Ted Newsom wrote:
Does the author acknowledge the interview from Scarlet Street (or was it Filmfax?) from about 9 years ago in which an actress, neighbor, friend of Browning's for about 20 years after he forsook directing for growing radishes, constantly complained to her that Universal screwed up the editing of his movie? Or the easily-verifiable fact that he never worked for that studio against after 1931? 
I'm still reading, and enjoying, Gary's book and I'm trying to keep my mind wide open with the glorious breezes blowing through, creating an eerie whistling sound in my skull.  Trying not to take sides, though I'm not quite clear on what the sides really are.  But Ted's comment did bring a couple of things to mind.

First, it's true that Browning never worked again for Universal after 1931.  His last 5 or 6 features were all at MGM.  There can be no doubt that moving from Universal to MGM in the early '30s was seen by just about 100% of the people in Hollywood as upward career movement.  If Tod had screwed the pooch so fiercely at U, it's doubtful that MGM would have wanted him back and would have kept him employed.

Second, as to the testament of the actress-neighbor-friend -- I was thinking about this sort of thing just today. Rhodes, so far as I've read, seems fairly even-handed in handling this testimony as well as that of David Manners'. He makes it clear that such testimony must be weighed and considered but not always taken as gospel.  So, today I was reading one of the other books I'm currently working through, THE CREATURE CHRONICLES. In this worthy tome, Tom Weaver and his cohorts have the benefit of Tom's interviews with many of the folks involved in the Creech films.  Great quotes from Julie Adams or Richard Denning. Then there's a story from Ben Chapman, followed by Tom's explanation that this or that thing that Benny said doesn't exactly jibe with what really happened. Then there's a quote from Jack Arnold, but we've already learned not to believe a word that Jack utters.

All this to say...there's testimony, then there's testimony. Just because the neighbor heard something doesn't necessarily mean that she heard it right or that she remembered it right or that it happened at all or that it happened, but Browning was just blowing hot air. Such testimony must be considered, yes, and reported, certainly, but should not necessarily be accepted on blind faith.

On the other hand, I'm not buying everything that Gary Rhodes is selling, but I'll wait till I finish the book for that.