You promote books and reading. You live with books. And you are involved with the study of books. And i said, thats true. We also promote books through events such as tonights. This is part of our books and beyond author series. Its where we focus on authors who have written new books that have Something Special to do with the library of congress. And in this case, as our speaker will tell you, there is a direct connection with the library and with an archive. And when i wrote the press release, i didnt really realize the extent of the collection that we have that supports this particular book. We have the archive not just the recordings for Mary Margaret mcbride. You will hear about that tonight from our speaker. Susan is a special friend of the library of congress. She has been here before to work on a particular project. We have some of the editors of this project here tonight. A american Women Library of congress guide for the study of womens history and culture in the United States. Its a 420page resource guide. And she not only headed the advisory committee, the Scholars Advisory Committee for the book, but she wrote the introduction. And we had a Similar Program when that particular book was published. Susan herself is a former professor of history at new york university. Shes an expert on 20th century american women. And the editor right now along with the publication of this book for the most recent volume women, justmerican published in 2004. It was prepared at the schlesinger library, institute for advanced studies at harvard university. Shes also published a number of books on women in the new deal, a biography of amelia earhart, biography of social reformer molly dusome and womens history anthology. I also have my own Favorite Book that susan put together which i have had in my collection and home for a long time and i forgot to bring it in tonight. But i love collective biographies and the book which she put together is called it wasten heroes. Published in 1998, i think, by the free press. It is a charming volume that does talk about forgotten heroes. But stories are told by well known historians who are asked to pick their favorite forgotten hero. So some of the people arent quite forgotten but people that havent gotten the attention that some of these historians felt. Tonight, thanks to susan, we are going to learn about someone who maybe has not been forgotten but hasnt been as well known as she will be with the publication of this particular book. Its my pleasure to introduce susan weir and to produce this show today. Thank you. [applause] susan thank you for that introduction. Theres obviously no better place for me to launch my book than here at the library of congress. But now i regret that we didnt decide to do this as a lunchtime presentation so that i could have opened it in real time with it is 1 00 and here is susan weir talking about Mary Margaret mcbride. But in lieu of that let me start with a short clip from 1952 to put you in the mood for what is to come. Its 1 00. And heres Mary Margaret mcbride. A Great American legend. You heard her voice. Maybe youve even read her before now but youre going to be reading her because her publishers tell me they put out a great big edition of her book. And before they could get it out, they had to start another big edition. Of course, im talking about probably the one person in America Today whose first name you know what tickled me was thinking what she would have been like if you had taken her advice. Well, it may have saved me a lot of trouble, as you know. The connotation good and bad. Its whipped up a lot of rumors and legends. And sometimes i get credit where it isnt due and sometimes blame where it isnt. But i take the blame for everything and a little credit, too. So im not apologizing. Except for loyal fans over a certain age, that voice is no longer the familiar presence it would have been in the 1940s and 1950s. I certainly had never heard of Mary Margaret mcbride before i started this project. I found her in a curious way, i think. It was while reading obituaries an the New York Times. Ulterior, but never hidden, motive for me taking on the position as editor was mining this vast database of dead women for possible subjects for future books. And in fact, at some point, i rather sheepishly realized that i was reading obituaries the way other people read the personals except that i was looking for a book topic not for a mate, which i already have. I cant claim that some eureka moment went off when i first read Mary Margaret mcbrides obituary. I think this is partly because she died in 1976. So i thought i better hold back a little bit in case there was some great moment, someone who died in 1999. But i was interested. And i put a little star on the printout of the obituary. And i left the idea percolate in my head. I was intrigued by the chance to explore a new field for me, the field of radio in a time where i had focused much of my historical work, the 1930s through the 1950s. Plus with a strong biographical focus. And i gradually over the next couple years realized that the project was, indeed, a perfect fit. Unlike novelists, historians need sources. And this book would not have been possible without the archival material that Mary Margaret mcbrides estate deposited at the library of congress in 1977. In addition to correspondence, newspaper clippings and selected writings, the collection offered almost 1,200 hours of recordings of Mary Margaret mcbrides radio shows. These recordings are a treasure trove of interviews with an incredibly broad range of public figures over three decades. Its practically anybody who was anybody everybody who was anybody in those years appeared on her