American Lightning: Terror, Mystery, the Birth of Hollywood the Crime of the Century by Howard Blum

American Lightning: Terror, Mystery, the Birth of Hollywood the Crime of the Century Reviews

• 
  shellyindallas

  I was looking for a light, quick, entertaining read that I didn't have to think too much about so I picked up this book b/c I thought how can I lose with a true-crime novel about unionist leaders accused of blowing up the L.A. Times building b/c they didn't like the press they were getting, a detective known as the "American Sherlock Holmes", D.W. Griffith, and a very young city of Los Angeles? I like History, I like crime stories, it's a win-win. Wong-Wong.
  
  Although the story did have it's moments my main issue was that there wasn't nearly enough meat there for a full-lengthed novel. The Author was a journalist (for Vanity Fair), and it shows. His style is choppy and hardened, and the story is presented in sort of a "just the facts, maam" way. When Blum does editorialize, he doesn't back up anything he is saying with historical facts, or examples. For instance he wraps the story up into neat little packages concerning the detective, the defense attorney, and D.W. Griffith (the latter with only a loose connection to the case) and says stuff like, "America could now move forward," and "America's equilibrium had been restored." I wanted to know why the entire nation was at a stand still over a trial involving the bombing of a newspaper building. I'm not saying it wasn't, I mean, I remember where I was when OJ's Ford Bronco was on the run, but he doesn't give us any insight as to the effect this case had on the outside world. Certainly not to the point where the wheels of America had ceased spinning until a resolution came about.
  
  All in all I was disappointed because, as I said, all the components for a great story were there. Sadly, I hate to say, Blum failed in execution.
  I still think it would make a great movie, depending on who would be assigned to write the screenplay.
• 
  Robert

  Generally a very good read, but I have a couple of quibbles--No index ( a horrible choice for a book of history), a couple of factual boners--the population of Los Angeles was closer to 350,000 in 1910 than to the 900,000 cited in the book, and "A Corner in Wheat" was NOT 32 frames long--that would have made it approximetely 2 seconds in length--the author may have meant 32 scenes.
  The idea of the book--that Wiliam J. Burns, Clarence Darrow and filmmaker D.W. Griffith, acting separately at a moment in time, forever changed the shape of America's future is a grand theme--but not fully realized. The D.W. Griffith stuff seems grafted onto the story and not orgainic to it. This becomes especially evident when he discusses the 1913 film "From Dusk to Dawn" in which Darrow appears and the author feebly suggests that the film, which Griffith had nothing to do with, was nevertheless "influenced" by the master filmmaker.
  Very entertaining and well worth reading, "American Lightning" was a little too precious for me to give it a wholehearted endorsement.
• 
  Anna

  I agree with the reviews on this book that likened it to
  The Devil in the White City Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America ; this book had the same two plot lines converging, famous characters, and a sensational murder mystery behind it, but Larson's book was more deftly written.
  
  It was a strain trying to weave D.W. Griffith and the evolution of Hollywood in to the L.A. Times bombing for the length of the entire book; I could buy into it for the first hundred pages, but then it seemed to be reaching.
  
  That having been said, "American Lightning" had a great background history of Hollywood in the early 20th century, and on how the San Fernando Valley evolved from desert to suburbia.
  
  I'd recommend it as a library read or paperback purchase, but not hardback.
• 
  William Thomas

  I couldn't remember for the life of me what this book reminded me of. A magic trick maybe? All sleight of hand and prestige, but a closer look has us realizing we can see all the wires and the false bottoms and right up its sleeve. But more than that, it was more like a con. Like that old folk tale about the travelers who trick a town into giving them food?
  
  Stone Soup. That's what this book is. I didn't realize it at first, but as it wore on, it became clear that this piece was more of a contrivance than anything else. It has little flavor and no meat. It's a pot of water with a few stones in it and tricks the reader into giving it more credit than it deserves.
  
  The main reason that this book seems to have dazzled some readers? Howard Blum is an extremely capable writer. Stylistically, at least. The narrative feels comfortably conversational, and he's able to weave a somewhat interesting web of intrigue with some very tenuous connections. Yes, tenuous. The fact that Blum tries his damndest to place DW Griffith at the heart of this narrative tells us that he really didn't have a story he could sell until he could link it very loosely to the "birth of Hollywood". Because who wants to read a history book with substance over scandal? may be the only one.
  
