#Philip Loeb

[erstwhile-punk-guerito]

[oldshowbiz]

Actor Philip Loeb was involved in the Communist campaign to integrate major league baseball. As a result, he was one of the first television personalities to be blacklisted in the McCarthy era. He eventually committed suicide.

[captainmera]

Andddd speaking of you going into the philosophies of it all that’s exactly what I’m going to do!! (THIS IS REALLLY LONG IM SO SORRY you don’t have to get to it right away)

One corner of philosophy that I enjoy is free will and determinism. Determinism is basically the opposite of free will; it’s the idea that every event, decision and action is determined by a chain of prior occurrences.

I think determinism is really important within The Owl House, especially regarding Luz’s guilt about helping Belos, and with how you are writing ttocw.

Let me talk about Belos/Philip for a bit.

One thing that comes to my mind when thinking about your interpretation of the Wittebanes is the case of Leopold and Loeb. I would recommend looking it up if you would like, it’s as tragic as it is fascinating, but to sum it up two boys committed murder hoping to demonstrate superior intellect, which they believed would allow them to commit the “perfect crime” without consequences.

Im not trying to compare these guys to Caleb and Philip or connect them to each other in any way, it’s the defense their lawyer made that’s important. (It’s said that by the end of his speech the court room was quiet and the judge was weeping openly.)

Clarence Darrow, the lawyer, attempted to show that the boys were helpless victims of heredity and environment. In other words, the deterministic ideas of Nature and Nurture. Nature refers to the biological/genetic factors that impact one’s traits. For example, you have no free will over your eye color, but this idea goes a lot deeper than just physical appearance. Nurture is one’s upbringing, their environment, experiences etc. and how they impact you and your choices.

Both of these affecting your decisions would be something like: you walk into an ice cream shop. You can’t get anything with nuts because you are allergic (nature), and people have told you how good this one flavor is (nurture) so you think you will go with that.

It’s not really as simple as that however, a lot of the things you do can be traced back to one of the two, or both. What does this have to do with the Wittebanes?

You are writing Philip as a perfect example of how nurture changes someone. How the simplest actions, even the ones that seem the most insignificant, have effect on a person. Especially how these things that happen to Philip when he was just a kid will turn him into Belos in the long run. That mask he wore that Caleb said could trick witch’s? He wore it for hundreds of years in the isles. The ideas and politics and religion he grew up with influenced the way he created his empire, raised Hunter, spoke about the Titan, etc.

I believe Caleb has spoken about how he feels somewhat at fault for the way Philip turned out, and he’s not wrong. But then you begin to ask why Caleb acted the way he did to Philip, then who or what was the cause of those actions, and it will keep spiraling until the whole world is to blame for the actions of one man, and you can’t blame the world for the hurt and suffering of so many people.

I think that’s when I start to wonder about Hunter, he was influenced and raised to believe what he did was right, but so did Philip. Hmmm personally I think it’s whether or not you can come to the realization that what you are doing or did is wrong and hold yourself accountable for your actions. But even then there is still the people you hurt and it’s not up to you whether they will forgive you or not. I just love thinking about these kinda things

But one thing I know for certain is that Luz should not be beating herself up over helping Belos.

Because if Luz never taught him the light glyph then there would be no collector, no emperor belos, no emperors coven. Sure, I can understand her guilt, she was the one that put his plan into motion.

But if there was no emperors coven then Lilith would never have cursed her sister, never causing her to run off and find the portal door. No portal door means Luz would have never walked into the demon realm. But she did, meaning she has, at the time, already taught him the glyph. It was always going to happen, there was no way around it.

Not only that, but I’m sure Belos knew. I’m sure he knew all of this. Why else would Lilith be able to keep her palisman, because without it she would have (most likely) never risen in ranks, never become as powerful as she was. Never ultimately betraying the coven in favor of her sister. Never ending up at the Owl House on that fateful day when Flora Desplora planted the idea of the time pools in her head. Would have never gone back in time with Luz, met Philip. Never taught him the light spell.

