#especially with fictional interpretations of Hamilton and his family

[froguemorgue]

[phases through your screen]

i want to pick your brain about hamilton and religion because like everything about this man it kept changing, but maybe that's just the human condition.

we know he met a dr knox but that was an entirely educational occupation. we know the storm absolutely shook him to the core but that's mortal to the core. i feel like as all men, as all people, the moment he needn't have to depend on the faith for a divine and merciful father he just let it push back. and it seems?? sort of?? that society itself was still holding onto the enlightenment era aye? which is funny because there also seems to be some sort of religious upheaval through different denominations (of protestantism) in America. and then we have the constitution which didn't even bother thinking about Christianity in explicit terms. it seems to be a gotcha but back then i feel like it was more of an obviously it'll be this, how could it possibly change thing benjamin franklin DID try to have a prayer to guide them towards a more harmonious and productive convention only to be rejected because they couldn't afford a chaplain. which, i didn't know protestantism had fun stuff like chaplains, we just have Brother (in Christ) and Sister (in Christ) and then if you're good and of binary genrder you graduate to Pastor (and ascend onwards to Chief Pastor, i believe) and Mother (and Senior Sister, and then ur seniority depends on the seniority of your faith home) ANYWAYS again we know after philip's death he was a lot more religious, he at least read the sermons even if he didn't attend church regularly ish? and he begged to be buried in trinity church (i thought he would get into the dutch reformation church? after marrying eliza?) and yeah so that's just

this is just how a man would deal with religion i guess. but faith seems different. and its funny/sad how hamilton who never could depend on others never has much speaking about his faith either. and i have to consider all this when he has someone he's close with like oc who's a faithful man. who's self-styled to be a sort of man of god, with divinely granted foreknowledge. primarily, i feel like hamilton would have been a lot tenser about getting entangled with laurens, if we assume that they had a steady, fairly sweet relationship

A lot of what I'm about to reply totally echoes what you've already stated, but I'm gonna yap anyway. tl;dr, hamilton's religion may have been comforting to him but I don't think they were rigid moral lessons that he practiced, even later in life, except as performance or to further comfort himself. sad, little faith in him as a person? maybe, idk. sorry

If I'm being so honest, I think Hamilton's religiousness later in life was due in part to environment + age (his wife and her family, the slowing of youthful ambition and perceived hubris associated with questioning social standards, religion, life as one tries to find themselves in their teens and 20s) but also performance. Maybe it's his upbringing, but I just don't see him as a religious man so much as a man surrounded by religion. (My reply to this submission has taken sooo long because I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts on it, which are certainly not objective, I'm not citing any sources here so take anything I write with a grain of salt, and my opinion on the characterization of Hamilton's later-life religion is definitely influenced by my own experience with Protestant Christianity in the U.S.).

Okay, so everyone's religious. Not everyone, but most everyone, even prominent men who subscribed to science and philosophy and would consider themselves a different sect of Christian, even if that veered into the territory of agnosticism. Colonials and the countries from which they came accepted at this time that there is a Creator and the big question during Hamilton's young life was whether the Creator had given kings and queens the right to rule over everyone else. Politics, always politics. So even if Hamilton was more agnostic as many youths are as they struggle to learn more about the world, their opinions, and to find their place within society, he's not going to go around being Godless. I think his religiousness later in his life was impacted by the fact that it was the philosophy most (colonizers) people subscribed to in some way or another, from England to France to Spain. (I'd like to add also that even if his mother ((or his mother's ex-husband Johann Lavien)) was potentially Jewish which is potentially the reason he'd have a Jewish tutor and know how to cite the Torah in Hebrew, any learning in Judaism, Hebrew, or the Torah does not necessitate him being Jewish because Christianity is rooted in Judaism. That's a whole other thing and I imagine learning about Judaism would make him a better-rounded individual and more knowledgeable in religion and it's interesting to portray him/take liberties with this information in fiction).

So Hamilton's getting older and more sure of his beliefs, performing also for his political agenda, and he is now a part of a Christian family with a reputation, so of course he's going to value religion in public. He has a moral responsibility to raise his children that way, to attend services himself. History, science, philosophy, politics, economics, literature, math, it was all taught through the lens of religion.

I also think there is a degree of tranquility and comfort he was finding in religion, in going to church like a meditation, in quiet, and in his final moments, hoping his life meant something, afraid to die and hoping everything he believed in his faith was true, that there isn't just nothing, that in a way, he'd live on. It's frightening to know for hours that you are going to die, to have a child who died just a few years prior, and to have that time to reflect on your life? No wonder he sought the comfort of religion. He was still a young guy, he had kids, his wife, I'm sure he wasn't nearly ready. But you know how he's characterized most often... a frightened and ambitious man running on a timer for his whole life, unsatisfied and feeling nothing was ever enough. Maybe that's another reason he sought religion. It might have felt peaceful and good.

As for his relationship with Laurens... this is conjecture until I shovel some true sources to back this statement, but I think he didn't care. I think, especially when he was young, he did feel that he had the impunity to love who he loved or have intimate physical relationships outside of marriage and that that couldn't be wrong. His teenage poetry (objection, your honor, my client was just a celibate horndog) and his reputation indicated he might have been having physical relations before ever marrying, which was improper but not as entirely inappropriate for a man as it was a woman (people didn't like this anyway). If his letters to Laurens were any indication, he didn't write anything that would give a negative connotation to their relationship, meanwhile he chided Laurens for apparently thinking a "cure" was necessary (say the word "cure" and the historical lams/amrev tumblrstorians go bonkers. that sentence was crazy. both exciting as a piece of evidence and... completely heart-breaking). I think John had a great deal of guilt and shame, I mean, he just seemed to be full of that at least starting in his late teens... probably around the time he realized the attraction to men vs. how completely unacceptable that was in most contexts. then his many mistakes in his early 20s before joining the war, i mean. poor guy.

Hamilton? I do NOT think he was like that at all. I think he could understand it, but he probably didn't feel it in the same capacity and for that reason. Hating yourself because you feel like you'll never be good enough? He and Laurens had that in common. Hating same-sex attraction, sex, and romance? No way. He seemed to know that part of himself well and besides marrying for the long list of reasons he had to do so, I don't think he would ever let religion get in the way of how deeply he felt and desired love. Love of God would bring him closer to Elizabeth and their children. Love of God would not negate his relationship with Laurens. Also to tack on, it was not for a lack of God or religion that he told Laurens that straight marriage ≠ cure. I would imagine that his relationships with men, emotional and physical and anything else, were separate from what he considered to be his marital duties.

[spoopy-moose]

Here i am asking you for your postmodern interpretation of the dsmp, would you share with the rest of the class please?

Absolutely. Sorry for the essay ahead.

Bear in mind that I am in no way a literature student, I am literally a high school student who’s way too into this sort of stuff, like way more than I should be.

Postmodernist philosophy is basically a rejection of grand narratives, such as the narratives of ideology and such, so in postmodern literature, what most of them aim to explore is the connection of the text to the audience and the blurring of realities. It is most often characterised by non-linera narratives, metafiction, pastiche and irony, and temporal displacement. 