show. And one of the goals of this book is to alert other scholars to the possibilities for using this resource in their own research. And i hope that many other historians as well as documentary filmmakers and radio producers find their way to the mcbride collection. I promise you you will not be disappointed. Now, another source that greatly enriched the book were letters from former listeners who responded to an authors query i placed an the New York Times book review at the beginning of the project. And these reminiscences and recollections mostly from fans but also with some negative comments thrown in, like a girl who hated having Mary Margaret mcbride on the radio when she came home from school for lunch each day and couldnt wait until she went to have high school. Went off to high school. But these memories really allowed me to understand how a Radio Program could be so important to its listeners and how those memories and loyalties could still be warm and strong five decades after the flagship show went off the air. Now, i called this book a radio biography. That term is meant to draw attention to its hybrid nature. As both a recreation of daytime radio from the 1930s through the 1950s and the biography of one of its most important characters. It does not, however, follow the traditional birthtodeath structure of most biographies. As ive been doing throughout my career as a historian and biographer, especially in an earlier book on amelia earhart, i find myself stretching the boundaries of biography in ways which i hope readers will find successful and stimulating. The book starts with a description of Mary Margaret mcbrides radio show at the height of its influence in the late 1940s and early 1950s. And after readings have gotten to know Mary Margaret thats how i refer to her. Everybody was on a first name basis with her and we will be too, tonight. But after people had learned about Mary Margaret and learned why her program was so successful, the narrative backtracks to tell the story of her upbringing and early career and how she came to radio. A story which would have been intimately familiar to her listeners since she share it with them on many occasions. Then the third part of the book picks up the story after world war ii and takes it through her death in 1976. While an epilogue discusses the contemporary talk show phenomenon with a look back to Mary Margaret mcbrides earlier role. Now, mcbrides radio career was something of a fluke. Born in paris, missouri, or in 1899, she always wanted to be a writer. And set her sights early on new york. By 1920, she had made it to the city where she excelled not as a fiction writer as she had hoped but as a reporter and then as one of the highest paid freelance journalists in the decade. Along the way, she teamed up with stella carn, a hardtalking, no nonsense character who became her manager and lifelong companion. When the stock market crashed in 1929, wiped out her and stellas savings and then the depression dried up Mary Margarets lucrative freelance career, she found herself at rock bottom. A chance radio audition in 1934 opened the door to her new career. Stella served as her producer. They worked successfully as a team until mcbride gave up her daily show 20 years later. At the height of her popularity, Mary Margaret mcbride attracted between six million and eight million listeners a day. Men as well as women. Comprising 20 of the available broadcast audience in her time slot. Five times a week her blend of current affairs, literary trends and tidbits, news of the world of broadway theater and hollywood film and more offered listeners a literate yet accessible radio conversation that both entertained and informed. Each show was different. There were no repeats. Guests were never announced in advance. So you never knew who you were going to hear each day. Her shows, i can attest after many hours in a sound booth in the recording sound, remain remarkably fresh and interesting today. More than five decades after their original broadcast. And im not sure that that statement is true of all of old radio. But these have really held up quite well. Now, mcbrides radio career is important to broadcasting history, womens history and history of 20th century Popular Culture. Im a historian so i step back and draw these conclusions. Drawing on her years as a freelance journalist for womens magazines, she pioneered the magazine style format. Nk of the today show short features, ad libbed interviews and multiple sponsor that still structures many talkshows on the air today. In addition, she and stella early on realized the freedom and power they could exercise by producing their own show independently of the networks agencies which produced most of the content for radio especially in the 1930s. And the model of being their own Production Company is now the norm for many successful media personalities. Most importantly, Mary Margaret mcbride realized the cultural and political importance of talk radio. And she was one of the first to exploit its potential. The phenomenal bond that she formed with her listeners is critical to understanding Popular Culture in 20th century american life. Now, even though Mary Margaret mcbride spent her entire career broadcasting out of a new york city studio, she had a surprisingly national reach. She started out locally, a halfhour afternoon show geared towards housewives that ran until 1940 when she turn it and its copyrighted name over to bessy beatty. From 1937 to 1941 she broadcast a second 15minute show under her own name. Youve got one person thats appearing on a radio both as martha dean and Mary Margaret mcbride and sometimes people got a little confused. They would say theres this other woman imitating you. Shes nowhere near as good as you are. But the attraction of this other 15minute show was that it was nationally syndicated. And it also aired in new york on cbs. For a year after she gave up martha dean, she also had a 15minute nationally syndicated show sponsored by the florida Citrus Growers association, in association. 