I’m sure Lilith joining the coven must have been some sort of realization for Belos. I’m sure he recognized her face, as unlikely as it sounds, but he remembered Luz. He for sure could have stopped Luz and the rest from getting away after she blew up the portal door, but he didn’t. If you look up the hollow mind paintings you can see them in (I’m pretty sure) chronological order, and there is one of him standing in front of a smirking Flora, undoubtedly sending her off to plant the idea of the time pools in Lilith’s head.

But what I don’t think Belos understands is that it wasn’t him manipulating the situation. It was an act of fate. There was no free will in any of this. Luz was always going to step through that door, and always going to teach him the glyph. I would say that she has nothing to be guilty about but I can understand why she still would be. Even if she never had any say in what was going to happen she did still end up causing a lot of people to get hurt. The thing she needs to get is that it was the actions of Belos that caused people to get hurt, her actions were a factor in what happened, sure, but she had no control over what was happening, and it wasn’t her that actively went out and hurt people 😭😭😭 I just want her to be happy shoajsjakaja

If this gets deleted somehow I swear

I don't really have anything to add! this was really cool to read!

But I will add that, yes! That is an interest of mine (nurture vs nature) and an intention I have with Philip. I think it's an interesting puddle of grey to pat my feet into when writing complex villains/antagonists/conflicts. I enjoy exploring greyness in characters in general! So you're spot on there.

[achillessulks]

Books recs on Alexander? And also any books to avoid? I've read the Robin Lane Fox biography but that's it.

ooooh I love this question. A lot depends on what kind of stuff you want to read about (military history? sexuality? politics? greater context of the era? history of Macedon in general? biography of Alexander specifically? focus on Hephaestion? Olympias? etc.), but here are some general nonfiction recommendations from my shelves*:

Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. (Peter Green). If I had to recommend one single book it would be this one; Green’s writing is factual, engaging, entertaining, and well-contextualised. The book is delightfully bitchy at times, and appropriately sober at others. Only real downside is that Green doesn’t much care for Hephaestion, but he doesn’t let that opinion get too intrusive when discussing Alexander’s relationship to him.

Alexander the Great (Robin Lane Fox). You already read this one but it’s a classic so I’m sticking it on the list again anyway.

The Search for Alexander (Ibid.). Similar to his other book, but with the cool benefit of his having re-traced Alexander’s footsteps as closely as possible.

Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD (ed. Lane Fox).

The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander (ed. Romm, Strassler). This is by far my favourite edition of Arrian’s writing on Alexander, primarily because of the contextualising information.

The History of Alexander (Quintus Curtius Rufus). There are various English-language translations available; I prefer the Loeb editions.

The Life of Alexander (Plutarch). Again, I like the Loeb translations, but most English-language translations of Plutarch are acceptable.

Alexander the Great (Paul Cartledge).

Alexander the Great (Ulrich Wilcken).

Alexander the Great (Richard Stoneman).

Alexander the Great (Philip Freeman).

Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (A.B. Bosworth). Pretty much everything by Bosworth is good in my opinion.

Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander (ed. Cartledge, Greenland). Very much a mixed bag, but a lot of really cool historical information about specifics aspects of Alexander’s time that might not be covered in straightforward biographies, e.g. typical fashion of the time period.

The Conquests of Alexander the Great (Waldemar Heckel). Most writing by Heckel is good, and recommended.

Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire (Robin Waterfield). Focused more on the aftermath of Alexander’s death, but interesting nonetheless.

The Nature of Alexander (Mary Renault). Some (myself included) would call it outdated, but Renault’s classic biography is just a really enjoyable read regardless. The appendices she adds to her Alexander novel trilogy, especially the first book (Fire from Heaven), are also lovely.

*By this I mean these are all books I own and have read multiple times.

To avoid: Anything by Richard A. Gabriel; anything by E.A. Wallis Budge; anything sensationalising Alexander’s death (e.g. claiming that he was poisoned and this new book explains all about how and who was to blame); most books or articles published before 1975; anything basing itself on the premise that Alexander was an unpopular or generally incompetent ruler (you can pick out these books easily by eschewing anything with a title like “Alexander the Great... FAILURE” or similar — a real work by John Grainger); Alexander the Great: His Life and His Mysterious Death by Anthony Everitt... a book so knowledgeable about Alexander that it uses a bas-relief of Scipio Africanus on the cover instead of one of its purported subject. Yes, that is a real thing that this book does.