In it’s whole, the Dream SMP is almost an entirely new way to tell a story. Because of the unconventional format, this sort of structure reflects the metaness of the story as a whole. Characters slip in and out of characters all the time, making the line between what is fictional and what is “real” blurry. Take Tommy’s streams for example, in his streams, what are joking bits and what are actual serious bits are distorted all the time, so much so that the “real” Tommy and the “character” Tommy blend together into one. This could be said of many other characters in the story of the SMP, where they slip in and out of character to such an extent that it almost becomes unrecgonisable. This is connected to the aespects of postmodern fiction of reader involvement and metafiction, which highlights a key aespect of this sort of fiction as being able to shift from different levels of being or different “worlds”. In this case, the world of the SMP and our own real world. 

Another way is through the intertexual nature of the story itself. To interpret the story, one must have a baseline knowledge of other works that the content creators are in, some with little to no relations to the story. If we were to view the story in its whole, the audience cannot just rely on just the story of the SMP itself, the audience have to sought out connections to other pieces of media in order to create a deeper understanding of the source text. An example of this would be the relationship of SBI, especially that of Philza towards the rest. Philza did not become a character at all until Nov 16 and if one did not have any piror knowledge of the nature of his character’s relationship with the character of Wilbur, then Wilbur’s death scene would have been a lot less impactful than it was. Another would be Schlatt and Wilbur’s relationship before the SMP, if someone went into the SMP with no idea about Schlatt and his connection to Wilbur as a character, then they might not understand the full emotional impact of the second arc.

There are some smaller things as well which connects it to the genre of postmodernism. Like the useage of magic realism, where the inherent mythticism of the game is overlooked in favour of more “real” events. The blend of “high” and “low” fiction, wherein the epic story of a nation’s rise and fall exists within the context of drug brewing and dirty jokes. Temporal displacement comes in the form of us never actually knowing how old each of the character’s are, where lore around their ages and time and familial relationships constantly shift around. Parody in the ridiculousness of the whole plot, how generally over the top the plot is despite in its whole being a minecraft roleplay server. Pastiche in the mirroring of the eariler plot to that of Hamilton and the later plot to that from JD in Heathers. 

However, I think that the overall philosphy and the circular nature of the plot has postmodern characterstics as well. The ideology that L’manberg was founded on, an ideology of freedom and sanctuary, didn’t exist as there wasn’t a tryant, only someone who tried to stop a drug trafficking ring. The ideology fought by those who consider themselves for the ideology of L’manberg too, then doesn’t exist and were founded on unfound grounds. And those who try to rebuild L’manberg were then, building it on empty grounds. I think a big idea presented here is that L’manberg never existed and those who are still fighting for it, whether it be Tubbo or Tommy or any of the characters, are then stuck in an romanticised version of their past. This then in turn has caused grief amongst the characters again and again, as they scramble to achieve something that was in a way unachieveable. That, I would say, adheres to the postmodern principles of a rejection of ideology and a rejection of reality pretty well. 

But that’s just my interpretation of the plot, especially the last bit is literally purely my interpretation. And also, I’m not like fully educated on this subject, I’ve literally only been reading massive amounts of internet articles on this because I found this ideology a few days ago and now I’m actually obssessed.

Look all I’m saying is that if you put every last bit of the dream smp into a novel, not just like the main story arc, you’d get something at the general fuckery level of gravity’s rainbow

[picturelockshow]

"One Night In Miami" Review: A Fly On The Wall Peek

If given the chance to be a fly on the wall for a historic conversation, what conversation would you choose? We’ve been invited to be a fly on the wall with four black historical figures in One Night in Miami. Director/Producer Regina King and screenwriter Kemp Powers have given us a thought-provoking glimpse into history through a fictional interpretation of true events as discussed by iconic figures.  The concept is fresh, innovative, and does not disappoint.  Thanks to Kemp’s screenplay and a star-studded cast, the transition from stage play to the screen is smooth.

On Feb. 25, 1964, after Cassius Clay (Eli Goree) shocked the world by defeating Sonny Liston to become the Boxing World Champion, he and a few friends (Jim Brown (Aldis Hodge), Sam Cooke (Leslie Odom Jr.), and Malcom X (Kingsley Ben-Adir)) decide to meet in a room at a hotel in Miami before going out to celebrate Clay’s victory. Once in the room, the men begin to exchange stories of their personal trials and tribulations of being a black man with power in America in 1964.

From the cinematography to the music selections, everything is intentional and well crafted. With King in the director’s chair (for the first time, mind you) and Powers’ powerful writing (Disney’s Soul), this film sets a bar for one location plays adapted to the screen. It doesn’t feel like a stage play, but more like a documentary. Powers’ writing captures and confronts topics with a perspective on political, religious and racial issues that still ring true with African Americans today. 

The film exposes the difficult situation these men found themselves in as prominent figures in society. There was a particular crossroad they had to pass in terms of the fact that they could personally be successful and wealthy and not ruffle political feathers or use their status to make a difference which would come with strife. An example of a topic of discourse is between Malcom X and Sam Cooke. Malcolm feels Cooke could use his voice through music to help with the black movement in a direct way rather than indirectly helping from the sidelines. Cooke explains how he writes songs and receives royalties to be able to have financial capital  to make a difference, stating “I don’t want a piece of the pie; I want the recipe.” The clash gives an interesting notion of the two wanting the same results but attaining it in different ways, which is something we saw from many leaders at the time.

You can feel the emotion that each actor delivers in their interpretation of their characters as though they channelled their real-life counterparts. Goree (Clay) and Ben-Adir (X) re-imagined the expressions of the figures previously portrayed by Will Smith and Denzel Washington (with great success) and etched and expanded their own paths forward. Goree portrays Clay as a charming charismatic version of the champ, coming to make the big decision of converting to the Nation of Islam. Ben-Adir shows multiple facets of Malcom X as a family man whose goal is to advance black people from the harsh realities of America at the time, while fighting a few personal fights within the Nation of Islam simultaneously. Hodge (Jim Brown) and Odom Jr (Sam Cooke) also set a high bar for their performances of the two characters. Hodge shows the calm and dominant demeanor that turned Brown into a household name for both football and acting. The multi-talented Odom, uses the voice we loved in Hamilton to effortlessly step into the crooner’s shoes.  

Overall, this concept is a first-class piece of art. I laughed, my thoughts were provoked, and I learned something about each of these high-profile characters on a personal level, especially their stances on the advancement of black people. Most importantly, I was inspired by each character as he shared how his experiences supplied purpose to his life and how status as a celebrity was going to be used to fulfill that purpose. If you love original content that tells a good story, this is a must watch. If it was in theaters, I’d go, but the at home experience does it justice. It’s a well-constructed film that will give you an appreciation for each of these characters and will have you looking for other opportunities to be a fly on the wall. One Night in Miami is set to start streaming on Amazon Prime January 15th.

Rating: A

[aion-rsa]

The Real History Behind Bridgerton

https://ift.tt/2WPSOdx

This Bridgerton feature contains spoilers for the series.

Although Netflix’s Bridgerton has actively resisted the label of historical accuracy in favor of a fantasy approach to the era, it is still worth uncovering which scenes, events, and references represent a more creative interpretation to history and which are references to real events. 

