his conclusions when it comes to her relationship with Joe and whether they had plans to remarry are the same as mine. Not gonna give too many spoilers and say what these conclusions are ;) Anyway, all this is all but speculation, and I am not saying he is right, but it was interesting to see his opinions were the same as mine. The book is an interesting read and there ARE some new interesting stuff and info - I just wish the sources would be more specific. Sometimes they are non-exixtent. And for me "A trustworthy person I believe in" is not a source... I might not believe that person, for all I know it could be Lena Pepitone ;P Otherwise, I would recommend everyone interested in her last years to read this, it is also quite respectful to Marilyn and her memory, which is something I always like in a MM bio.
NOTE: I have not bothered to read this through (at least not yet) so excuse me all the grammar errors and stuff like "if I remember right"... will try and correct and check the facts, but since _I_ am not a biographer - I don't have to ;P Before I write one of my own, that is... ;D) Till then I am allowed to accuse biographers of not checking their sources and making the same mistake myself, right? ;)))