Review by Andrew Ritchie, Ontario, Canada:

Comments on this review? Write to Andrew

The subtitle of Christopher Byron's book reads: "The Incredible Story Of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia." It should probably read: "The Vilification Of A Talented Businesswoman."

For every "incredible story" about Martha's company and how it came into existence there is a disturbing and slanderous account about something Martha did or said that was questionable, which is clearly meant to enrage the reader and undermine Martha's image.

The accounts of fury and maliciousness that Byron uses in his book are too numerous to list. But for the sake of observance, I'll pick a few choice moments from the book to illustrate the point that Byron was never only interested in chronicling the development of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. but also the complex and controversial personality of Martha Stewart herself.

There is the story about how one Halloween night a boy came to Turkey Hill, trick-or-treating, and was greeted by Martha’s peering eyeball through the door. The boy was allegedly told to get off her property after having corn nuts thrown at him.

Byron uses this “peering Martha eyeball” image more than once, such as this excerpt from the book about how she terminated her catering partnership with Norma Collier:

"It was cold outside and a drizzly autumn rain had soaked the streets. People hurried past with their collars pulled about them as Norma waited for Martha to reappear. Momentarily, the door opened slightly and Martha's eye peered through. Then in an instant the door swung open the rest of the way and onto the sidewalk tumbled a torrent of bundles, bags and parcels - Norma's "things" from their partnership. Then, even as the shocked Norma stooped to collect them as people hurried past, the door slammed shut and Martha Stewart was gone from her life."

This kind of melodramatic yarn spinning is found throughout the book. He never simply states a fact, he dramatizes it with uncalled for atmosphere and mood as if he were writing a murder mystery or a fictional novel, which undermines any effort he puts forth to offer a credible history of the company itself.

Here is another example, describing Martha at a celebrity-packed gala dinner for Princess Diana in 1995 where she was apparently seated alone and, as Byron describes it, looking ill at ease and downcast:

“It is impossible to know what Martha Stewart was thinking at that moment. She could have been thinking about the next issue of her magazine, or her upcoming trip to the Galapagos Islands, or her situation at Time Warner, or how her latest cookbook was doing on the New York Times best-seller list, or any number of other things in her frenzied, complex life. And she could have been thinking about the woman seated not fifty feet away from her (Princess Diana), who was about to be honoured for her humanitarian efforts to ease suffering in the world, who looked like a fairy princess and lived like one, too…who had managed to dance through the raindrops of a traumatic divorce as if she were Ginger Rogers, and had emerged without a spot on her. And here at her feet sat Martha Stewart, a woman who’d worked a hundred times harder, and suffered more pain, and made herself famous, too. Only she still didn’t feel like a fairy princess. She still wasn’t famous enough, like that woman up there. She still wasn’t Princess Di.”

This ridiculous passage is typical of Byron’s demeaning style. He makes ludicrous conclusions based on speculation and interpretation and paints Martha as a bitter, angry woman who is bent on greed. Many of his anti-Martha sources are unnamed and many of the events in the book where he describes Martha’s temper or her lashing out are based on hearsay and are often subject to interpretation. And yet, Byron unquestioningly supports these tales of Martha’s anger and further darkens the portrait of his subject with his own sarcasm and unneeded jibes at her personality.

With the exception of two of her former friends and business partners (Norma Collier and Kathy Tatlock) who appear to have credible tales of difficulty withMartha, along with a handful of other sources, such as neighbours, business men or people she met at parties, he does not name a lot of the people who have come up to speak out against her. Nor does he emphasize how many of Martha’s supporters and friends turned down his requests for interviews. He blames Martha for their lack of cooperation, not thinking or a moment that these friends and family members can come to their own decisions about whether or not they should submit to an interview with him. While it’s true that Martha did warn her friends about Byron’s calls and ask that they not participate, it is understandable, to say the least, why she would do so.

Most tiresome are his repeated attempts to psychoanalyze Martha Stewart, without any credentials to do so. He is not a psychologist; he is a business writer and yet his forays into Martha’s psychology are unrelenting.

His descriptions of Martha’s ill-fitting childhood days with a broken, controlling father and a shadow of a mother should be read with skepticism, as should his suggestions that her entire empire is based on a girlie childhood fantasy of perfect pastel harmony. He cites an obsession Martha had with Nancy Drew books at that age and concludes that the reason for this “obsession” wasbecause Martha knew her childhood life could never be as good as the protagonist of these books, spawning her desire to flee Nutley, New Jersey and become someone she’s not.

The list of accusations continues:

-He accuses her of re-writing her own history for the sake of her public and personal image, supporting the accusation with evidence that is scarce, at best.

-He suggests that Martha’s main strategy for success is getting others to foot the bill, including her deals with Kmart and Time Warner.

-He says many of her employees hide from her when she is walking down the hallway and that she is prone to vulgar fits of anger in the studio when the cameras aren't running.

-He suggests that Andy Stewart’s struggles with illness were the result of stress in his marriage to Martha (all based on hearsay) and portrays her as a ruthless man-eater, even going so far as to call her the “alpha-male” in any relationship she embarks on, likening her to a dog or wolf.

-He accuses her of being a domineering presence in her family who yearns to control every aspect of her family’s life.

-He portrays her as a bad mother who neglected her daughter, Alexis, and uses evidence supplied by her former, embittered friend Kathy Tatlock to support this claim.

To Byron’s credit, he does reveal some interesting tidbits of information about how Martha planned and produced one of the most successful companies of the 1990s and does so with a genuine sense of admiration. There are several moments in the book when it seems as if Byron is truthfully rooting for Martha or, at the very least, giving her due credit for making sensible, even brilliant, business decisions. He also acknowledges that Martha is an enigma in a time when the powers that be are still mostly male, and male oriented. He successfully illustrates how business men at Time Warner just did not understand the concept of “Martha Stewart” and, therefore, treated her with anobvious air of disdain and/or condescension, something Martha rightfully used against them in the end by proving to them that she does, in fact, know what she’s talking about.

In the end, however, Byron suggests that Martha Stewart’s Empire will, by default, not survive the breadth of time and says that any company that bases its fortune on the image and visual presence of an individual is bound to fail in the long run. Thankfully, he does make some helpful suggestions to the company, such as going back to the private sector to save itself, making the company more tangible with actual Martha Stewart stores and more visible product lines, branching out from Kmart, less dependent on Martha Stewart herself and less reliant on intellectual property.

Overall, the book is rife with anti-Martha sentiment and these slanderous inclusions undermine his attempt to focus on her business. There are sections of the book that seem tasteless and, frankly, slightly pathetic.

I suggest that anyone who visits this site have a peek at “Martha Inc.” It’s worth the read if only for the intricate details about MSO Inc. and its history. I would not buy the book. Byron’s made enough money off Martha’s misfortune as it is. It’s available in most libraries now.

-Andrew Ritchie
Ontario, Canada

Comments on this review? Write to Andrew