Dr. Hannah Greig, the historical advisor to the series, describes Bridgerton as “a combination of a historical truth – which is to say that the past is more diverse than we tend to see on screen, and we tend to accept in our popular imagination. But it’s also a fictionalising, asking what history might look like under certain different circumstances.” This approach is in keeping with the novel series the show is based on which blends the Regency Era with modern romantic fantasies. Here’s a list of some of the plots where alternate history may or may not be a factor.

How Did Simon and Lady Danbury Acquire Their Wealth?

Viewers throughout the episodes see several flashbacks to Simon’s father (Richard Pepple) wearing opulent clothes and overseeing what was likely a huge business empire. Lady Danbury (Adjoa Andoh) is clearly closely connected to Queen Charlotte (Golda Rosheuve) and may have obtained additional wealth via marriage. Simon (Regé-Jean Page) in Episodes 5 and 6 is seen managing a large estate with tenant farmers. 

The series evades the question of how this wealth came to be and for a good reason. During the Regency era, most of the real-life Ton acquired their wealth through direct or indirect involvement in slavery or colonialism. Although the British officially banned the international slave trade in 1807, this ban did not result in immediate divestment from the economic activity that was powered by slave or colonial labor. British landowners still exported cotton, sugar, coffee, wood, and metals from their overseas properties or were involved in firms manufacturing consumer goods out of those raw materials. Anyone involved in the shipping trade pre-1807 still made money off of transporting slaves from Africa to the Caribbean and America. 

For those who believe there is no precedent in pop culture to discussing these issues, the novel Mansfield Park includes some discussion about Regency-era wealth generated from slavery but some of the adaptations cut or heavily downplay it. Ned Despard opposing expanded exploitation by the Honduran mahogany plantation owners is covered extensively in Poldark Season 5. 

Based on the lack of discussion, the audience can assume any number of things about where their wealth comes from. Simon and Lady Danbury could own property in Africa and the Caribbean and produce valuable raw materials by salaried laborers. This is not unheard of in the era because American laws designed to keep Black and mixed race people from owning property did not exist in these UK colonies. An argument can be made that Simon’s wealth is purely from collecting rent from his tenants and selling the agricultural products produced. It’s also possible long term investments in various industries are paying per annum. The possibilities are endless in this fantasy world. 

Prince Friedrich

So much of the discourse around the series has revolved around Queen Charlotte’s African ancestry, but there hasn’t been as much discussion around Prince Friedrich. Prince Fredrich is introduced in Episode 3 as the Queen’s nephew searching for a princess among the Ton. There was a Prince Frederich Wilhelm Ludwig of Prussia, but in real life, he was the son of her niece Princess Fredericka of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. 

In a series already skewed towards showing the marriage market for the elite families of Regency society, it makes sense for the especially politically ambitious Dukes and Duchesses to desire to be connected by marriage to the Queen. Daphne (Phoebe Dyvenor) potentially blocking the path of the social climbers makes for good drama and gossip from Lady Whistledown even if it didn’t quite happen that way in history. 

Regency Smoking Habits & What is Snuff?

The miniseries featured tobacco use in a way not typically seen in other early 19th Century period dramas. Lady Danbury and other women were seen smoking.  Quite a few fans were confused about Queen Charlotte’s penchant for sniffing something up her nose while cuddling her slightly smaller than at the time pomeranian. She was using snuff, dried tobacco, and not cocaine as some folks mistakenly posted on Twitter. During the Regency Era, clay pipes and cigars fell out of fashion for public consumption due to the unpleasant smell. Snuff was extremely popular among the real Ton as there was no traceable odor to other people. Smoking adds a dramatic effect to any situation where a character feels stressed out but pipes and cigars, in reality, maybe likely only to be used where others can’t see. 

Simon and Daphne’s Visit to the Gardens

The Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens actually existed in Regency London. They were open to everyone who could afford the entrance fee, but quickly became a gathering place for the well to do or anyone interested in social climbing. The location still exists today as a public park in London but the entertainment function ended in 1859. There are references to Vauxhall in the novel and screen adaptations of Vanity Fair and Poldark Season 4 but Bridgerton’s recreation is far more elaborate. The light display show is a fictionalized example of what Regency visitors would have encountered. Singers, musicians, circus acts, and more regularly appeared to entertain guests in the gardens. Traces of those elements remain today in public fairs and amusement parks today.

Read more

TV

How Bridgerton’s Lady Whistledown Reveal Changes Everything

By Kayti Burt

TV

From Bridgerton to Hamilton: A History of Color-Conscious Casting in Period Drama

By Amanda-Rae Prescott

Regency-Era Gambling

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Bridgerton has two plotlines involving gambling. Lady Danbury’s married women’s party featured whist which was indeed a popular Regency Era card game and one where the Ton was likely to lose some of their precious financial stability. Lord Featherington’s (Ben Miller) gambling on Will Mondrich’s (Martins Imhangbe) fights was a little bit more based on an alternate reality. There’s little evidence that Bill Richmond, the real-life boxer the character is inspired by was involved in fixing fights as the racism of the time already made him prone to false allegations of cheating. This isn’t to say Regency era boxers didn’t attempt to win or lose unethically as the sport didn’t gain a regulatory body until 1838, but the big match in Episode 8 is more about exposing the bad decisions of Lord Featherington in an epic fashion than any real commentary about the era. History buffs who are recoiling from Bridgerton taking so many historical liberties should take heart. Fans of the books as well as new viewers are actively researching more about the Regency Era as a result. They’re well aware the show is not attempting to be the authority on history.

The post The Real History Behind Bridgerton appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/37VUCZ5

[starstruck-thirst]

With the quarantine going on I was really thinking of getting back into writing. I was wondering how you go about your writing process? And are there any other books or writers you take inspiration from?

So this is one of the asks that I started writing a really long response to and then refreshed tumblr like an idiot. Since I-- shockingly-- ended up writing long on this ask, I’m breaking this into two answers. Here I will talk about books and writers I take inspiration from. In a new post I will talk about my process.

A person I really enjoy the writing style of is Scott Lynch. He writes a series called ‘The Gentleman Bastards’ and the first book is “The Lies of Locke Lamora”. Standard fiction in the way that it takes place in a completely different world with different cultures and ways of life. But Scott writes it in a way that is interesting and not overly dry. The main character is energetic, ballsy, smart, and so many other strong lead things. But he’s also deeply flawed. He overplays his hand a lot and makes a lot of mistakes. Sometimes he even has some mental breaks over it all. And I admire that.

I feel like we can all get so wrapped up in having an engaging character that we can forget to make them fall.

On top of all of that though there is this underlying unease to the series. There are hints at a number of things (structures, objects, beasts) that the dominant species before humans left behind, and no one understands any of it. That species just disappeared so there isn’t any known contact with them either. It is a small part of each book but very there if you’re paying attention.

I adore this part especially. There are so many other things going on that we’re used to main characters getting into, then to top it all off you have this through-line of something being just a few degrees off of what we’re used to. A question unanswered, but constantly haunting you so you can’t forget about it.