  What bothered me most about the book is the fact that you can clearly tell Blum wholly understands that his "birth of Hollywood" schtick is just that. He doesn't even bother to connect the threads in 99% of the book (which I actually have to credit him for because at least he doesn't flat out lie to us). Instead of makiing this an intellectually sound piece of reporting or even a fantastic history book on labor struggles, he instead tries to make it seem as if this is the beginning of the end for print media and the start of a war between movie studios and newspapers. It absolutely blows my mind as to why this became an embroiled murder Sherlockian murder mystery as opposed to a substantial tome about labor practices, labor policies and the history of Los Angeles at the turn of the century.
  
  While Blum can write, he often falters in descriptive narration and it makes most of his characterization awkward. It feels forced. Again, like he's trying to put meat on the bones and beef up a story that could have been a great 10,000 word essay instead.
  
  All in all, there may not be many other books written on the Times bombing, but that may be for good reason. ALthough Blum can bill it as the 'crime of the century', as any good newspaper man would, it really doesn't stack up against other domestic terror attacks or other heinous crimes that have happened in the 90 years that follow this one very petty crime.
  
  Grade: D
• 
  Jan

  I honestly cannot believe that this book doesn't have a higher rating on here. This is one of the best non-fiction books that I have read in a very long time.
  
  Ostensibly about the 1910 bombing of the LA Times building (which killed 21 people), it plays out more like a "whodunit." Blum interweaves the story of three famous men - William J. Burns, "America's Sherlock Holmes," the private detective hired to catch the bomber; Clarence Darrow, the "peoples' lawyer" who was hired to defend the men accused of the bombing; and D.W. Griffith, the famous director who basically turned LA into the movie capital of the world. In all honestly, I still don't really know what Griffith had to do with this story, but reading about him was so interesting that I didn't really care what the point of including him was.
  
  There is just so much to love about this book. It was all fascinating to me. I enjoyed reading about the underhanded, capitalist shenanigans of Otis, the owner of the Times. I enjoyed reading about the labor vs. capital "civil war" that was raging across the nation at the time (and the echoes of which have begun to rage in our country again, 100 years later). I really, really enjoyed reading about the detective work that Burns and his men did to capture the bombers, and about the nationwide conspiracy of bombings that they discovered. Usually books like this get boring when it comes to the trial, but this one didn't: yellow journalism, misleading PR campaigns, attempts to buy off witnesses and jurors. Seriously, what is not to love about this book?
  
  I found it astonishingly readable and accessible. I finished it in a mere 3 days, which is pretty good for a 300+ page non-fiction book. I really would recommend this book to anyone, but if you have a particular interest in America of the 1890s-1930s like I do, I think you'd love it just as much as I did.
• 
  Kemper

  Fans of The Devil in the White City should like this one. It's narrative history set against the backdrop of the bombing of a conservative turn-of-the-century newspaper. Clarence Darrow and D.W. Griffith are a couple of the more famous people the book tracks through the case. Lightweight history but an entertaining read.
• 
  Julie

  I found this fascinating. The way the author wove together labor and capital wars, bombing and domestic terrorism, detective work, courtroom drama, and the rise of Hollywood as we know it today, with its artistic beauty and its dark power, made for a riveting read.
• 
  Beth Cato

  This book is excellent when focused on the central mystery of the horrible 1911 explosion of the Los Angeles Times building that left 21 people dead, the war between unions and capitalists, and the topsy-turvy court case that followed. Much of the book follows the efforts--outright unconstitutional at times--of the "American Sherlock Holmes," William J. Burns as he pursues justice.
  