1941, she dropped that and returned to doing a local show on weaf, the main nbc station in new york. 45 minutes at 1 00, her favorite time slot. In 1949, she went to a full hour. When nbc resisted her request to take the show national, she bolted to abc in 1950 where she stayed until she gave up her regular show in 1954. Starting in 1951, the abc show was widely syndicated in a cooperative arrangement in which the new york show was cut down to 30 minutes and local commercials added by Mary Margaret, stella and announcer Vincent Connelly before the new version was distributed by wgn of chicago. The wide if selective reach of her program over the years explains why even though a majority of Mary Margarets loyal listeners were in the new york metropolitan area, she could still count on a nationwide following. While not every radio listener had a chance to hear Mary Margaret every day, every year, she was definitely one of radios best known stars in the heyday of radios pretelevision popularity. In addition, as a result of the Extensive NationalMedia Coverage she received, Mary Margaret had a presence in Popular Culture that transcended the millions who were her regular listeners, allowing the radio personality to reach into corners of the United States where her radio broadcast was not carried. Her name was a familiar one to americans across the country in the 1940s and 1950s and can still illicit a warm if somewhat vague spongs when the three response when the three words Mary Margaret mcbride are mentioned today. And yet mcbride has been practically forgotten. Both in radio history and in the history of 20th century Popular Culture. Primarily, i argue, because she was a woman and because she was on daytime radio which in her case turned out to be a lethal combination. In the 1930s and 1940s, daytime radio was dismissed as the world of the feminine, dominated by weepy soap operas and the crude commercialization typified by the Soap Companies that sponsored the cereals. By contrast, nighttime radio was seen as more serious, less commercial. In a word, more masculine and therefore, more important. It didnt matter that women up the majority of audiences for both day and nighttime radio. The gender perceptions ruled and helped to confine Mary Margaret mcbride to historical oblivion. Even while her show was outdrawing everybody else, mcbride often found herself the target of negative stereotypes linked to her gender, her predominantly female audience, her unmarried status and her ample physique. Those of you of a certain age, think kate smith. Im covering all of those bases. Newsweek ran this description of mcbride in 1949. This is a quote. I could not make this up. Mary Margaret Mcbride is a 48yearold spinster with a talent for backfence gab and an hour a day in which to display her talents. Her audience is almost wholly feminine, fluttery, middleaged and purely housewife. Men as a rule disdain the show. In good housewifely tradition , she dotes on and drools over anything that pleases her, particularly food. She is built along the lines of a bulldozer with a face as unlined as an english farm girl. It does actually go on for even more. Unfortunately, as i found when i researched the press coverage she got, such demeaning coverage was nothing new to the radio talk show host. In 1940, time titled an article about her with a single word. Goo. And later anointed her radios clean of endearing mush. Mush. aci sh. Ndearing mu and by using such dismissive language, commentators made it sound like her show amounted to nothing more than whatever came into her head on the spur of the moment as opposed to a carefully orchestrated show by a shrewd performer who was perhaps the best interviewer radio has ever seen. Mary Margaret Mcbride took her listeners seriously. And my book takes Mary Margaret mcbride seriously. A magazine might dismiss her audience as dust pan army. aci dustpan army. But she never talked down to them which especially endeared her to female listeners tired of being patronized by radio personalities and advertising executives who assumed all they were interested in was recipes and curtains. Mary margaret did not discriminate. Treating women and men equally when it came to their desire for interesting conversation and involvement in the world at large. She treated her guests just as respectfully. She never spoke from notes. She had a phenomenal memory. Nor would she let her guest use them. This sometimes upset guests. They came in with their little prepared remarks and she would often nothing kind of often kind of conveniently swoosh them off the table leaving the person just to be able to talk. And people who were on her show really said that she put them so much at ease that they really felt that they were just having a conversation. The two of them. I think that is one key to her great abilities as an interviewer. The other thing that really distinguished her was that she always put the guest first. She really wanted to show off the guest. She didnt care what she sounded like. It was more that she wanted to make sure that the guest was able to say what he or she wanted to and do it in a way that would be interesting to the listeners. But what seemed on the face of it just a simple conversation was often the result of ours and ours of advanced research and hours of advanced research and preparation that she used and