Truth be told I read a lot so naming others can be a bit hard. I loved Laurel K. Hamilton when I was in high school. She wrote interesting female leads that I related to more than other books I found. And I thought her way of describing things met a level I aspired to at the time. Deep enough that you get a nice clear pictures, but not so deep that you hit ‘iconic fantasy writer’ territory like Tolkein- not that I am knocking Tolkein but we all know what I am talking about- or your first story level of detail where you’re writing what a character is wearing in every scene change when it doesn’t matter. But to be honest I haven’t read a book by her in a while so I can’t say how much my opinion would change.

Obviously I adore Neil Gaimen, who doesn’t? I really enjoyed “The Graveyard Book” by him. It’s relatively short but packs a lot into those short pages. He’s another author I feel like I get the subtle unease with vivid word use that doesn’t prattle on too long. And “The Graveyard Book” especially was fun because the plot is simple but the cast of characters shine. And for me who is in the story is often more important than the what.

The last shout out I’ll make is not really surprising I suppose. My mother was a huge Stephen King fan when I was growing up, so from the time I was 11 I was reading his books. Just devouring them. While all of his books have some level of writing merit, the book that I think about literally every week of my life is called “The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon”. It is one of his shorter books, but it is one of his strongest.

A young girl named Trisha gets separated from her family while hiking in the woods. While other books by King have a person to villanify (even if they are being controlled by other powers) this book focuses on an irrational fear that is concocted by the main character. And somehow that was more haunting. The way King describes the things that happen in the book had me, a notorious hard person to make uneasy or scared, reading the book on my back because I felt like I was being watched.

Anyway, feelings people potentially have on big authors aside, if you get the chance to read “The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon” please let me know what you think about it. Not just OP but anyone that reads this and then goes and finds that book. It is available on a lot of online library resources I believe. And Lies of Locke Lamora has audio book formats too if you’re too busy to dive into a bigger book like that right now.

Other than that I just suggest reading as many different books as you can. A recent tweet feed that crossed my attention lately was a list of American Indigenous writers and I realized I hadn’t read a book from a person of that background in a long time. Thus, I’m currently reading “Future Home of the Living God” by Louise Erdrich. It is interesting,I’m enjoying it for sure, but isn’t written in the style I personally like to write in. That is what makes it good to read. Reminds me of things I like or don’t like for my own style as well as reminding me not to get too deep into the style I want to write and things get too purple prosy or lose sight of the importance of conversations.

Plus I actually am listening to the audio book right now and the author reads it herself. So hearing how she intended the sentences to be interpreted, vs what I would have thought were I to read it myself, helps me focus on the words I want to use to better help readers understand what I want them to hear in their heads.

I hope this helped you a bit! And if nothing else gave you something to read or listen to while you’re mulling over your own stories!

Most importantly: Don’t ever feel discouraged from writing when reading a book or a fan fic. No matter who wrote it. We all started somewhere in writing and only through diligence, taking criticism, and continued work are any of us getting any better at it.

Hang in there, Cucumber! And send some of your stuff my way if you want my feedback!

(Here is part two of this ask about my writing process)

.✫*ﾟ･ﾟ｡.★.*｡･ﾟ✫*.  

[sonofhistory]

Ron Chernow: Tales of False Information, Hypocrisy and Sucking Up.

I’m not doing this in a pretty essay because I wanted to get the taint of his name from my keyboard quick enough. Often enough, I exclaim my opinion of Ron Chernow. What comes afterwards is a bucket of asks questioning my reasoning, to which I have explained on numerous occasions. Today, once and for all, I will answer it in a clear formate so that I may 1) Stop being asked of Chernow and 2) Give you all the information to choose properly when reading up on your history! Let’s begin. 

This is Ron Chernow:

Ah, yes. The man himself. Historian, best-selling writer, journalist... you name it. Kinda looks like your uncle who gets you a child’s Christmas present even though you are seventeen years old.  If you are interested in history, or follow it to some extent you most certainly have heard his name in the past. Whether it be in a book store, online, or for your especially crafty people--this blog ;) You are bound to be able to recognize his name. He has published titles such as Titan, The Death of the Banker, Grant & Washington to name a few with the most popularity or catch among readers and stats. However, if it is one biography of which stands out the most against anything it is: Alexander Hamilton. You know that big yellow book?

I can assure you, that while this book looks to big and bright as to blot out the sun: it is nothing but a walk in the park. The biography delves heavily into the life of the first Secretary Treasury of the United States in a manner which has never been performed to such an impressive extent for the historical figure before. From the poor island to by Washington’s side and then the forest of Wekawken to his last breath beside Eliza, just as David McCullough did with John Adams, Ron Chernow masterfully articulates all of the information in a conscious and extraordinary manner. So, perhaps you ask: why, Presley, do you hold an utter disdain for Ron Chernow if you think it was good?? Well to answer your question:

Because he does too much sucking up. 

Sucking up. 

But what do I mean by that? I mean rather poignantly that if Ron Chernow could, he would get down on his knees and please Hamilton in any which manner that he wishes. He sucks up. Alexander Hamilton is solely one example of this manner of creating a larger and life picture of the man. I have stated all this before, in my review on this book, but today I am going to tackle a few reasons why you shouldn’t rush out to read from Chernow on this interesting figure. From not allowing Hamilton to take account for his wrong deeds, to blaming the people in his life to blatant lies among the text. Ron Chernow, is, in my honest and collective opinion, a lying and untruthful historian. 

First and foremost: bias. You’ve heard this word before often coming from me on this blog regarding historians. In my context, it means an author who does not take both prospectives in an argument and is always inclined to one specific side. Perfect examples of how historians have been masterful in avoiding bias is Jon Meacham in Thomas Jefferson and John Ferling in Jefferson vs Hamilton. Those authors were able to perfectly walk the line between giving their figure’s opinions and being able to tear their views to shreds. Ron Chernow does not walk the line. Actually he pretty much fell the thousand feet away from the line to his doom in hell. Strong wording? You bet. Chernow is EXTREMELY BIAS. By bias in Chernow context, I mean that he does not understand how to incorporate differing opinions into his passages or know how to interpret Hamilton in what manner he was: a brilliant but extremely flawed man with a multitude of moral issues who constructed the country from scratch with the rest of them. Instead, Chernow chooses to view Hamilton is a divergent light. 

So what does this do for his character? Hamilton’s. It amplifies it. Chernow spends the entire biography attempting to convince how holy, forgotten and sacred Hamilton is that he entirely disregards that Hamilton is already interesting by himself! We don’t need useful false information or bias information. For example, Chernow portrays Hamilton in a light of “do no wrong” and that is was everyone around him of which had issue. For a few examples:

Thomas Jefferson started all of the arguments between them and he was evil. Not like Hamilton did anything to be either...

Maria Reynolds is a stupid whore and she seduced poor Hamilton into banging her. 

James Monroe just stopped being friends with him and backstabbed him. Lmao. Right. 

It is Eliza’s fault that Hamilton cheated on her because she was pregnant all of the time. 

It was Eliza’s fault being Hamilton needs to protect his fragile masculinity and bang other women. 

It is Eliza’s fault. 

IT IS ELIZA’S FAULT FOR EVERYTHING. 

