This was a great book. Katharine Graham's life was very interesting, as were her parents' lives. The personal aspects of the book as well as the stories about her family and the Washington Post (the family newspaper) were fascinating and DC was the backdrop to the majority of it. Until I get my act together to write more of a review, here are some excerpts I enjoyed, for various reasons. ** p6-7 Stern Grove connection to the Meyers (K. Graham's family) Like my father, Rosalie became a strong and dominating person. She married Sigmund Stern, and her next-younger sister, Elise, married Sigmund's brother, Abraham. The Sterns were nephews of Levi Strauss, who had gone to San Francisco at the height of the Gold Rush with heavy denim material for tents to sell to the miners. Either it didn't sell as tent material or it made better pants, sealed with rivets, but Levi Strauss made his fortune through those pants, and "Levi's" eventually became known throughout the world. Because Strauss was a bachelor, the Sterns, who managed his business, inherited the company, which was handed down through Sigmund and Ant Ro to their daughter, Elise, and her husband Walter Haas, and eventually to their children and grandchildren.** p44 Madeira high school mottoMiss Madeira ran a tight ship in a strict age. Her motto, which she often included in her talks to the school assemblies, was full of puritan drive: "Function in disaster. Finish in style." ** p75, about advice from fatherWhen I told my father about being on the committee, he wrote me at length, arguing against journalists joining organizations and suggesting that "the fewer labels you wear the better." In responding to his counsel, I quietly but firmly told him I appreciated the thought he had obviously given to all sides of the question and agreed with most of his points, particuarly that there are certain dangers inherent in so-called mass thinking. I also agreed that labels were undesirable, but I explained that it would be difficult for all concerned if I were to resign at that time. My father wrote back at once, thanking me for my letter and concluding with what is one of the simplest and best precepts for parents to live by that I have ever read. It meant a lot to me then, as it does even today: "What parents may sometimes do in a helpful way is to point out certain principles of action. I do not think I would be helpful in advising you too strongly. I do not even feel the need of doing that because I have so much confidence in your having really good judgement. I believe that what I can do for youo nce in a while is to point out certain principles that have developed in my mind as sound and practical, leaving it for you yourself to apply them if your own mind grasps and approves the principles.This issue, which might have become a separating bone of contention between us, is a good example of how my relationship with my father worked, and the caring and concern that were evident on both our parts. He was probably gently trying to persuade me not to join a group that included communists. But he didn't persist.** p111 about Phil (early days)Despite my hesitation, the fact is I was charmed and dazzled. And I was incredulous -- this brilliant, charismatic, fascinating man loved me! Even in my excitement over the sudden and unexpected development, and quite apart from his magnetism, I saw at once that the combination of qualities I had hoped for in any possible man had surprisingly and actually come together in this one. For the first time I had found a man who was that right mix of intellectual, physical, and social charm, and warm and funny on top of that. Phil was bright, issue-oriented, hardworking, witty, and, to me, amazingly good-looking, with his leanness and angularity making him much more interesting and appealing to me than classic good looks. He loved me, and I loved him. It was incredibly exciting.** p142, phil love letter during WWII (from hospital where he had flu/pnemonia)[letter from phil:]...my afternoon sleeping was rather dozing off and on and all through it as all through the morning I thought of us--I was going to say you but that isn't accurate for I never think of anything but the two of us together. It is strange and wonderful and strengthening about us. More and more every day for two years we have become the single most important fact for me. Today--reading back magazines--I thought how horribly fakish Washington was run. And then I thought how much of this army was boarding school sadism passed on blindly, by rote. And then I realized that, though those were things of importance to me, they were dwarfed by something I feel sure only you and I have. I don't know how it happened to come to us, Katringham, but I know we must treasure it and I know we do treasure it. Sitting around now I get funny little thoughts all the time--about how I'll get to a phone the minute I land at my new post and tell you to start on at once; about just when I may be able to squeeze a three or four-day pass so we can go off together; about how after the war all other considerations about employment must be secondary to my need of several hours a day to be together with you. ... I love thinking all those things. They don't come to mind out of sadness from being a little bit apart now. I think them because they are part of the knowledge of our inseparability--a beautiful piece of knowledge, Kate.