Anyway, I hope that helps! I only provided books in English (excluding the Latin/Greek original texts obviously) because you asked in English, but I can also recommend some books in French and German. If any of these books aren’t available in your region, just send me an ask (off anon, please) and I’ll be more than happy to provide you with a PDF or EPUB copy on request.

[jeannereames]

In your opinion, what is the most underrated source for Alexander's reign?

This is super easy. Diodoros, Book 17. Because he's part of the so-called "vulgate" and shorter than either Arrian or Curtius, and he can abbreviate events to the point they're not clear, he's sometimes discounted.

Yet he's not only our chief source for both Philip's reign (book 16) and that of the early Successors after Alexander (books 18-20), he records things not found in the others (like the alternative version of the battle of Granikos and several events in India that were not found in Kleitarchos, which he shares with Curtius [and Justin]). He also gives events going on in the same year in OTHER places. This helps us time things better such as Agis's Revolt. He can get dates wrong, but it was his dating that I used when writing Dancing with the Lion. He may be briefer (after all, he's writing a World History, not a specifically Alexander history), but he's not a bad historian. After reading back through books 16-18 a couple summers ago (didn't need 19-20), I decided I actually quite like his straightforward style.

So I think Diodoros is our most underrated source. I just wish we had 1) the missing pieces (several lacunae, especially over events I'd like to know more about), and 2) a commentary. Although I understand Frances Pownall is planning to work on one, bless her! She's a top tier scholar and her work on Brill's New Jacoby is stellar.

We now have this new, quite good (and cheaper) translation by Robin Waterfield to replace the not-as-good Welles' Loeb translation.

[literaturely-yours]

Rope (1948) - Hitchcock

First recommendation! This is a murder/thriller movie about two men who believe their intellectual superiority should allow them to murder those they few as 'lesser'.

The movie itself is based on the 1929 play by Patrick Hamilton, which itself is allegedly inspired by two real-life students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, from the University of Chicago, who murdered 14 year old Bobby Franks in 1924.

Although the two main characters, Brandon and Philip, are portrayed as gay in the original play, this was of course never explicitly shown or stated in the movie, due to the censorship rules at the time (think the Hays Code). But nevertheless, I think homoerotic tension is still apparent between the two characters.

(Actually some of the actors and the screenwriter for the movie were queer themselves, and that comes with an interesting story, if anyone wants to hear it)

In any case, it's a beautifully done movie, with an impressive camera technique consisting of long takes all on one set. I would explain more about how it was done, but I'm not a cinematographer nor do I have the energy to do the research for that right now.

9/10

[broadcastarchive-umd]

#RudyTuesday The Goldbergs was a comedy-drama broadcast on radio from 1929 to 1946 and on television from 1949 to 1956.  Gertrude Berg devised the program, which featured the home life of a Jewish family living in New York City. In addition to writing the scripts and directing each episode, Berg starred as bighearted, lovingly meddlesome matriarch Molly Goldberg.

The television version ran on CBS from 1949 to 1951 and then on NBC during the 1952–53 season. In 1954, the show moved to the  DuMont network for a final run. 

Above: An unidentified actor, Eli Mintz as Uncle David, Philip Loeb as Jake Goldberg, and Gertrude Berg as Molly Goldberg.

One in a series of photos from the Rudy Bretz papers at UMD.

[fancyfade]

Wonder Woman 1987 runs ranked

Greg Rucka's Run (#195-226) - This is my absolute favorite run on WW1987. Rucka's got a good handle on Diana's character, and is very good at creating plots with lots of threads that are interesting to read. I think the way that Greek Gods are re-imagined (except for Hera and Zeus) reflects well in other DC-universe stuff at this time with regards to magic, which is the idea that old gods change with humanity to survive.

Eric Luke's (#139-159) - creator of devastation, my all time favorite wonder woman villain!!!!! So much good just for that! And we also have Artemis training cassie, what is not to love?

George Perez's run (#1-62) and Messner-Loeb's (#63-100) - these two both have bits I really like and bits I really don't. they're this high, because the fact that they each ran for so many issues means that the good parts outweigh the bad parts, and it's easier to forget about those. George Perez does very strong worldbuilding for the Amazon's and Diana's initial cast of supporting characters, Messner-Loebs introduces some very fun plots and characters (like Space Era Diana, Donna Milton, and Artemis).