This brings me onto another point about characterization. So, in the wake of him having to amplify Hamilton to his extraordinary human bring who cannot do any wrong, he had to, at the same time, ruin the characters and personalities of the people around Hamilton. He spends the entire book trying to say that it was Eliza who was the hero but then completely goes against his claim just to bring attention and say that Eliza was responsible for the largest blot on Hamilton’s character. He trashes James Monroe by putting him the light of a Hamilton or Jefferson wannabe. He characterizes Jefferson the wrong way and takes numerous amounts of time just to dig at his character in the text like a middle schooler talking shit about someone. The thing is? Jefferson sucks! Yeah! We all know that: Jefferson is a piece of shit. However, Chernow doesn’t diss Jefferson in a way that is so bring to light how disgusting he was, he does it just to prove how much “cooler” Jefferson was to him and in turn ignores all of his subject’s flaws. James Madison is portrayed pathetically as well. Thought I’d mention... I believe the most horrifying thing, however, is his incorrect take on Maria Reynolds. That she was a stupid whore and Hamilton couldn’t resist her beautiful, sexy and entrancing sex sex sex. 

Alright. I spoke enough about character. Now allow us to tackle a fundamental reason why Chernow drops the ball in all of his biographies. The sacred ball. The sacred, holy ball that all historians must follow. 

CITE YOUR GOD DAMN SOURCES. 

Chernow puts information in there that you cannot find anywhere else. I mean... anywhere. But... what do I mean? I mean it is no where. No sources, no archives: nothing. A lot of his information is completely and utterly false! He places it in there just to serve his own agenda! It is completely crazy. Here are a few examples I noticed (there are many):

He states that Hamilton never owned any slaves and places him in the light of an extreme abolitionist. WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE. Chernow shows him as a fervent abolitionist and only mentions on one page in one sentence the  possiblity that Alexander Hamilton owned slaves. Alexander Hamilton owned one or two house slaves, he married into one of the richest slave owning family, he bought slaves for his family member and Chernow tries to say this was all against his will–seriously? Newsflash, Alexander Hamilton was NOT an abolitionist.

Stated that Hercules Mulligan was in the New York Manumission Society yet he is not in any records and was owning slaves all throughout his life. 

The story about Martha Washington’s tomcat is also untrue and the Boston Globe stated the emailed Chernow multiple times to no answer. 

Let us also not forgot to mention the incorrect labeling on the William S. Hamilton picture. 

As you can see: Chernow puts in facts and flowery information in order to pump up his nice thesis. He spends so long trying to do exactly what David McCullough did masterfully: bring a figure up from the depths and turn him in one fellow swoop into an icon. Sure, Chernow has gotten that done. He has a musical, which is pretty amazing, and everything. But masterfully? Debatable. 

At the end of the day, Alexander Hamilton is just one example of Chernow’s dirty deed. He did the same thing in Washington btw which is why I don’t recommend it. I must giver Chernow props however: his writing style is complex but fascination, interesting and he does immense research for his writing. Kudos on that. 

If you are looking for entertaining book with many facts and nearly a thousand pages of information on one person: you will go to the right now. I am not asking you to not read Chernow because in the end, he actually is quite good. What I am saying is that when you are going to read Chernow: you will need to take everything he says with a big pinch of salt. Because you may never know what is fact, what is reality and when he is crossing between being a historian and being a fan boy. 

Take Chernow with a pinch of salt. A big pinch of salt. A whole thing of salt. A bucket of salt. A damn house of salt. As you are reading, you are going to have to question everything that he is writing about and you’ll never know fiction and fanboying between truth and reality. Want to relax instead? Come to me and I’ll recommend you anything better than him. 

[kaitymccoy123]

((I am queuing up a bunch of posts for the next couple days so I can still participate but I am still hiding away from tumblr))

Rules

1. Always post these rules

2. Answer the questions given by the person who tagged you

3. Write 11 questions of your own

4. Tag 11 people

Tagged by @mccoymostly

WARNING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE FILLED WITH LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA PRAISE SO BE PREPARED.

1. What’s your absolute favorite scene from any film?

I have honestly thought about this question all day.  I have a very, very hard time picking favourites, for ANYTHING, especially books and movies.

One scene I loved was from The Fault In Our Stars and I thought it was really well done.  It is the scene where you know Augustus is going to die **spoilers** and Hazel is sleeping, but then the phone rings.  And you know.  You just know what the phone call means and I swear my heart broke with her as she just turned inwards on herself and started to sob.  Beautifully done.    

2. What’s the most terrible book you’ve ever read?

There have been a few, but I am actually going to switch the question to the most terrible MOVIE you ever seen.  I may rant for a minute.  

I hate stupid movies.  And I know that sounds really obvious to say but like I hate stupid humour movies where it is just dirty jokes and stupid boys the whole time, for example, 21 Jump Street, or Step Brothers, or things like that.  My entire family and all my friends know I hate those movies and if I walk in while they are watching one they will flat out tell me it is one of those kinda movies and I will shrug and walk out.  I hate them.  

But my all time least favourite movie was Napolean Dynamite.  Please nobody shoot me but me and my brother couldn’t make it halfway through that movie because it was so dumb.  I hate stupid humour.  :)

3. Star Trek NoTP, and why?

I had a hard time warming up to Spones for a while, and still am pretty iffy about it because I just don’t think they would work that well together.  They are both stubborn beyond belief, so it would take a hell of a long time for either of them to even admit that they liked each other, at all, and there would be a lot of arguements.  

4. The four most badass humans to ever walk the earth? If you’re feeling it, I’d love to hear your justification. ;)

KAITY IS DEFINITELY NOT A HISTORY BUFF SO THESE ARE PROBS GOING TO BE ALIVE PEOPLE.

((I have also just filled these out and realize I should probably change the question to ‘The four most influential nerds to ever walk the earth’ because that’s where my mind went.  Kaity does not dig deep.  Kaity does not know a lot of famous people, especially famous historic people.  So these are basically nerdy celebrities.))

1.  Lin-manuel Miranda: Of freakin course.  He is ridiculously talented, the cutest cutie pie ever, and humble on top of that.  He works to inspire creators, young and old, and I look up to him in every way.  

2.  John Green: Once again, nerdy with a purpose, my kinda people I guess.

3. Misha Collins: though I am not an avid SPN watcher (though I have seen up to season 9) I have seen posts about Misha Collins and all the stuff he does and all the charities he runs and things and I think that’s awesome.

4. John Barrowman: once again not an avid Doctor Who watcher (though I have seen up to the eleventh doctor) I think John Barrowman is another nerdy with a purpose type, someone to change people’s views on the world.

5. The fictional character you identify most with, and why?

SO MANY TO CHOOSE FROM.

Right now I would honestly have to say Scotty.  

I would say my favourite character is still Bones but since I did my little kinda meta-analysis on Scotty, I realize him and I are very much the same.  