** p258What I prefer to recall are those rare occasions when I have had some better sense of the meaning of what I am engaged in. In those moments I have realized that our problems are relatively simple and that some simple, ancient, moral precepts are often reliable business tools. In those moments I have been able to keep in mind that it really doesn't matter wheter I am kept in my job. In those moments I have been able to look straight at the frailty of my judgement. And finally I have been honest enough to recognize that a few - a very few - great issues about the meaning of life are the only issues which deserve to be considered truly complex.... by paying attention to the broader meaning of what we are engaged in, we may be able to join our passion to our intelligence. And such a juncture, even on the part of but one individual can represent a significant step forward on the long road toward civilization. ** p259 on Kennedy with a drunken Phil GrahamThe Kennedys had recently moved into a house on N Street in Georgetown, and in the late fall of 1958 or early winter of 1959, Joe invited us to dinner with them. Phil had too much to drink and was visibly and audibly out of control. I was embarrassed--probably too much so--but impressed with Kennedy for his cool approach, which ignored it totally and treated Phil as though he were perfectly sober. I admired that and was grateful. ** p259 - Kennedy running young / reminds me of Obama logic... After the other guests left, we and the Kennedys, urged by Joe, stayed on. Phil looked Kennedy straight in the eye and said, "Jack, you are very good. You will be president someday. But you are too young and you shouldn't run yet"--to which Kennedy replied, "Well, Phil, i'm running and this is why. First, I think I'm as well qualified as anybody who is going to run, except for Lyndon Johnson. Second, if I don't run, whoever wins will be there for eight years and will influence who his successor will be. And third, if I don't run I'll have to stay in the Senate at least eight more years. As a potential candidate in the Senate, I'll have to vote politically and I'll end up as a mediocre senator and a lousy candidate." I was thoroughly impressed by this, and each time I saw Senator Kennedy I grew more impressed.** p416-417 on becoming publisher of the Post - women of her generation I adopted the assumption of many of my generation that women were intellectually inferior to men, that we were not capable of governing, leading, managing anything but our homes and our children. Once married, we were confined to running houses, providing a smooth atmosphere, dealing with children, supporting our husbands. Pretty soon this kind of thinking--indeed, this kind of life--took its toll: most of us became somehow inferior. We grew less able to keep up with what was happening in the world. In a group we remained largely silent, unable to participate in conversations and discussions. Unfortunately, this incapacity often produced in women--as it did in me--a diffuse way of talking, an inability to be concise, a tendency to ramble, to start at the end and work backwards, to overexplain, to go on for too long, to apologize.Women traditionally have also suffered--and many still do--from an exaggerated desire to please, a syndrome so instilled in women of my generation that it inhibited my behavior for many years, and in ways still does. Although at the time I didn't realize what was happening, I was unable to make a decision that would displease those around me. For years, whatever directive I may have issued ended with the phrase "if it's all right with you." If I thought I'd done anything to make someone unhappy, I'd agonize. The end result of all this was that many of us, by middle age, arrived at the state we were trying most to avoid: we bored our husbands, who had done their fair share in helping to reduce us to this condition, and they wandered off to younger, greener pastures.** p614 McGovern three month ruleI agreed with a charming message I got from George McGovern after he had been defeated for the presidency. He recalled making some bitter remarks about a couple of our columnists at a dinner party, but wrote me:"I have regretted that outburst and I have also established that the maximum time I can carry a grudge is about three months. This note is simply to say that I have now forgotten all campaign grudges. It is just too difficult trying to remember which people I'm supposed to shun."With rare exceptions, I feel strongly that McGovern's rule is an appropriate one for all of us. The longer I live, the more I observe that carrying around anger is most debilitating to the person who bears it.** p619 have younger friendsBecause I am at a point in my life where I am losing friends to death with increasing frequency, I have tried to follow Joe Alsop's advice and example to keep developing younger friends.
