Very Thorough Historical Review

Would you listen to Last Call again? Why?

Yes, there is so much information to assimilate, it is definitely one I will have to reference in the future.

Any additional comments?

The other reviewers of this book (top reviewers, really?) have said that this book both contains 'too much information' and at the same time 'covers already known facts'. The only way this makes sense is if the reviewers are historians... I found this book extremely informative about exactly the minute details of history that most media on the era don't have time or patience to cover. I was expecting tales of gang wars and police clashes, but was pleasantly surprised that the book focuses more on cultural and political changes and transformations that occurred before, during, and after.Yes, the story jumps focus a LOT from figure to figure, but always it is following the overall tale of the birth, bloom, and death of prohibition. I never found any section of this book to be unnecessary to painting a down-to-earth picture of this period of history. Recommend this book to anyone interested in prohibition of any kind (past or modern), formation of political movements, the rise to power of modern corporate behemoths and political families.. As well as a good example of historical periods where countries get overtaken by fear and radicalism.Lots of interesting tidbits to chew on, for many fields of interest.

14 people found this helpful

Entertaining Look at Serious History

Although this is a serious work of social and political history, it's written in such an engaging way that you can, if you like, ignore the profundity and just enjoy listening to the stories. The people who fought for Prohibition--such a diverse group, with different motivations--the people who profited from it, the way it affected daily life--there are so many character sketches and anecdotes.

I hadn't realized the extent to which the drive for Prohibition was tied up with other major social and political movements of the time, including women's suffrage (Prohibitionists were supporters because they thought that women were more likely to support them than men) and the federal income tax (Prohibitionists supported it because it answered the question of how the government was going to survive without the revenue from alcohol excise taxes).

The darker side of life in the early 20th century was also represented by the ferocious bigotry directed against Catholics and Jews, who not only opposed Prohibition, but who had an exemption carved out of the Volstead Act (the law enforcing the 18th Amendment) to allow them to use alcohol in religious services. The fact that some of that booze made its way from houses of worship to less sacred places did not help. Neither did the fact that some of the highest-profile bootleggers of the day were Catholic and Jewish (e.g., Al Capone and Meyer Lansky).

Okrent debunks some myths about the period--Prohibition was not a uniquely American folly but part of an anti-drinking movement that was also sweeping through northern Europe; Joe Kennedy was not a bootlegger; some of the improvised booze was dangerous, even deadly. But he also shows how those 14 years had some salutary legacies. Before 1919, American bars were dark dens of masculine misery and anger, where people went to get drunk. During the '20s, the speakeasies and other establishments that sprang up were cheerful, sociable places that welcomed women and often offered food, music, and dancing. In fact, one reason that many women who had originally supported Prohibition turned against it was that they saw their daughters going out and ordering drinks themselves--something that would have been unthinkable in the old days.

I thought Okrent's account of the move to repeal the 18th Amendment was a bit sketchy, but that may be because it coincided with the advent of the Great Depression, a subject much too big for the book. Or maybe it was just that I was enjoying the book so much that I didn't want it to end!

5 people found this helpful

Interesting insight on a unique era of US History

Any additional comments?

The book takes you into the rhetorical, hiistorical battles between the "wets" and "drys" with a good narration. I felt like author had his own biased and got off track at times but the narration kept it interesting. Interesting insight on a unique era of US History in lots of detail.

5 people found this helpful

Insightful history; Spectacular narration

A sweeping account of the historical, political, social, and religious forces that produced prohibition and then served to subvert it and then to destroy it. The author's bias in favor of consuming alcohol appears throughout the book, but he labors to give a reasonably fair depiction of those who led the drive for the 18th amendment to the Constitution. He has a harder time keeping the lid on his contempt for religious figures like Billy Sunday and Bob Jones and their stern denunciations of the liquor trade. As one who attended the university that Bob Jones founded in 1927, I found the author's attitude and efforts to mask his contempt amusing, but I also found that he was willing to concede that, whatever prohibition's alleged failures, it did succeed in reducing per capita consumption of beverage alcohol for four decades after prohibition's repeal. The historical ironies are striking, as that 19th century feminism as embodied in the women's suffrage movement was a major factor in the drive to pass prohibition while the adoption of prohibition so changed the feminist movement that it became a major factor in the drive for repeal. As always, Richard Poe's narration is easy on the ears and exudes the competence that such a book demands. This book greatly expanded my understanding of prohibition as a movement, and I recommend it highly.

3 people found this helpful

Very informative, peculiar alliances

I genuinely, and surprisingly, quite liked this book, after it had been languishing in my wish list for several months. The stories of all the disparate groups for and against prohibition, the wets and the drys, and the peculiar alliances that were formed were very enlightening and informative. Several famous figures weave their way into the story, often not as one might expect, as they align themselves along philosophical or constitutional beliefs. Along the way, motivations of women's suffrage, isolationism, xenophobia, and implications for previous amendments, most notably the 4th, 13th, and 14th, get carried into the cauldron of prohibition and anti-prohibition rhetoric. The book was very entertaining for most of its run, though it goes a bit dry, so to speak, when it deals with strict governmental policy during the time of prohibition. It's on its game more when sharing the stories, the antics, and the hypocrisy, of the advocates, pro and con.

The only real wobble is near the end. At times during the text, the author starts to edge toward sounding like modern pundits who write derisively about political rivals, though to be fair, without getting thoroughly political. But in a chapter presumably meant to dispel common myths of the era, he gives a short account of Al Capone, but then bizarrely gives a vigorous defense of Joe Kennedy, stating that his alleged bootlegging was completely legal. (And by legal, he means skirting the law, like nearly everyone else did.) It really didn't fit with the tenor of the overall book, which, as mentioned earlier, was quite good.

2 people found this helpful

Marvelous

a magnificently written and impressively researched revelation!

The reading by Richard Poe is outstanding!!!

I loved every minute of this enriching and intoxicating experience. :)

1 person found this helpful

slow at points

Sheds a new light on all the romanticized Hollywood portrayals of the Prohibition era and provides a valuable perspective on what really happened during an important chapter of our nation's history.

1 person found this helpful

Watch Ken Burns Instead

"Last Call" on Prohibition is not as good as Ken Burn's series on the same topic. I recently watched the documentary on the dry spell and Burn's version on Prohibition is far more entertaining and informative then Daniel Okrent and this title. The information is very dry and boring. There is no human side on the topic at all. I would watch the three part documentary instead. Okrent can't draw our imagination on what it was like to not have a drink. The book lacks in history of our society during the 20's. The reader doesn't get a sense of what was it like during that time. This is a huge failure for any historian if they can't tell a story about our past.

1 person found this helpful

One too many!

What did you like best about Last Call? What did you like least?

This book will tell you everything you wanted to know about prohibition, plus everything you didn't want to know. Too bad a good editor didn't tell the author to cut ruthlessly! Too many details left me overwhelmed, and the writer's style is workmanlike but not memorable. More beer than champagne.

Would you be willing to try another book from Daniel Okrent? Why or why not?

I probably will avoid Daniel Okrent in future.

What three words best describe Richard Poe’s voice?

The reader, like the writer, is workmanlike but not especially enthralling or seductive.

Could you see Last Call being made into a movie or a TV series? Who should the stars be?

Could be a TV documentary, in fact I think there is one, but it would have to be sharply condensed and livened up.

Any additional comments?

The musical intros are hokey and predictable. The era deserves better than this.

1 person found this helpful

Very good and fine in details and depth

Longer and more detailed than other sources. Does a good job at describing the events without over editorializing them.