We are kind, soft, and appear very positive, upbeat and willing to help, and we are all those things, but we are often taken for granted and our easily trusting nature is sometimes used against us.  We are gentle and docile, but will turn on you at a drop of a hat if you break our trust or try to hurt our friends.  We will go to the ends of the earth to help people, so much so that it is sometimes exhausting.  One-on-one is best for us, and are generally quite quiet, but if you get us talking about something we are passionate about we could talk your ear off for days. -I am also 100% sure he is Hufflepuff (as I am) and I will fight you on this. (I have so much more but Imma hold back to keep this post relatively short)

6.If you could hang out with one person for a day, living or dead, who would you pick, and why?

Once again, my true and honest answer would be Lin-Manuel Miranda.  I just think it would be an amazing day, and I could share my writing ideas with him and my passion for nursing, and I just think he would be a really good listener. I honestly really just want to talk to the guy just to tell him how much he inspires me, not only with all his wonderful musical talents, but also as a person, because he advocates for loving things with your whole heart and expressing that in every way possible.  Also he maybe would take me to go see Hamilton and with that I would die.  

7. What character, from any source, do you think gives the best kisses, and why?

My mind can only think Star Trek at the moment and I honestly would probably say Jim would.  I think he would have the most skill and practice and be able to be receptive to your skill and comfort set.  But I wouldn’t turn down a chance to kiss Bones either. ;)

8. Who is your favorite artist (any medium; this can be interpreted broadly), and why?

**tries to think of any other person than Lin-Manuel Miranda** **cannot**  He is an artist in every sense of the word.  The way he is with words and music is astonishingly inspiring and I can’t sing his praises enough.  

9. What’s your favorite theoretical crossover? In other words, what characters, from different fandoms, would you like to see interact, or who would you like to see thrown into a different universe? I hope this question makes sense, guys.

I think a Guardians of the Galaxy/Star Trek crossover would be hilarious.  But I guess timelines don’t quite work out.  

10. Who is your favorite iconic scientist, and which of their contributions do you find most significant?

Kaity is not a history buff and whenever we talk about the history of whatever we are learning I kinda zone out because I like to focus more on the future than the past but I will scrounge around for something.  

I guess Florence Nightingale, for pioneering modern-day nursing?  That’s pretty darn awesome.  

11. If you could remake any movie, in any way you want, what movie would you pick, and what would you change?

This one took me a while, and that is only because I could only think of book-to-movie adaptations where I would actually know how to change something.  The only one I could think of was Divergent (it’s the one I most recently watched) and I would change two things:  

1. Add in the scene where Tris falls off the ferris wheel and Four saves her.

2. Have their first kiss be actually where it’s supposed to be, near the chasm, sitting on rocks together.  I thought that the way they did it was too overdone, too predictable.  

Bonus?  If you could make any contribution to any field (cure any illness, make any discovery, invent any technology, write any book or create any art, be remembered for anything), what would it be, and why?

I would definitely say anything to do with nursing honestly.  I want to be remembered as the nurse that held your baby while you weren’t there, while you had to go take care of your other kids and you felt so safe leaving them with me.  I want to be remembered as the nurse that saw the change in vitals and new something was terribly wrong with your child and reported it right away so it could be fixed.  I want to be remembered as the nurse that wouldn’t give up on your child when it seemed like everyone else would.  I want to be remembered as your child’s favourite nurse.  

I would love to rid the world of any childhood illness ever, so I didn’t have to become a pediatric nurse, but I do, so I want to be remembered for that.  

Kaity’s 11 Questions:

What person do you most look up to in the world and why?

What book really spoke to you, maybe even changed your view on things, and how did it do that?

If you could spend the afternoon snuggled on a couch watching a movie with a fictional character, who would it be?

If you are in a bad mood, do you prefer to be left alone or have someone to cheer you up?

Do you judge a book by it’s cover (literally or figuratively)?

What’s the one thing that people always misunderstand about you?

What is your Harry Potter house and do you feel you were sorted correctly?

Do you consider yourself an introvert or an extrovert?

What is your favourite colour?  Why?

What’s your most listened to song?

What celebrity would you trade lives with?

Tagging: @mccoymostly, @yourtropegirl @imagicana @captainsbabysitter-blog @digitalmoonhowell @trekken81 @atari-writes @outside-the-government @starshiphufflebadger @youre-on-a-starship​ and anyone else who wants to answer them!

[justanothercinemaniac]

Epic Movie (Re)Watch #128 - The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Spoilers below.

Have I seen it before: Yes

Did I like it then: Yes.

Do I remember it: Yes.

Did I see it in theaters: No.

Format: Blu-ray

1) This film is a classic of American cinema. If you ever want to learn how to tell a slick story, watch this film. Because outside of one or two musical numbers, there is nothing in here that doesn’t need to be. It is all entertaining and slick.

2) Judy Garland’s iconic performance as Dorothy Gale.

In the original tale Dorothy was a pre-adolescent eight year old, where as Garland was 16 upon playing Dorothy. They had to have her in a tight corset to keep her boobs under wraps. Now that I’ve said that fun anecdote...

Garland is pretty great as Dorothy. She is able to perfectly capture her childlike wonder, heart, and innocence in a way which makes the audience feel like a kid. It brings us into this world of youth and fairytales through a compelling and fun character. Dorothy comes off as compassionate and loyal, and while a bit of a damsel towards the end we understand that she is just a child who is thrust into this world and desperately is trying to get back home. Garland is perfect in the role and the film needs her to be as iconic as it is.

3) The decision to have various characters and lines (“Well your head ain’t made of straw you know!”) be echoed in Oz gives the film a sense of magical realism (a literary genre or style associated especially with Latin America that incorporates fantastic or mythical elements into otherwise realistic fiction). I would not go far enough to call the film an example of that genre, but it definitely has some of those elements.

4) “Over the Rainbow”

Without a doubt THE most iconic song in the film. In my opinion there are two songs from cinema which perfectly capture a child’s imagination: “Pure Imagination” from Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory and “Over the Rainbow” from this film. The song was almost cut from the film, with studio heads fearing it would bore kids! Can you even imagine? The film’s light melody and childlike innocence is what truly carries it. It connects with anyone who has ever longed for someplace better, for a far off land filled with adventure and intrigue. Garland’s vocals do the beautiful composition amazing justice, making the two inseparable. Honestly, it’s THE moment from the film and the movie hasn’t even gone to color yet!

5) The relationship with Dorothy and Toto is wonderfully strong. I wonder if there’s a backstory to that. Like maybe Toto was a gift to her from her late parents or something like that. Either way, any dog lover will appreciate it.

6) The fact that Professor Marvel (played by Frank Morgan, who later plays the titular Wizard) is a total phony doesn’t have so much weight the first time you watch this film. It does however become wildly important after the film’s end. Also the fact that Dorothy is so quick to believe speaks wildly to her youthful innocence.

7) It took me a while to realize why Dorothy is so desperate to return home when she has a whole song about wanting to be elsewhere, and only recently did I realize why. She thinks her Auntie Em is sick! Professor Marvel told her that her running away made her sick and heartbroken, and it is this belief and love for her family which drives her through the rest of the film.

8) Dorothy looking out the window in the middle of the twister has some wonderful sight gags.

9) The transition from a sepia tone world to a color one is remarkably seamless. Credit to the director, cinematographer, and editor(s?) who worked on this film for that. Bravo.

