What do you think?
Rate this book
Lucy A to Z: The Lucille Ball Encyclopedia
Praise for Lucy A to The Lucille Ball Encyclopedia
Very important . Fresh insights. The most detailed and most enjoyable book available on Lucille Ball. A must-have .
— Laura Wagner, Classic Images
As we are producing the I Love Lucy 50th Anniversary Special , [ Lucy A to Z ] has been a godsend .
— Lucie Arnaz, 2001 letter to author
[ Lucy A to Z is a] compound of insight, fact, and trivia .
— Stefan Kanfer, author, Ball of Fire
This new Fourth Edition of Lucy A to Z is a wonderful read and I'm very pleased to recommend it to everyone.
— Wanda Clark, Lucille Ball's personal secretary
If you need any 'splainin' about Lucy's life and career , you'll find it here!
— Craig Hamrick, author, The TV Tidbits Classic Television Trivia Quiz Book
Very important . Fresh insights. The most detailed and most enjoyable book available on Lucille Ball. A must-have .
— Laura Wagner, Classic Images
As we are producing the I Love Lucy 50th Anniversary Special , [ Lucy A to Z ] has been a godsend .
— Lucie Arnaz, 2001 letter to author
[ Lucy A to Z is a] compound of insight, fact, and trivia .
— Stefan Kanfer, author, Ball of Fire
This new Fourth Edition of Lucy A to Z is a wonderful read and I'm very pleased to recommend it to everyone.
— Wanda Clark, Lucille Ball's personal secretary
If you need any 'splainin' about Lucy's life and career , you'll find it here!
— Craig Hamrick, author, The TV Tidbits Classic Television Trivia Quiz Book
- GenresBiographyNonfiction
478 pages, Paperback
First published May 8, 2001
5 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 28, 2018
The good: Almost everything you could want to know about Lucille Ball is in this book. It exhaustively covers every aspect of her life and career.
The bad: The author needs a better editor. There are several entries that have a dubious connection to Ball, or don't merit mentioning. Sometimes the author seems to take a face value fan magazine articles from the 30s and 40s, which were often placed by PR agents, and don't always have basis in fact.
The bad: The author needs a better editor. There are several entries that have a dubious connection to Ball, or don't merit mentioning. Sometimes the author seems to take a face value fan magazine articles from the 30s and 40s, which were often placed by PR agents, and don't always have basis in fact.
Displaying 1 of 1 review