Philip Jimenez's (#164-188) - Jimenez's run I feel bad putting down here, though I did like it. It started very strong, and I loved the way he retconned the worst bits of Messner-Loeb's Hippolyte. With Hippolyte's actions in the contest no longer being tied to Messner-Loebs trying to make her partially responsible for what Heracles did, and almost vicitm blaming her, it made it feel much less just 'pile on hippolyte' to see the next part of what he addressed, which is the way that the amazons of bana mighdall were treated as second class citizens. the de-establishing of the monarchy was great. in general, my only complaint about jimenez's run is i feel like a lot of the plotlines are rushed, and we don't really have a lot of time to see the cool worldbuilding stuff he was setting up. And Villainy Inc was boring and wasted time we otherwise could have spent on the interesting worldbuilding stuff.

John Bryne's (#101-136) - reading this run was like pulling teeth. It was so boring. the only positive part is that he created Cassie. For that he ges one (1) right.

I did genuinely enjoy all of these runs except for Bryne's, it's just a ranking of which one I remember enjoying more.

[world-of-wales]

Happy 8th Birthday to Prince Nicolas of Sweden!

Born on 15 June 2015, Prince Nicolas Paul Gustaf Bernadotte is the second child and only son of Princess Madeleine and Christopher O'Neill. Currently he is ninth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne.

He was baptized the Archbishop of Uppsala, on 11 October 2015 in a ceremony held at the Royal Chapel of Drottningholm Palace. His godparents are Prince Carl Philip, Countess Natascha Abensberg née Loeb, Henry d’ Abo, Gustaf Magnuson, Katarina von Horn and Marco Wajselfisz.

He was given the title of Duke of Angermanland by his grandfather King Carl XVI Gustaf.

[byneddiedingo]

Farley Granger, James Stewart, and John Dall in Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948)

Cast: James Stewart, Farley Granger, John Dall, Cedric Hardwicke, Constance Collier, Dick Hogan, Edith Evanson, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler. Screenplay: Hume Cronyn, Arthur Laurents, based on a play by Patrick Hamilton. Cinematography: William V. Skall, Joseph A. Valentine. Art direction: Perry Ferguson. Film editing: William H. Ziegler. Music: David Buttolph.