then made it seem as if it were just a chat between friends. Now, here are two more clips from the interview with talula bankhead which suggests the enthusiasm that Mary Margaret brought to her show each day. And this enthusiasm it takes a little getting used to. Ive listened to so many of these tapes. I know what its like. But i imagine if youre just hearing her for the first time, it might take a little getting used to. But i think these clips also show how much fun her guests had as well, although i cant claim that they were all quite as effusive as talula bankhead was about being on the show. And she replied, its all true. But my favorite story she tells herself i think is that the time when she was in boston at a party. I think youre referring to charles gave me a party. A friend of his. That was in providence, rhode island. A very grand old ladies, blueblood. Delightful, im sure. I made small talk. Trying to be as pleasant as i could as a guest. Gracias as i could as a guess. Gracias as i could as a guest. When i left, she turned to a great friend of mine, also an old bostonian blueblood who, get away from that and go into this. And who had my exhusband, by the way, came out and said he was terrified, you know. He said this dear old lady said to eddy, when is she going to do her stuff . He said, well, shes behaved. She says, oh, if thats the case, i cant say i cant say hell on the radio, can i . No. Well, excuse me. If shes going behave like everybody else, then im going home. Do you remember the time you substituted i dont know what youre going to ask me but you look so frightened. Gentlemen, she is glowing. Shes saying, do you remember . Im scared to death of what shes going ask me. Each day when Mary Margaret sat down in front of her microphone to broadcast her radio show she kept a clear , picture in her mind of her typical listener. This really guided me as an historian as i tried to think about the links between the radio performer and her audience. And heres what she said. When i am on the air, i imagine that i am talking to a young, married woman with a couple of children. A woman who at one time had a job and is still interested in the jobs of other people, the business world. So i talk about people who do things. The world at large. I tried to give her the vicarious thrill of going places and meeting people. When i describe a restaurant where i had dinner, i try to look at it as she might. And share her enthusiasm. The host herself put it, its our program, you see, not its her program, you see, not mine. And that connection stuck. And Mary Margaret was blessed with one of the most loyal radio audiences ever. Many of them listened to her for more than 20 years straight. Long enough so that their daughters who were youngsters in the 1930s when her show debuted could tune in as housewives with Young Children of their own at the height of the program in the early 1950s. These were active not passive listeners. And the show was a vital part of everyday life for these women. Listeners structured their day around the program. They learned from it. And they supported it by buying the products that Mary Margaret promoted on the air. This is commercial radio so if she doesnt have sponsorships, theres no show. So once they opened the show with a familiar refrain of its 1 00 and here is Mary Margaret mcbride, aci her bride, her listeners enter into an intimate onetoone conversation with her and her guests that took them away from their ordinary lives for the next 45 minutes. The daughter of one loyal listener remembered, this is a quote, at the appropriate time my mother would curl up in her chaise lounge and all was well. A day for my mom was not complete without listening to Mary Margaret. Nothing, but nothing, interfered. And heres a recollection from another listener almost 50 years later. I was an athome mom in the 1950s. And all of those programs were a godsend to us. I think that was probably true of many other women at the time. These listeners recognized that Mary Margaret sincerely cared about them, wanted to be part of their lives, and always took them seriously. You really are different from some of those women on the air who patronize and talk down. You never talk down, wrote one fan. Like the soap operas which share the daytime hours, mcbrides program focused prime i cant on womens lives and values in a way that was rare in Popular Culture at the time. Even if society dismissed or rendered invisible womens contributions to their homes and families, Mary Margaret recognized and validated their hard work and commitment. Even though she herself never or had children, she reached out to and connected with women who had made those choices, offering them the opportunity to stretch their lives beyond the confines of their homebound existence through her daily show. Her basic respect for the complexities of modern womens lives, domestic lives, and womens simultaneous yearnings for connections with the broader public sphere was the core principle of her radio philosophy. Now, perhaps every radio talk show host forms a symbiotic relationship with her listeners. But there seems to be something tight about the bonds that developed between Mary Margaret mcbride and her millions of devoted fans. Even though the list yearns listeners rarely remember, listening to the radio is often a solitary affair. They shared a deep bond through their shared activity of tuning in each day at 1 00 to listen to a radio host they considered a dear friend and practically a member of the family. Mary margaret gave listeners a daily link tie world of books, broadway shows, broader social issues, celebrities, ordinary folks, all done with gusto and total sincerity. She was there