  Where the book falters in a major way, though, is in how it markets itself: Terror, Mystery, & the Birth of Hollywood. The narrative wanders to follow D.W. Griffith and how he changed the way films were made through new techniques and marketable stars like Mary Pickford. It simply does not fit with the main plot. This is especially frustrating for me because I picked it up for the Hollywood angle, and while I was fascinated by the real life detective work and court case, I can't help but feel like I was terribly mislead. Judging by other reviews, I am certainly not the only one to feel this way.
• 
  Diane

  While this book promises to shed light on the birth of Hollywood and a crime of the century, it fails in quite significant ways. The author weaves three narratives together: the detective work of Billy Burns to solve a bombing in Los Angeles, the efforts of Clarence Darrow to defend the bombers, and the nascent film work of D.W. Griffith. But the attempt to link these three fails because Griffith had precious little to do with the other men, and nothing to do with the bombing or its aftermath. His early film work is grafted onto the other two narratives in an unconvincing and pointless gesture. And while Darrow was hired to defend the bombers, the case never went to trial. The bombers pleaded out. So there was no courtroom drama that justifies giving Darrow such high profile attention in the narrative.
  
  A stronger element is the focus on Burns and his efforts to solve the crime. Here the story moves with some energy. Had the book focused on Burns as the main character, and followed that line of development, it might have made a better overall book. But it seems the author felt there was not enough there for such a book, and chose to pad the account with extraneous details about Griffith and Darrow.
  
  Another significant problem is that none of the sources for historical information are cited. Blum explains in an afterward that he is a reporter, and therefore feels he is exempt from footnoting. But frankly, the account seems to play fast and loose with conversations, and supposed internal thoughts and motivations of characters. And Blum errs with some basic facts. For example, it was not "Frank Dixon" who wrote "The Clansmen," it was Thomas Dixon, Jr. Blum also indulges in some sweeping claims about the the transformational effect of the LA bombing without offering any proof. And most glaringly, Blum makes no effort to tell the story of organized labor, the struggles that led up to the bombing campaign, and why that became a strategy in the fight. There is simply no attention paid to the labor movement or the condition of the working class at all, except when it comes to the defense of the bombers. And yet, understanding what led up to these extreme tactics is key.
  
  What the reader is left with is narratives that don't deliver, dubious use of primary sources, and big holes in the historical account. This book is not worth the time.
  
  
• 
  Bob Schnell

  A new civil war was almost begun in America at the beginning of the 20th Century. Only this time the opposing sides were Labor and Capital, not the Union & the Confederacy. Instead of Fort Sumter, the first shot was the bombing of the Los Angeles Times newspaper building that killed 21 people. Other bombings of non-union workplaces had happened before, but this was the first one with a death toll. The bombing and its aftermath are the focus of Howard Blum's "American Lightning."
  
  The story is approached from three angles involving celebrities of the time. Private investigator William "Billy" Burns, famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow and filmmaker D. W. Griffith. All three played roles in the solving, prosecuting and public relations of the "Crime of the Century." It is an interesting approach and quite effective in telling the story as it must have seemed to the public of the time.
  
  Recommended for readers interested in American socialism, true crime and/or film history.
• 
  Bookmarks Magazine

  Most critics were eager to learn more about this neglected event in American history and were glad to have Blum as their teacher. They were most impressed by the first half of the book, which covers the attacks and investigation and which was several times compared to a Hollywood thriller or an episode of the television show 24. Reviewers were less thrilled by the second part of the book, where Blum introduces Darrow and Griffith into the story. Several felt that these great American personalities were presented superficially, perhaps because Blum attempted too great a scope in the book. But on the whole, critics found American Lightning to be a satisfying work of narrative history.

  This is an excerpt from a review published in
  Bookmarks magazine.
• 
  Fred Theobald

  I have finished "American Lightning". It is an interesting book, but not a great read. The history, more than the mystery, is what kept me reading. It is a fascinating tale that had an impact on film and the lives of those involved. I am always amazed at how a person's life is impacted and directed by the events, and if one little thing had gone differently, how that person's life may have twisted and turned in a different direction. This book makes one wonder about how history may have been different if people had made other choices.
• 
  Kirsti

  Argh argh arrrrgh. Fascinating true-life story (actually two fascinating true-life stories that never really mesh); horrible, repetitious, overwrought writing style; poorly sourced because the author doesn't think extensive sourcing is necessary in a popular history. In the afterword, the author compares himself to a gray wolf. WHAT. EVER.
  
• 
  Bill

  The build-up and the crime investigation were really interesting. The end result of what actually did happen to this "crime of the century" was beyond disappointing. And his throwing D.W. Griffith into the storyline felt more than a bit forced.
• 
  Sharon

  Actual rating: 2.5 stars
  
  So I will say some of this is colored by my inability to really get into audiobooks. I find I get very distracted and might miss something, so I usually only listen to audibooks of novels I know very well.
  