Montage, the assembling of discrete segments of film for dramatic effect, is what makes movies an art form distinct from just filmed theater. Which is why it's odd that so many filmmakers have been tempted to experiment with abandoning montage and simply filming the action and dialogue in continuity. Long takes and tracking shots do have their place in a movie: Think of the suspense built in the opening scene in Orson Welles's Touch of Evil (1958), an extended tracking shot that follows a car with a bomb in it for almost three and a half minutes until the bomb explodes. Or the way Michael Haneke introduces his principal characters with a nine-minute traveling shot in Code Unknown (2000). Or, to consider the ultimate extreme of anti-montage filmmaking, the scenes in Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels (1975), in which the camera not only doesn't move for minutes on end, but characters also walk out of frame, leaving the viewer to contemplate only the banality of the rooms in which the title character lives her daily life. But these shots are only part of the films in question: Eventually, Welles and Haneke and even Akerman are forced to cut from one scene to another to tell a story. Alfred Hitchcock was intrigued with the possibility of making an entire movie without cuts. He couldn't bring it off because of technological limitations: Film magazines of the day held only ten minutes' worth of footage, and movie projectors could show only 20 minutes at a time before reels needed to be changed. In Rope, Hitchcock often works around these limitations by artificial blackouts in which a character's back fills the frame to mask the cut, but he sometimes makes an unmasked quick cut to a character entering the room -- a kind of blink-and-you-miss-it cut.* But for most of the film, we are watching the action in real time, as we would on a stage. Rope began as a play in 1929, when Patrick Hamilton's thinly disguised version of the 1924 Leopold and Loeb murder case was staged in London. Hitchcock, who had almost certainly seen it on stage, asked Hume Cronyn to adapt it for the screen and then brought in Arthur Laurents to write the screenplay. To accomplish his idea of filming it as a continuous action, he worked with two cinematographers, William V. Skall and Joseph A. Valentine, and a crew of camera operators whose names are listed -- uniquely for the time -- in the opening credits, developing a kind of choreography through the rooms, designed by Perry Ferguson, that appear on the screen. The film opens with the murder of David Kentley (Dick Hogan) by Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), who then hide his body in a large antique chest and proceed to hold a dinner party in the same room, serving dinner from the lid of the chest, which they cover with a cloth and on which they place two candelabra. The dinner guests are David's father (Cedric Hardwicke), his aunt (Constance Collier), his fiancée, Janet (Joan Chandler), his old friend and rival for Janet's hand (Douglas Dick), and the former headmaster of their prep school, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). Everyone spends a lot of time wondering why David hasn't shown up for the party, too, while Brandon carries on some intellectual jousting with Rupert and the others about whether murder is really a crime if a superior person kills an inferior one, and Philip, jittery from the beginning, drinks heavily and starts to fall to pieces. Murder will out, eventually, but not after much talk and everyone except Rupert, who returns to find a cigarette case he pretends to have lost, has gone home. There is one beautifully Hitchcockian scene in the film, in which the chest is positioned in the foreground, and while the talk about murder goes on off-camera, we watch the housekeeper (Edith Evanson) clear away the serving dishes, remove the cloth and candelabra, and almost put back the books that had been stored in the chest. It's a rare moment of genuine suspense in a film whose archness of dialogue and sometimes distractingly busy camerawork saps a lot of the necessary tension, especially since we know whodunit and assume that they'll get caught somehow. Some questionable casting also undermines the film: Stewart does what he can as always, but is never quite convincing as a Nietzschean intellectual, and Granger's disintegrating Philip is more a collection of gestures than a characterization. The gay subtext of the film emerges strongly despite the Production Code, but today portrayals of gay men as thrill-killers only adds something of a sour note, even though Dall and Granger were both gay, and Granger was for a time Laurents's lover.

*Technology has since made something like what Hitchcock was aiming for in Rope possible. Alexander Sokurov's 2002 Russian Ark consists of a single 96-minute tracking shot through the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg as a well-rehearsed crowd of actors, dancers, and extras re-create 300 years of Russian history. Projectors today are also capable of handling continuous action without the necessity of reel-changes, making possible Alejandro Iñárruitu's Oscar-winning Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014), with its appearance of unedited continuity, though Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki resorted to masked cuts very much like Hitchcock's.

[clankryze511]

“As for me, well, there's a real panic on. Somebody has threatened to poison the Gotham reservoir. Calls himself the Joker. I've got a friend coming who might be able to help.

He should be here any minute”.

As November draws to a close, I decided to recreate and extend and mix up the ending page of Batman Year One.

I inspired this extended scene from Batman Begins but also from various pieces also mixing the two parts of the Joker’s origin together starting him off as a comedian (The Killing Joke) then into an enforcer for both the Grissom and Valestra mobs (BTAS & Batman 1989) then (shortly before Bruce’s return) killed the leader of the Red Hood Gang and took his identity and then (mixing In pieces from DC #27, Batman 1989, Zero Year, and The Killing Joke was found out by the GCPD (still under Loeb’s control) By Batman, Jim, Major Crimes, and the late Philip Kane (shot point blank by Joker/Jack Napier) finally falling into the vat of chemicals at Ace becoming the Clown Prince of Crime.

⬇️Story Down here⬇️

December 3

OLD GOTHAM

GCPD MAJOR CRIMES BUILDING

Gordon took a smoke from his pipe from his daughter on his birthday looking out at the Gotham skyline as snow fell across the city waiting for his friend wondering where he was. He then heard a tap on the Bat Signal and turned around to see Batman by it.

Batman: Nice

Jim walked around the signal to Batman flipping the switch turning off the signal.

James Gordon: I couldn't find any mob bosses. Hadn't heard a peep from Falcone ever since the attack on the rooftop of his apartment weeks ago.

Batman: Well, lieutenant?

James: Oh, it's captain now. You really started something. Sure affected me.

Affected all of us. Crooked cops running scared. Hope on the streets.

Batman: But?

Jim looks down for a bit.