for her listens during the hard times of the depression, the patriotic sacrifices of wartime, and the uncertainties of the cold war that followed. Even though she was herself a celebrity, listeners felt that she was someone they could see dropping by their homes and sharing a cup of tea and a piece nor her case, probably two or three pieces of case given her hefty appetite which was very much part of the show. Like an absent friend. Her listeners wrote her a voluminous amount of mail which unfortunately was not systematically kept. A lot of it was donated to scrap drives during world war ii. But if it had been kept it would have presented an amazing window on womens lives throughout the country. On the other hand, as a historian, i think what if three million letters had been saved . This book would be coming out in about 30 years because id still be reading them. But i think the point im trying to make is that her radio popularity demonstrated the level of intimacy and personal connection possible between listeners and a radio personality and fundamentally challenged any notion that radio listening ways passive activity. Her loyal and engaged audience was just as much a factor in the Shows Success as Mary Margarets guests or her own superb radio techniques. Now, in this phenomenal bond that formed between Mary Margaret and her listeners, nowhere was the loyalty more evident than the products which is how the various sponsors who made her show possible were always described. And she was very particular about which sponsor she would take on. She had to pass a personal taste test for her. And she had to really believe in the products before she was going to endorse them. The role the products play on the show is that instead of just being a Necessary Evil or the time that you would get up and get yourself a glass of water, listening to her do products was actually fun. As fun and funny often as the guests themselves. Would she be able to get them all in or would Vincent Connelly have to hurry her along mid interview with a gentle lead into the days featured product . Would she do a chunk of them in the middle of the show or leave them all to the end . What amusing or timely stories would listeners have to share about their experiences with individual products . Mary margaret managed to make commercials interesting, suspenseful, timely, and purr persuasive. That woman can sell anything was the comment of more than one perspective advertiser. As in all aspects of the program, listeners were an important part of doing the products. Almost every show contains letters from listeners about certain products. How they had been used to the special party. Or perhaps as a source of an amusing anecdote. And as an example, heres a clip of Mary Margaret using lizener letters to plug listeners to plug the soup. I brought a few of the comments of my middle western listeners. A woman named mable in chicago whos written to me often. She thought to herself as she tried as many of my products as she could because she liked the program. But she said, i wont try her canned soup. There is no such thing as a canned soup fit for consumption, she said. But, she adds, and this is handsome of her. That was before last friday when i bravely brought home a can of soup. You win. It was delicious. So i went back to the other two kinds and now i shall keep all of them stocked. Then evelyn from peoria, illinois, says, ive used habitat pea soup for about 15 years. There isnt anything you can tell me about it my aunt in Northern Michigan first told me and i thought it was a comedian a canadian dish. Its better than any pea soup i can make for it has a flavor ive never been able to copy. She calls it a foreign flavor. All three soups that Good Housekeeping has put a seal on, and parents tasted and tested and approve and i through these three years that ive had it, ive certainly tasted and tested and approved so write me if you already know about it. And begin right now. If you should oh, weve added so many dealers. Just because those faithful, wonderful list yearns of mine listeners of mine out there sent names and addresses whenever they couldnt get the product. All three soups. They just send me the name and address of the grosser. And i did something about it. I hope very much you will. The cans are 28 and 15 ounce. The sizes. Theres two sizes. Doesnt that make you want to go out and buy the soup . And she could do that for icy point salmon, easy cut wax paper, dramadiere ginger bread mix, a favorite of jan and mine. She really could make anything sound like you just had to have it. One of the things i think is important about her and the connection with her audience is that these are often new Convenience Foods that are being sold. Its helping her audience to realize that it is in fact, ok to buy a canned soup rather than making it themselves. And its a good bargain in terms of the money and that its also a good bargain in terms of the housewives use of her time. And because there is such a bond between the radio host and her listeners when she tells them to try a new product, they will go out and do it. And grocers learned that if a new sponsor is added, they better make sure they have an end aisle display of that because at approximately 2 15, after the show is over, Mary Margarets listeners will be calling up and saying, where is x, y or z . So there really is an important bond here. But its because they trusted her so much and they knew that she would not point them in the direction of a product that they wouldnt find useful and a good bargain. And it really is quite an unusual moment in the history of advertising. Now, Mary Margaret mcbride once joked that she hoped she would die at the microphone. And she actually continued to broadcast three times a week on a small catskills station until just a few months before her death in 1976. 