BOOKING HAWAII FIVE-O

Dear Mrs. Rhodes,

Ever pick up a book and enjoy it so much that you devour it in a single reading? That's what I did with your BOOKING HAWAII-FIVE-O.

My book shelves are crammed with works on television; I grew up with television, and I also have one of those quirky minds for remembering minute details about shows, characters, and cast. So I particularly enjoy books which present histories of TV shows. These kind of efforts are (presumably) labours of love; yet they range in quality, from careless writing,riddled with inaccuracies, to well-researched, industrious efforts. Ed Robertson's books on MAVERICK, THE FUGITIVE, and THE ROCKFORD FILES are examples of the highest calibre of work, and I would definitely rank BOOKING HAWAII-FIVE-O in that number.

While HAWAII-FIVE-O was never in my pantheon of favourite shows, it was a consistantly entertaining show of high standard, and I viewed it during its run and when I could catch it in repeats. So, I know from which you speak.

There is a real risk of this missive turning into a book of its own, but I'd like to take a few moments to tell you what I found interesting and enjoyable about your book.

1. Obviously, this was a labour of love. The research and legwork you put into reconstructing the show both in and behind the scenes gives your book weight and credence, Too many authors of the slapdash stripe take short-cuts, and their books read more like high school students' book reports.

2. In a critical history of TV shows, there are two major areas of exploration, which I term "in front of the camera" and "behind the camera". Behind the camera is the part of the book which deals with the production side; how the show was conceived/developed; bios of the cast; anecdotes, incidents, and the politics of the people involved. In front of the camera is the fictional body of the show, contained in the episode guide, compilated backgrounds of the characters, and discussion of the events, motivations, and interactions of those characters.

These two areas have to balance. The proper amount of emphasis on either side is a matter of each reader's taste, but I prefer just about equal effort devoted to both, although lesser attention given to "how the show came to be". This balance is especially important in one area for me: I have a great interest in why characters are written out of a show, which is, of course, tied into why the actor performing the role departed. Your book struck just the right balance for me, which is not always easy for an author to do--some writers are obviously fonder of one component of a show, to the detriment of the attention the other compenents receive. You blended the real-life aspects of making the show with the consequences on the fictional Five-O expertly and interestingly.

3. As I stated, I have one of those minds for absorbing trivial details about television shows. I take no credit for that, and it drives my wife nuts ("Look, dear--see the second passenger on the right? That's Fred Stromsoe, who played Officer Woods on ADAM-12 and went on to be the second assistant director for DALLAS." Enough years of that, and I can see the jury ruling my death justifiable homicide). So, I love soaking up details about the cast and characters which I had not known, particularly in a show I've seen often. For example, I was impressed to find out that the name of Richard Denning's Governor was NOT Phillip Grey (which I, too, had always thought), but Paul Jameson. THAT'S the kind of discovery which makes a book fun.

(Aside: Richard Denning has always been a favourite actor for me; and I agree with Ric Meyers' assessment in MURDER ON THE AIR, that Denning was one of the few actors who looked stern and steely enough to look believable issuing McGarrett orders.)

Conversely ,though, if a mistake slips through--and even glaring ones do quite often (e.g., half the guides to television programmes which I own state Quinton McHale, of MCHALE'S NAVY, was a lieutenant, when watching any episode obviously shows him to hold the rank of lieutenant commander.)--these errors undermine the credibility of the writer. When an error slips through which I, as a only a casual viewer, can detect, then I am left to wonder just how much effort the author devoted to accuracy throughout the entire work. I did not detect any kind of error in your book. I wish there were some way of putting inflexion into the written word because I'm not saying that with any sense of superiority as an "ultimate authority". I just didn't catch any inaccuracies, which for me, put your book on solid ground. Frankly, after seeing the amount of detail you put into the first couple of chapters, I didn't expect to find any.

In short, Mrs. Rhodes, it was just the kind of book which I open up and don't close until I've read it through. I consider it to be the "bible" for HAWAII-FIVE-O.

Just a couple more quick observations before this note reaches a state of novella:

The only small detail I knew about any of the Hawaii-Five-O characters was that Steve McGarrett was a Naval Academy graduate (I caught this when I noticed the Naval Academy diploma handing on his office wall; being a Naval officer myself, I notice such things.) And so I wondered if you would make reference to that--it was kind of my "litmus test" of your attention to detail. Sure enough, about halfway through, in one of your episode descriptions, you mentioned it. (Mrs. Rhodes, you had me landed and netted from that point on!)

I dislike episode guides which do little more than boil down and serve the plotlines of the episodes. I want to also read the author's comments, analyses, and observations, along with what behind-the-camera occurrences may have affected what the viewer saw in any given episode. You were excellent at adding meat to the bare bones of the plotlines. You raised things of interest to look for in various episodes, such as Danny winning an argument with McGarrett over procedure in "A Hawaiian Nightmare". That leads a viewer's interest in an episode, and you had something like that, for the better or the worse of the show, in nearly every entry.

However, I feel on a handful of episodes, such as the "V for Vashon" trilogy, you probably shortchanged the reader a little on the actual plot. A minor criticism.

I purchased your book through McFarland & Company by mail; that's always a risk, since there's no way to browse through the book first--and McFarland is not the bargain basement, price-wise. But I'm glad I took the risk, for your book is one I'll be reading again and again. Thank you for making the tremendous effort to write it (and for taking the tremendous time to read this!), If I ever see another television show critical history with your name on it, I'll know I'm buying a quality work.

Sincerely,

Adam Benson

Commander, United States Naval Reserve