James: Amusement Mile and the Industrial District is in tatters Ace Chemicals is being rebuilt. And we still haven't picked up Grissom or whatever remains of the Red Hood Gang that escaped Ace along with Bob Hawkins.

Batman: What about Napier?

James: We combed the rest of Ace.

We couldn't find his body. He's either dead by drowning, burned, or washed away somewhere.

Batman: This wasn't the only reason why you called me here. Was it?

Jim opens his jacket pulling out an evidence bag then hands it over to Batman then he grabbed it.

James: Armed robbery, double homicide, some of the victims with smiles on their faces, has a taste for the theatrical like you.

Jim hands Batman the document folder.

James: He's planning an attack on the Gotham Reservoir. He also leaves a calling card.

Batman pulls out of the evidence bag a white card with a clown face on it labeled "Joker".

Batman: I'll look into this.

Batman hands back the document and puts the card back in the bag attaching it to his utility belt.

Batman: Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot. The only way to beat them is to give them something to be scared of. We'll fix this Jim.

Batman and Jim shake hands.

Batman: We can bring Gotham back.

Batman walks to the edge of the roof ready to leave.

James: I never said, "thank you".

Saving this city from the Hood, saving me, saving my wife and son.

Batman turns his head to face Jim.

Batman: And you'll never have to.

Batman jumps off the roof then fires his Mark II Grapnel gliding off.

Jim watches smiling.

James: Thank you.

•

•

The Adventure has just begun.

[lboogie1906]

Philip Goodwin Freelon (March 25, 1952 - July 9, 2019) is an architect known for his design of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History & Culture. He was born in Philadelphia to Allan R. Freelon, Jr. and Elizabeth N. Freelon. He graduated from North Carolina State University’s College of Design and earned an MS in architecture at MIT.

He received the Loeb Fellowship to study independently for a year at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. He founded The Freelon Group, which grew to 65 staff members. The firm’s notable designs included the Biomanufacturing Research Institute and Technology Enterprise Facility at North Carolina Central University; the North Carolina A&T State University Proctor School of Education; Anacostia Library and the Tenley-Friendship Library; and the Harvey B. Gantt Center for African-American Arts and Culture to name a few.

The Freelon Group merged with Perkins+Will. He became Design Director of the North Carolina practice, leading both the Perkins+Will offices in Durham and Charlotte His team designed the four-level Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History & Culture on the Mall. He partnered with two other architects, the late J. Max Bond and Ghanaian-born David Adjaye.

President Barack Obama appointed him to the National Commission of Fine Arts. He became a recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture and the AIA North Carolina’s Gold Medal. He was awarded an honorary doctorate from North Carolina State University. He was a visiting and adjunct professor at several leading universities. He established the Philip Freelon Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design to expand opportunities for aspiring African American architects.

He and his wife, Grammy-nominated jazz singer Nnenna Freelon, have three children. His son Pierre is a noted musician and educator. He was a member of Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #sigmapiphi

[oldshowbiz]

1952.

Phillip Loeb’s Blacklist Settlement.

[smithlibrary]

Read More 2023 The Book was Better

Fiction Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk The Queen's Gambit by Walter Tevis

Mystery Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie The Lincoln Lawyer by Michael Connelly

Thriller Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton The Woman in the Window by A.J. Finn Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn Back Blast by Mark Greaney

Science Fiction and Fantasy Kindred by Octavia Butler Leviathan Wakes by James Corey American Gods by Neil Gaiman Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman Dune by Frank Herbert Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro Fire and Blood by George R. R. Martin The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien

Horror The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson Firestarter by Stephen King

Graphic Novels Batman: Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb The Umbrella Academy by Gerard Way

Young Adult The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman The Kissing Booth by Beth Reekles

[travsd]

The Life and Martyrdom of Philip Loeb

A somber story to contemplate during chaotic times, and I’m in no mood to mince words today about its lessons.

Philip Loeb (1891-1955) was a Jewish-American actor from Philadelphia. Following three Broadway supporting parts, he served in World War One and the returned to take part in another three dozen shows, many with the Theatre Guild. Some notable ones included The Guardsmen (1924) with Lunt

[oltimey]

It’s obvious. Or they’re both a mix of the two.