1976 was five years after National Public radio went on the air. And the links between mcbrides brand of sophisticated talk and reportage and n. P. R. Shows such as terry grosss fresh air are unmistakable. But just as striking are the differences. Notably mcbrides unapologetic acceptance of commercial sponsorship. Try imagining terry gross or diane ream enthusiastically plugging easy cut wax paper, the soup or Dolly Madison ice cream. Another direction that talk radio has taken since her death is shock radio. Opinionated ranting on sports, politics, and social issues. Usually by men. While mcbride would have deplored its lack of civility there are also clear parallels between todays callin programs and her program. When thousands of fans regularly wrote to Mary Margaret to tell her their problems and their dreams and she shared those letters on the air, talkshow hosts and audience were connecting through the seemingly impersonal medium of radio. Perhaps the closest contemporary par throle Mary Margaret mcbride is the Television Talkshow host oprah winfrey. Like Mary Margaret oprah is often referred to simply by her first name. And she has problems with her weight. Opinionated yet sympathetic she connects with her audience through her own life and the lives of the guests on her show. Books are among her favorite topics. And she runs a successful Production Company that produces her own show and many other independent projects. More confessional than Mary Margaret and much more linked to the identity politics and selfhelp movements of the past several decades oprah takes her audiences seriously and tries to address their needs. The line from early talkshow pioneer like mary mrg receipt mcbride is not direct. The parallels are unmistakable. And yet its clear that will her talkshow operated in more discreet and restrained times. Late 20th century confessional style of getting in touch with your feelings was not for her. Nor would it have been for most members of her audience. When she shared details of her life, these stories were not confessions or revelations but more like interesting tidbits that she thought would interest her listeners. You remember back to her image of the housewife at home who may be used to have a job and still wanted to know what was going on in the world. Guests on her show chatted about their work and their lives but touched on more private matters own whether i considerable reserve. More to the point mcbrides vision of a talkshow had had a fundamentally different agenda than its later radio and television incarnations which depended on controversy and confrontation to win high ratings. Mary margaret always remained more a facilitator and a conduit for ideas and information than a provocateur or a therapist. There was no debate or confrontation on her show. Just oneonone conversations where she and her guests sat down at the microphone and kept talking until their time was up. To understand Mary Margaret mcbride and to understand her relevance to broadcast history and 20th century Popular Culture is necessary to go back to where my talks started, listening to the radio. Mary Margaret Mcbrides career demonstrates the importance of women to radio and the importance of radio to women. The key to her success and remarkable longevity was her ability to use the intimacy of radio, to draw her audience into an imagined community of listeners who actively participated in making the show meaningful to their lives. The radio host did her part from the studio and then it was up to the listener to meet her half way. Unlike television there were no images or visuals to distract their attention. Only her warm, friendly voice bringing information, stories, and products into their homes over the airwaves. Elevating rather than pandering to the tastes of her predominantly female audience, Mary Margaret mcbride provide as a model of how Popular Culture can act as a positive force in womens lives. But it wasnt just a question of mastering the craft of radio. Mary Margaret Mcbride drew such a loyal audience because she met so many of her listeners needs. Serving as an intermediary between an egrarian smalltown past and the more cosmopolitan values linked to modern times she also straddles traditional and more egal tearian gender roles. Throughout literate but never overly areaed conversation on her program she provided her audience with a model of what modern womanhood could be. Confident, personalable and well informed. She validated womens contributions to their homes and families but also stretched their minds to confront issues beyond the domestic realm including some of the most vexing, social issues of contemporary life. Racial politics, feminism, an tie feminism, consumerism and global politics. What the media dismissed as goo turned out to be an honest and heart felt attempt by host and listeners alike to deal with a complexities and anxieties of modern life. An aging listener recently confided that he still liked to say to people as the appropriate point in the afternoon, its 1 00, and here is Mary Margaret mcbride. Even though, he added, nobody knows what the hell im talking about. Now perhaps they will. Thank you. [applause] i would be happy to answer questions. I was wondering if you found the list of questions she prepared. Occasionally would i find little scribbled pieces. But mainly they would just be proms to say remind listeners about the Dolly Madison party or Something Like that. She really did go into this cold. But she was very much of a night person. And she probably would have been up until 2 00 