  That said. The writing was interesting. I didn't really know very much about the bombings before coming in, so it was cool to learn some completely new history.
  
  But what really threw me off was D. W. freaking Griffith.
  I have a degree in film. I know he did a lot of amazing things for the medium. He was an innovator and both stylistically and technically very skilled.
  He's still a PoS. I hate him. He was pretty racist. He was painfully into teenage girls.
  And this book glorified a lot of what he did. There was a ton of information about what good he did for the film medium, but also some very uncomfortable tongue in cheek comments, like, "Oh that rascal, he sure liked that girl who looked like a 14 year old! It's okay, though, because she was 16!" Can you not?? There was little to no criticism of Griffith until the very end of the epilogue and by that point, I found it was too little too late.
  Really, he wasn't even particularly relevant to the story, to be perfectly honest, so I would have been happy to see him gone.
  
  In general, Blum offered very little of his own criticism, which didn't really work in this particular instance. I felt like there needed to be much more or practically none to make it really work.
  
  I didn't come into this book knowing about the plot, so I would say I learned quite a bit from it. It's an easy read and not very long, so if you're looking for a quick bit of true crime that's not about a serial killer or a murder (specifically), this might be one to try out!
• 
  Trent Hunsaker

  The history covered (the labor/capital wars) is very interesting. The ties between the crime and D. W. Griffith feels shoehorned and really had me asking, "How much longer is this..." Without citations for all dialogue written, it's really hard not to wonder, especially in that 3rd person narrative, how speculative the emotions portrayed as fact are actually the author's projections.
• 
  John Gault

  Excellent non-fiction about the explosion of the LA Times building in 1910 perpetrated by socialists sympathetic to labor vs. capital. A crossing of paths of Clarence Darrow, the Burns Detective Agency, D. W. Griffith, domestic terrorism and politics as survival of the fittest.
• 
  Diane

  A well written, fascinating account of the bombing of the LA Times building in 1910 by the McNamara brothers. This is definitely a case where there are no heroes, just victims, crooks, bullies, and very misguided activists who believe that violence will get them what they want.
  
  This was during what only could be called a war between labor and business owners. Employers fight unions with strike breaking, spies, private detectives, and outright violence on frequent occasions. Unions fight back with violence of their own, including bombings. The Iron Workers union, which the McNamaras belonged to, blew up 110 iron works, though the damage was not that great and no one was killed. The LA Times bombing changed everything. A total of 21 people died, mostly in the ensuing fire.
  
  Howard Blum tells the story of the bombing, its investigation, and the trial of the McNamaras through three men - D W Griffith, the director; William J. Burns, the famous private detective; and Clarence Darrow, the legendary defense attorney. I wasn't convinced by Griffith's inclusion because his connection to the whole case was very tenuous at best. I understand that Mr Blum had included Griffith to paint a more detailed picture of the time, but it just didn't work for me. However, Burns and Darrow were deeply involved in the case - Burns investigated the crime and Darrow defended the McNamara brothers, who were accused of the bombing.
  
  Burns is forgotten now except for true crime buffs and historians. However, in his day he was a famous detective and was called "America's Sherlock Holmes." He had been investigating a series of bombings of iron manufacturing plants for four years, so he was a natural choice to investigate the LA Times bombing as well. Burns' investigation is the best part of the book - meticulous, careful, and determined. This is what
  Colin Wilson has referred to as "needle in the haystack" investigation. I don't know that I would compare Burns to Sherlock Holmes, but he was definitely an excellent detective who deserved his reputation.
  
  Darrow does not come off very well. He is exhausted and sick. He has also been cheating on his long-suffering wife Ruby. Though reluctant to take another labor-related job, Darrow agrees to defend the McNamaras. It quickly becomes obvious to Darrow that his clients are guilty and he may not be able to get them out of this.
  