10) One of the reasons the film is such a classic is largely because of its wonderful imagery. All of Oz is wonderful fantasy, using the brightness of technicolor to its full advantage and creating a storybook world that appeals to the eyes of children and adults everywhere. The entire color palette is like that of a rainbow, something very fitting considering the main song of this film.

11)

Glinda [upon meeting Dorothy]: “Are you a good which, or a bad witch?”

Oh, if only it were that simple.

12)

Glinda [after she hears Dorothy’s opinion that all witches are ugly]: “Only bad witches are ugly.”

Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder, dude.

13) While watching this film I kinda thought Glinda was being a little TOO chipper, and that the ready celebration of death was a bit odd. Then I remembered a fan theory which painted the supposed Good Witch of the North as the villain. Read at your own risk of childhood ruining.

14) I don’t love this film as much as others, although I do admit its pretty damn great. So it’s at risk of offending the purists out there that I say I think the whole Munchkinland song goes on a little too long. Also some of the Munchkins - probably because of their costumes - freak me out. Mainly the Lollipop Guild.

15) THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST!!!!

She’s so freaking evil, I love it! The Wicked Witch of the West is one of the most iconic film villains of all time, possibly even more iconic than some legends as Darth Vader. Margaret Hamilton plays the Witch with DELIGHTFUL villainy! You can tell she’s having a lot of fun in the part and we as the audience are having fun because of it. The Witch is simultaneously both in line with the stories we hear as children while at times being truly threatening. Even as an adult there are times I go, “holy cow, this woman is EVIL!!!!!!” That is amazing to me. Hamilton was a fan of the books and was delighted to hear she was being considered for a part, and that enthusiasm just infects ever green skin cell of this baddie. Some stories are only as good as their villain, and The Wizard of Oz has an INCREDIBLE villain.

16) The Ruby Slippers.

In the original story the slippers were silver, but the filmmakers changed it to ruby in order to take full advantage of the technicolor process. These days the ruby slippers are such an iconic piece of film that there’s a pair in the Smithsonian institute. Just like everything else in Oz, it captures our imaginations totally and completely.

17) Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

Okay, but what happens if you follow the Red Brick Road? Am I the only one curious about that? Where does the Red Brick Road lead? Wonderland? Neverland? Cleveland? CAN WE GET A SPINOFF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION PLEASE!?!?!?

18) The Scarecrow.

(Let’s all take a moment to realize how relevant and awesome that line is in 2017.)

Out of the trio, the Scarecrow may well be my favorite. He is just so sweet and kind, despite of (or because of?) his naivety. Some fun slapstick comes about from his character, and...I don’t know what else. For some undefinable reason he’s just my favorite of the bunch!

19) This film does have some nice humor.

Dorothy [after interpreting the rusted Tin Man’s words]: “He said oil can.”

Scarecrow: “Oil can what?”

20) According to IMDb:

Ray Bolger was originally cast as the Tin Man. However, he insisted that he would rather play the Scarecrow--his childhood idol Fred Stone had originated that role on stage in 1902. Buddy Ebsen had been cast as the Scarecrow, and now switched roles with Bolger. Unbeknownst to him, however, the make-up for the Tin Man contained aluminum dust, which ended up coating Ebsen's lungs. He also had an allergic reaction to it. One day he was physically unable to breathe and had to be rushed to hospital. The part was immediately recast and MGM gave no public reason why Ebsen was being replaced. The actor considered this the biggest humiliation he ever endured and a personal affront. When Jack Haley took over the part of the Tin Man, he wasn't told why Ebsen had dropped out (and in the meantime, the Tin Man make-up was changed from aluminum dust to aluminum paste as one of its key components). However, his vocals remain whenever the song "We're off to see the Wizard" is played. Jack Haley's vocals were never used during the song, but were used for "If I Only Had a Heart" and "If I Only Had the Nerve." Ebsen's vocals are also heard in the extended version of "If I were King of the Forest," though the spoken segment has Jack Haley. Although no Ebsen footage from the film has ever been released, surviving still photos show him taking part in the Wicked Witch's castle sequence.

21) The various reprises of “If I Only Had _____” (A Brain/A Heart/The Nerve) are some of my favorite songs in the film. Not only is the tune itself sweet and memorable, but they each serve as slick simple introductions to each character’s core conflict.

22) Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! I don’t have anything to say about that line I just wanted to include it in my recap post.

23) Although the Scarecrow is probably my favorite of the trio, the Cowardly Lion is the funniest I think.

The idea of his cowardice allows for a great amount of physical humor and humor in his dialogue. He’s the comic relief in an already very funny and sweet cast.

24) Apparently the actors playing the trio of characters would often show boat and try to steal the scenes from one another, to the point where the director (or whichever director was working that day, as this film had a lot) had to shout at them to let Judy Garland be the star because it was her story.

25) Man, these guys get to the poppy field WAY sooner than I remember!

I also didn’t remember that it got resolved by “Deus Ex Glinda” just casting a magical spell to kill all the poppies with snow. Which is weird considering it should be one of the most memorable scenes in the film.

26) Frank Morgan - the actor who played The Wizard and Professor Marvel - also plays the sentry in Emerald City, the coach driver in the city, and a third guard in the city. Now that we know of The Wizard’s tricky ways, I wonder if all three of these are not meant to be the same character.

27) There are parts in the Emerald City sequence I find a little on the lengthy side, a little superfluous. The songs where all of Dorothy’s squad is getting treated well is fine, it’s short enough. But I totally forget about the entire “King of the Forrest” number any time I watch the film and honestly don’t think the film needs it. But that’s just me.

28) I think part of the Witch’s truly threatening nature is through the strong visuals this film uses. “Surrender Dorothy” is a particularly memorable sight, as black ash fills the sky of an otherwise happy place.

29) I will say though, even though I find the whole “King of the Forrest” song a bit pointless, it does have this nice bit:

Lion: What makes a king out of a slave? Courage! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage! What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk? What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage! What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage!

30) Probably the time the Lion is at his funniest is when the group is approaching The Wizard.

Also The Wizard is kind of a jerk.

31) Dude, there’s a door just a few feet away. You DON’T need to go through the window!

32) Where the heck did the Scarecrow get a gun? Where’d the Tin Man get a giant wrench?

This movie is weird. I love that.

33) The Flying Monkeys!

Another example of incredible imaginative imagery.

34) Okay so...why does the Witch want the slippers? I mean we have theories in all OTHER forms of Wizard of Oz media. They belonged to her sister, they have the power to jump worlds, she wants a little color in her wardrobe, but the film itself never gives a reason. She just WANTS them.

35) I always really appreciated the devotion the three friends had when going to rescue Dorothy. I don’t know, it just sort of moves me the friendship they were able to craft in such a short time.

36) So this scene with the guards singing:

I did a production of Our Town YEARS ago and there was this girl in the cast who said she grew up thinking these guys were chanting, “Oreo! O-RE-o!” Which, you know, makes sense. That was funny enough on it’s own. Then Wreck-It Ralph came out...

37) For some reason “Night on Bald Mountain” plays as Scarecrow, Lion, and Tin Man go to rescue Dorothy from the which. Because why not, I guess.