or 3 00 the night before reading the book, if it was an author, of the person she was interviewing and then she could remember dialogue from it and was able just to keep drawing them out. But she also knew that sometimes people she was interviewing would develop the dreaded mike fright and just clam up. So she learned to phrase the questions in a way that if her guest couldnt tell the story, she could. And thats where her memory really comes in. But i think that theres sort two of keys to her being such a good interviewer. One is growing up on a farm and listening to conversation. She heard her mother talking to the neighbor women. And i think the other is being a reporter. And going around and asking questions. She really i think one of the things thats distinctive about her radio career is how shes able to use her training as a journalist. And thats one thing that made her into such a good interviewer. Was she using this was she using that very casual, informal style from the very beginning . Or do you snow does the archive go back far enough or did she sort of develop into that kind of warm presence on the radio . I would say she was always a warm presence on the radio. The difference between the early shows in the 30s and the ones in the 40s and 50s is in the 30s when she was being comblarge dean, it was more just her on the program. She would talk about things that she had done. She didnt have as many guests. And one of the things that was interesting for me as i listened not always in sequence but as i listened to shows from different parts of her career, was to see her really developing what i call a social conscience. Especially during the 1940s and 1950s. She gets very involved in wartime patriotism. Spurred in large part by her favorite guest, Eleanor Roosevelt. Then shes very involved in postwar politics and civil rights. That kind of political consciousnessness or aware sns absent in the shows from the 1930s that have survived. As is much sustained the discussion of the depression. They are much more chatty. But chattyness and the warmth was always there. What gets talked about gets more serious as it goes along. But it still keeps this light tone. This is not Dorothy Thompson or Walter Lipman or someone like that. It is still a conversation. But a very highlevel conversation. Why did she end her National Broadcast . The question of why she ended it in 1954 she was only 55. Thats my age. Seems a little early to be retiring. And i think a lot of people thought that. She clearly could have continued to stay on the air for a while longer. But her partner was ill with cancer and she died three years later. And stella was the one who really held the program together. So that is sort of a personal reason for pulling back. I think it was also getting harder for her. 20 years of doing 15,000 shows. No repeats every day. That she thought she would maybe like to do something else. She had tried television. I think one of my favorite chapters in the book is about her trying television. It was too early. It was 1948. And i had thought the reason she would fail on television would be selfevident. Shes a woman. She weighs 200 pounds. And shes old. Shes not going to make it. But its actually much more complex than that. Its that she never she much preferreded the intimacy of a oneonone conversation rather than all of these lights and things like that. She felt really cut into her ability to make people feel at ease. And also having watched some of her Television Shows its much harder to sustain 50 minutes after tension. Youve all been very nice listening to me for that long. With just one person talking or maybe one guest where as on a radio show thats plenty. Theres some real differences between the medium of radio and the medium of television. That i think explained why she was much happier at radio than she was at television. If she had tried to keep this nationally syndicated show going too much longer, she would have run up against the beginnings of top 40 broadcasting and the soap operas were taking on even more of a role during daytime. And there really was not an audience yet for this kind of literate talk. And thats where then he would jump forward to n. P. R. There really are very strong parallel theres. So her solution was to be off the air for a while. She wrote a cookbook. No surprise. She said she had been trying out recipes in pounds for many years she did that. Then in 1960 in a small kingston, new york, station she went back on the air i think that really kept her sane. She loved it. Sometimes she would get guests from new york to come in. But sometimes she would have her local neighbor neighbor talking about how she grew squash to Mary Margaret theres no such thing as an uninteresting guest. Its how you draw them out. But it was the match between her and radio. Really, really fit. But there was not going to be a future for her too much longer in terms of the National Trends of radio. Is there a list available . We can ask the main archivist. It is possible to search. You can search the main online catalogue the program that we do have excuse me. The programs that we have are listed. The guests are all listed. And you can get a good view of most of the programs that we have. I do have a typed fliss my desk list in my desk that we check names. Her programs are very often structured to have a nationally known person and then like a local, interesting person. Sometimes the names are difficult to find. The local person didnt write a book. Usually they were chairing a benefit or doing something locally. So sometimes they were hard to identify. But we do have a kind of rough list. I think the other thing i would say as a historian, i have written about so