  What amazed me more than anything was the complete lack of concern for people's civil rights. Suspects are kidnapped and possibly coerced into confessions. Jurors are bribed. Attempts are made to bribe, intimidate or otherwise suborn witnesses. Darrow and Burns are involved deeply in this skulduggery. Nowadays if detectives or lawyers did this, they would end up in jail. However, in 1910-1911, it was business as usual. Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher of the LA Times, is spectacularly repulsive. It got to the point whenever he made an appearance, I just skipped over those passages.
  
  At the end of the book, Mr Blum wraps things up with a few notes about what happened to Burns, Griffith, and Darrow. However, he left a few things out:
  
  Griffith went on to make two more classic films that in many ways repudiate "Birth of a Nation": "Intolerance" and "Broken Blossoms." Mr Blum also repeats the myth that Griffith created the closeup. However, that is wrong. The closeup had been used for many years by other filmmakers - for example, "The Big Swallow" (1901) by James Williamson.
  
  Burns became director of the Bureau of Investigation (BOI) (forerunner of the FBI) in 1921. However, he become indirectly involved in the Teapot Dome scandal when he "investigated" some jurors in the trial of an oil executive. When news of this leaked out, it caused a mistrial and legal trouble for Burns. He also tried to intimidate newspaper offices that portrayed the BOI's behavior in a negative light. He was forced to resign in 1924 and J Edgar Hoover took over.
  
  
• 
  Jerry Smith

  A most interesting read and one that had been on my list for a while and suddenly became available at the library. This historical account is written much like a lengthy and well constructed novel, that is to say the narrative weaves together several strands and a number of key protagonists in the telling of the story. In this case those threads involve Clarence Darrow, DW Griffith and Billy Burns. The first and last of these I understand but Griffith seems a little more tenuous to me, but certainly sets the tone for the times. He does have a direct input too so it is very valid to include him.
  
  This is a broad account of the fight between labour and capital as epitomized by the bombing of the LA Times building owned by Harrison Otis, as well as other organized terrorist attacks. This is an interesting political war in its own right and is certainly well illustrated as the backdrop to this particular crime, dubbed at the time, somewhat melodramatically as "The Crime of the Century".
  
  The tale integrates the growth of motion pictures with the labour war, the chasing of the terrorists by Burns and their defense by Darrow. These accounts sometimes leave the reader wanting to know more about the main characters and there are always autobiographies to seek out if that is the case. However here, I don't care for any of them, or find them of interest beyond the character sketches here. Nonetheless, they are interesting enough to keep the reader engaged and the story that criss-crosses the US is well told and moves pretty fast.
  
  Well worth a read. The story itself fizzles somewhat at the trial phase the the closing stages of the book therefore strike me as anticlimactic but that is hardly the fault of the author. It fills in the time very well when, as hard as it is to believe if you look at the US today, socialism was briefly in the ascendency. Also, those who think terrorism is a modern invention only needs to read this book to be disabused of that notion.
  
  Well worth a read. Lifts the lid on the turn of the century labour struggles and it is that subject that is probably worthy of my further attention.
• 
  Thomas Paul

  In 1910 there were a series of explosions across the country. Some believed the bombings were the work of anarchists while others thought they were more likely caused by workers in the fight between the working class and capitalists. The bombings were destructive but bloodless until October 1, 1910 when 21 employees of the Los Angeles Times were killed when an explosion ripped through their building. But was it the work of angry workers or company owners hoping to blame the unions? Enter Billy Burns, the greatest private detective of his day.
  
  Burns was hired by the city to find the culprits and he took his role very seriously. His company followed every lead and eventually located the people who set the bomb and the people who hired them. But the story is much more than just Billy Burns solving the bombing. The unions wanted the best man possible to defend the accused union leaders so they hired Clarence Darrow. Darrow still had his most famous years ahead of him to defend Scopes for teaching evolution and Leopold and Loeb for being cold blooded killers. But this case almost broke him.
  
  And finally we meet D.W. Griffith, the famous director who’s involvement in this case is very peripheral but who represents what Los Angeles is becoming. The end result is a fast moving and interesting look at a little known terrorist period in out history. Blum writes like a newspaperman (which he is) and not a novelist (which he isn’t). The book is a quick read that bounces between the three main characters and tries to tie them together with varying success.
  