It seems obvious now, that the memoirs of the publisher of a newspaper based in Washington would be centred around politics, but it hadn't occurred to me that it would be quite so focussed on that. And not just politics, but presidential politics and the author's personal relationships with them. I was hoping the book would be more about the running of a newspaper, interesting stories, people and events the paper would have covered but in retrospect this book and Katharine Graham's personal experience was never going to be about that. It was more about who she knew, who came to dinner and who were her friends. She lived in a rarified atmosphere that most of us could never aspire to and I just couldn't relate. As a result, this book wasn't that interesting to me. As an aside, at one time she was the publisher, CEO and chairman of the Washington Post, but at no time were the responsibilities of and distinctions between these roles ever really expanded on, so what she actually did was a bit of a mystery. It makes me wonder if she hadn't been heir to the paper whether someone with her education, experience and business nous (or lack thereof) would have been given a second glance in relation to running it. By her own admission, she knew nothing about personnel management, corporate finances and, even when she gave a speech on Watergate, she was worried about subsequent questions on it as she didn't know the detail. I think I know the answer to that. During the strike, she showed, at times, a lack of empathy with workers. Firstly by intimating they had the temerity to ask for four weeks holiday, when she shared, without a hint of irony, she spent all of August at her house at Martha's Vineyard. Then she made reference to how tedious the jobs were that she and other management took on during the strike. Well, these were the jobs of the strikers, the workers that helped her add to her inherited millions. I thought her comments demeaning to her workforce. Two last observations - I don't know whether we were supposed to feel sorry for her with her relationship with her parents. So her father was stand-of fish and did not convey feelings easily. I think that would sum up 99% of men of that era. And her mother was not exactly hands-on. This contributed to her lack of self-confidence and feelings on inferiority. So, why, in that case, did she seemingly go on to do exactly the same to her children. When she took over at The Post she had two children still at home and yet there was absolutely no mention of them while she was travelling around the country and the world and hosting and attending dinner parties. Last observation - did she not realise that Warren Buffett was married?! I think I would rather read a book on a self-made person, not an heiress.
What do You think about Personal History (1998)?
My general rule of thumb when someone writes a book about herself-- approach it with a healthy amount of skepticism. How many of us can turn inward and take a critical look without skewing/slanting the results? Not many, but after reading this book, I am convinced that is exactly what Katharine Graham did in Personal History. Above all things, this book feels honest. It is also moving, heartbreaking, perceptive, historical and inspiring. The book is multi-faceted. I appreciated the light it shed on the evolution of the women's movement and the devastating effects mental illness can have on family and loved ones. As a professional, the telling of her business experiences in a male-dominated industry felt real and perceptive. Her decision to go back to work running The Washington Post after being at home to raise her children for several years was inspiring (though not without significant personal cost). To top all this off her writing was excellent and memorable, a rare find in a memoir.
—Sherri
I don't always like biographies - they can be very self serving and trite. But I was blown away by this woman. Frankly, I didn't know much about her or her story of taking over the Washington Post upon the death of her husband - a job she really had been preparing for her whole life, if she knew it or not. Katherine Graham is a amazing, strong and wise woman, and she tells her tale in a very honest way, sharing her flaws, her mistakes and her regrets as lessons for the rest of us. She had a seat at the table for some of the biggest stories of our time, yet she makes each of these stories deeply personal in the telling. She's an inspiration for women in business, and who struggle to manage family, social, political and work obligations. A remarkable woman, a remarkable life, and a remarkable book.
—Mollie
Personal History is the life story of Katharine Graham, whose family owns the Washington Post. She was the Publisher and President of the Washington Post Companies from the 60's through the 80's. The book is really divided into three sections. The first deals with her life before she became involved in the Washington Post. This is principally the story of her life growing up, and then with her husband of 20+ years. He dealt with Manic Depressive Disorder during much of his life and it eventually took his life. It was fascinating to read about how his mental health affected his family. His life ended in suicide, and Katharine Graham took over the Washington Post at that time. The second part of the book deals with her taking over the company and learning the ropes. As a 40-something housewife, I loved this part! She really learns the business from scratch and makes it work wonderfully! It was fascinating to read about all of the inner workings of the paper and Washington politics. All the nitty-gritty details about Watergate and all kinds of other historic events are told from an insider perspective. She was the only female in an all-male world for much of her working life, and had many opportunities to speak, think and right about women's issues.In the final third of the book, Ms. Graham spends a long time retelling the stories surrounding a long (4 month) strike by the pressmen of the Post. It gave me a good opportunity to think about labor issues. Toward the end of the book, the reader sees that she has become much more settled into her life at the Post. She details her social life and eventually how she continued to look to the future even during the last years of her life. There is a lot of information about her social life and a lot of names that I couldn't or didn't keep track of. At parts, this book is too detailed and has information you don't care about. At other parts, she assumes you know historical information that I didn't know. Despite this, she has an amazing knack for being as fair-minded as one can be. As she unfolds each story, she will invariably include information to show what her opponent in any given situation would be thinking and give his side of the story. This is a real gift that is seen too rarely in people! finally the history in the book is so fascinating that it is completely worth wading through the some of the details to read these great stories!
—Kim