many characters in the 20th century. And i tend to encounter them through words or maybe through pictures. And it really is quite different when you listen to someones voice and hear them being interviewed. Even someone like Eleanor Roosevelt about whom i know quite a lot. But you get a different sense of her or Dorothy Thompson or a margaret immediate mead or a dancer. Theres a whole range of people. It gives you a different side to them. Ive actually sensed some people at the library of congress. Ive said, look, youre doing a book on soandso. You ought to go listen to her. Listen to Mary Margaret interview her and it will give you an even broader appreciation of what your subject like. 20 me that was one of the most fun things about doing the project. Not only getting to know Mary Margaret and really learning again the importance of radio which i think we all know, but this really brings it home. Whats so special about it. But then also encountering this cast of characters that she had on her show. And to me that was a great privilege. I really hope that i can encourage other people to do that. So thats a good place to stop. Thank you again for coming. Thank you again, susan. Thank you for choosing the library of congress as the place for launching this book. Not only have you given us a perceptive photograph, really story barkse character that isnt as well known as she should be and im sure your book is just as perceptive. Youve put it in a cultural framework which we appreciate. But also youve said some important things about the resources of the library of congress. The radio resources, the broadcasting resources are quite incredible. This program is actually cosponsored by the Motion Picture broadcasting and recorded sound section. And i know not much about the radio of resources. But i thought what came out tonight, thanks to you is important. And i hope well launch a new thread of research. I know a little bit about a single project that was brought to the library of congress. The Radio Research project in 1940s and 1941. I actually have listened to some of those tapes. And in a sense i think we got frightened out of that project because one of the things that happened was mcleash brought his friends on for this year and a half like alexander will cock wilcox. And they thought up american treasures. And wilcot is on the air saying, look in your atics. See what you have and bring it to the library of congress. Wed be happy to take it. That didnt last for long. But it also brought on this power of the radio directly. Suddenly the library of congress was getting flooded with requests simply because they were asked to look for treasures in their attics. The public was. Were moving to book signing now. We can buy a book and talk with our author. Lets conclude with a final round of applause. Thanks a lot. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] on history bookshelves here historiansstknown on history bookshelves. You can watch anytime at cspan. Org\history. Youre watching American History tv on cspan3. This week and on American History tv on cspan3, this evening, Abraham Lincoln authorities dealing on what might have been if he had not been assassinated. We have to assume he would have followed a very cautious plan. He may not have been willing to have black codes implemented, for instance, but he wouldve been much more conciliatory to the south. At 10 00, the film, trade. Ip and u. S. On american artifacts as quote we tour american artifacts we tour carpenters hall. William henryr for his speech, but even more significant for his remarks here. He looked around the room and said, gentlemen, we are no longer from massachusetts, we ,re no longer from pennsylvania we no longer are from virginia, we are all americans. At 8 00, Ronald Reagan and american politics. Focusing considerable attention on the 1981 polish pledge to use martial law. For the complete American History tv schedule, go to cspan. Org. Niceey have very lifestyles, money, but i do think to actually make it to the very top, they are not primarily motivated by money. They want to have ending, have power. Navititander beatty discusses her book super hubs how the financial elite and their network ruled the world. Is it their fault or the ,ystems faults, after analysis i come to the conclusion that is the interaction of both. Sunday night on two and a q and a. Afteray night, on words, a discussion of the book a world in disarray. The thesis that you primarily put forward is you say there was considerable continuity and how the world worked during this period. Describe that. A lot of the structures of the world were based on the idea that bordersy, were significant, they defined nationstates, countries, and there was a deal out there. We would not try to change your borders by force if you did not try to change our spirit change ours. Next, on American History tv, author and lincoln scholar Harold Holzer discusses the creation and meaning behind the many paintings, sculptures, and photographs of president lincoln now on public display in the u. S. Capitol building. In this illustrated talk, he features the story of a large painting depicting lincoln and his cabinet in 1862 reading the preliminary emancipation proclamation. This 55 minute black History Month lecture was hosted by the u. S. Capital Historical Society and washington, d. C. Welcome Harold Holzer. [applause] harold well, it is great to be here. So ive learned about these talks by watching cspan. Can you all hear me . Yes . Good. I was watching chuck give a presentation and saw my friend bruce taking pictures and i wrote him a fan letter. I got all the letters in his name right. It is a long name. He was nice enough with a little