  The end result is not a failure but it isn’t a great success. There are many parts of the story (the many bombings by the labor movement, for example) that could have used more in-depth treatment. But it isn’t a bad book and I think you will find it worth the time. The 300 pages read quickly and Blum wrap up things well enough at the end to leave you feeling that you got the meat of the story.
• 
  Jennie

  When I think of the great battlefields of labor vs. the bosses, Los Angeles isn't even on my list. Yet here comes American Lightning, an absolutely fascinating story of a bombing, a manhunt, and a trial - with the bitter war between labor and management at its heart.
  
  If I'm being picky, the one flaw in this book is Blum's inclusion of D.W. Griffith, the early filmmaker. Blum attempts to connect Griffith to the bombing case by making his work a product of these times, but I found his efforts to be forced. Griffith had absolutely nothing to do with the case, and I found his (thankfully, brief) sections to be distracting and irrelevant. His icky fascination with young girls, his cinematic vision, his use of film to shape public opinion - all should have been part of a different book and had no place here.
  
  Yes, film was used as propaganda during the trial, but they weren't Griffith's films and Blum never really made a convincing argument for his inclusion in this book.
  
  Fortunately, the bulk of this story follows the case. Blum writes the story of the Times bombing without editorializing. The detective work that went into finding the criminals responsible is an amazing story unto itself, and reads like a novel. Blum's style often makes me forget that I'm reading history, not fiction. I loved it. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in a good detective story, as well as anyone who's interested in early American labor politics. Good stuff.
• 
  Rose

  The nucleus of Pulitzer Prize finalist Howard Blum's 'American Lightning' is the October 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles 'Times' building. From that one act of terrorism a story is spawned that includes legendary detective William J. Burns, defense attorney extraordinaire Clarence Darrow, and the early twentieth century's greatest motion picture director, D.W. Griffith. Mary Pickford even puts in an appearance. Burns works to bring the 'Times' bombers to justice, Darrow eventually steps in to save them from the noose, and Griffith churns out populist films such as 'A Corner in Wheat', which criticizes the greedy merchants who profit at the expense of the poor and working classes.
  
  'American Lightning' is, as another reviewer accurately put it, history aimed at the popular fiction market. With its liberal use of dialogue and non-scholarly approach to the political intrigues and labour unrest that infested the 1910s, the book is an entertaining read. Because it will appeal to its intended audience, I have accorded it four stars. But I am personally uncomfortable with such a creative treatment of historic events, as it's difficult to discern what actually happened from what the author has included to make the story more vivid or smooth. I enjoyed 'American Lightning', but don't come away feeling as if I truly know what happened during the turbulent events that it covers.
• 
  Mark

  With the predominance of September 11 in the modern imagination, it is sometimes difficult to remember that Americans have dealt with terrorism before. At the start of the last century, the nation experienced a succession of bomb attacks, one of the deadliest of which was the bombing of the offices of the ‘Los Angeles Times’ This attack, and the subsequent investigation of it, is the subject of Howard Blum’s book. His narrative focuses primarily on three men: William J. Burns, the lead detective investigating the case; film director D. W. Griffith, and famed attorney Clarence Darrow, who subsequently defended the accused men.
  
  An accomplished journalist, Blum uses the events surrounding the bombing to open a window into American life at that time. Though his focus never wavers from the investigation and trial spawned by the bombing for more than a couple of pages, his brief digressions add color and depth to the story he is telling. The resulting book reads almost like a novel in some places, entertaining while recounting the dramatic events of the case. This is a book that true-crime fans and people interested in the era will enjoy, both for its retelling of this often-overlooked episode and for the capable way in which it is retold.
• 
  Bill Wallace

  A good tale told unevenly. Sketchy by turns, imperfectly documented, and oddly conceived, American Lightning still manages to be a fair account of events in the second decade of the 20th Century. The problem with the book is that its two primary subjects, the explosion that destroyed the Los Angeles Times building in 1910 along with the investigation and trials that followed and DW Griffith's decision to move his film making from New York to Los Angeles are so tenuously connected that the author spends too much time trying to make us see the connection that resides primarily in his own thesis. Many times I felt like I was reading a gloss of material that I would rather read in its original source so that I could make my own connections between dates and events. The elements I ultimately found most interesting were the little glimpses of early film as a chronicle of the vicious fight between capital and labor and I'm grateful to author Blum for pointing to a better book that I now want to find and read.