America was the undisputed world power in 1947, just after the War, and New York was the center, and the center of everything from the arts, business, culture, and just living. The ambitious came here to get their start and it was the age of the New Yorker, at its finest. By 1963, marked by the Kennedy Assassination, that power drifted away with the Dodgers and Giants to California and Fortune 500 companies to Texas and elsewhere. But in this period, New York was the City of Ageless Grace.
What disappointed you about New York: The Ageless City?
This was more about his memories and his opinions. I was expecting something more ... well, I guess, scholarly.
Would you ever listen to anything by Deaver Brown again?
His voice wasn't bad, but the production quality was horrible. Sounded like it had been recorded via answering machine.
Would you try another book from Deaver Brown and/or Deaver Brown?
I'm afraid, no.
What could Deaver Brown have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?
Researched further to correct mistakes of fact and to add more informational substance to his claims about NYC during this particular period (1947-1963). Unfortunately, most of the book is subjective and facts are sometimes wrong.
How could the performance have been better?
It's his work and I respect having an author read his or her work. I was occasionally reminded of the Simpsons' character Dr. Marvin Monroe with the accent on words such as "block".
If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from New York: The Ageless City?
I would have asked the author to recognize the work as "one man's appreciation for the great city of New York", and along those lines combine chapters (some are strangely short). My impression of the packaging, description before listening was that this was a book that look at the history of that era, but it does not do that.
Any additional comments?
I'll begin by saying that I share the author's love for New York. It is, for me, an incredible place and I'm glad to be able to live here. Kudos to Mr. Brown for taking time to share the things he liked most about the city some years ago. Yet, it's familiar territory to have someone tell us about how X used to be "so much better" in earlier times (most often during that person's youth or young adult life). [As an aside, it's not uncommon to hear people say that the seedy, crime-ridden, bankrupt city of the 1970s was the heyday of the recent history.) Mr. Brown bemoans the current absence of so many aspects of times past which he feels made '47-'63 an untouchable age. There are too many corrections to this point of view, but in case anyone needs it say, there are so many aspects of life today that continue to thrive, including writing, the visual artists, film-making (which exploded post-1963). And a simple correction to Brown's lament that the Staten Island Ferry used to only cost a nickel--Good news. Now it's free.Brown's heart is in the right place--I can't disagree with the sentiment. New York is a treasure to so many and it continues to be so today.
Wrong format for the topic. Nothing covered in any form of adequate depth, In other words not worth the nickel