38) The fact that water melts the witch - while iconic - sort of comes from nowhere. Was there something earlier in the film that was supposed to foreshadow this? It’s very Deus Ex Machina.

39) The Wizard revealed!

A for effort dude.

40) The scene where The Wizard is handing out the gifts for everyone (a diploma for Scarecrow which works as a brain, the “heart” for Tin Man, a medal for lion) is very funny. Frank Morgan benefits from his fast talking yet sincere nature.

Scarecrow [after receiving his gift]: “How can I ever thank you enough?”

The Wizard: “Well, you can’t.”

And then I love this too.

Dorothy [after The Wizard talks about getting here in a runaway hot air balloon]: “Weren’t you frightened?”

The Wizard: “Frightened? Child, you're talking to a man who's laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe... I was petrified.”

41) I either don’t understand the lesson here or I do and I dislike it. Dorothy has this line of how if she ever wants something again, she’ll just look in her backyard because “there’s no place like home.” While I appreciate the sentiment of, “There’s no place like home,” the idea of home is not defined by the place you grow up in. It’s the place where you feel the most safe, the most comfortable, the place you miss when you’re not there. It’s usually defined by people, not location. Good people who treat you well. So while Dorothy does have that back in Kansas, the line about her backyard throws me.

The Wizard of Oz is a classic and for good reason. It’s colorful and vibrant imagery will stick with children of all ages, and through all its parts combined it just captures the imagination of childhood perfectly. It’s mostly pure, innocent, but not in a naive or babyish way. It’s an entertaining treat everyone should see at least once.

[iuniverseblog]

Great Literary Works of Early America

In honor of July 4th, we thought we’d talk a bit about the early literature of our country, especially some books and writers that we no longer read in school. Even in these early works, we see the richness of American literature coming alive.

Charles Brockden Brown

Let’s begin with taking a look at the earliest American novels. Popular consensus says that the first novel written in a free United States was The Power of Sympathy, by William Hill Brown, in 1789. The story is told in an epistolary form (i.e. through the exchange of letters), as was popular at the time. The Power of Sympathy is classified as a “sentimental” novel, one which deals heavily with the characters’ emotions. The plot is racy, even by today’s standards, as it is based on a real-life case of scandal and seduction.

While Brown’s book is considered the first American novel, the first American novelist to establish a reputation was another “Brown”, fully named Charles Brockden Brown. The writings of Charles Brockden Brown are famous as being early examples of the Gothic novel, involving old manor houses, eerie passageways, graveyards, and sinister doings. Some of Brockden Brown’s novels include Wieland, Ormond, and Edgar Huntly.

Shortly after Brockden Brown, we see the arrival of Washington Irving, generally considered the first American writer to support himself entirely by his pen. Irving’s literary fame commenced with his History of New York, a hilarious satire which poked fun at New York’s colonial Dutch families. This work was followed by The Sketch Book, which contained the tales of “Rip Van Winkle” and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” – both of which remain part of the standard American literary canon to this day.

James Fenimore Cooper

While Irving was not a novelist, the next writer of novels to gain notoriety was James Fenimore Cooper. Many of his novels focus on the American colonies before Independence. One of his early novels, The Spy, is an exciting tale of the American Revolution. His most famous novel, The Last of the Mohicans, is a story of the French and Indian War, which took place from 1756-1763.

Moving away from fiction, a book that serves as an embodiment of early America is The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Covering the first half of Franklin’s life, the book gives a first-hand glimpse of life in colonial Boston and Philadelphia, while capturing the American spirit of diligence and practicality. Franklin himself is often referred to as “The First American”. Lastly, the work is a great guide for how to improve our daily lives — in addition to being an autobiography, it is also a self-help book!

While Franklin’s autobiography does not mention his political career, an early series of political writings is found in The Federalist Papers, a combination of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (our first Chief Justice). Written from 1787-1788, the essays had the intention of motivating states to sign the Constitution, which was being criticized by people who did not want a strong central government. The Federalist Papers is a stimulating insight into the brilliant minds of our Founding Fathers – it shows their intellect, education, and genuine concern for the republic. The most famous essay is #10, written by Madison, and discusses the dangers of faction. The writing style is sublime, featuring the beauty of 18th-century prose and comparable to Burke and Gibbon in England – showing that these young American whippersnappers could write just as well as their cousins across the pond. To give you a taste of this literary flair, one early sentence by Hamilton reads, “The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.”

(There is also a series called The Anti-Federalist Papers, though it has not fared so well in literary longevity – perhaps because its overall message failed!)

Jonathan Edwards

It’s difficult to think of early America without thinking of the religious dimension. Our first successful colony, Massachusetts, was largely founded by Puritans, and their influence remains in our culture to this day. William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation contains descriptions of colonial life from 1620 to the late 1640s, though for the sheer religious side of life, one can look at the sermons of Jonathan Edwards. A Puritan minister, Edwards adhered to a very strict interpretation of Christianity, and his sermons were characterized as having a “fire-and-brimstone” quality, with references to the “black clouds of God’s wrath” hanging over us. Mankind was doomed, except for a very select few — whom, inexplicably, God apparently had already saved. Check out his most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, here.

Finally, if you liked the film The Revenant, you will probably enjoy reading about the travels of Lewis and Clark through the Louisiana Purchase. For some reason, this adventurous journey has received relatively little attention in literature and film, but it must have been both fascinating and extremely dangerous. These explorers were up against a completely unchartered territory, with deadly animals and hostile inhabitants, and they braved through it with true American manliness and perseverance. You can order The Journals of Lewis and Clark over amazon.com for free, and for further study, there is the masterful volume Undaunted Courage by Professor Stephen E. Ambrose.

Naturally there is a wealth of other works from early American literature, and we encourage you to delve deeper into this period. Let us know any books that you can recommend!

Make sure to check out the iUniverse site for more advice and blogs, as well as iUniverse Facebook and iUniverse Twitter.

— By Tom McKinley

The post Great Literary Works of Early America appeared first on iUniverse Blog.

[itsiotrecords-blog]

http://ift.tt/2rIm4Vy

World famous, semi-retired Formula One commentator Murray Walker once said about the sport, “Anything happens in Grand Prix racing, and it usually does.” But you’d be forgiven for thinking he was talking about taking a bend at 180mph and hoping for the best. The bare truth is the sport has always had a mildly debauched and on-the-fly image reportedly managed by conniving accountants and mechanics paying lip service to overpaid and oversexed racing drivers. What’s more, the impression we have of the sport hasn’t really changed since the open wheel Fiats and Bugattis of 1907. The antics of “playboys” like James Hunt, Juan Fangio and Jensen Button only seal the deal for the sport’s hedonistic image. But is that really fair? Well, to be honest, yes; the sport is a cut-throat multi-million dollar business with lots of national prestige involved, plus lots of rich people, and lots of living it up. It isn’t exactly Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. On and off the track the teams themselves play a dangerous game against each other to gain a psychological or technological advantage over their rivals; whether on race day or in the run-up, or by engineering accidents and throwing races. It’s just most of us don’t hear about it when we sit down to a 190-mile blitz of some high-performance engines. So let’s change the status quo; without further ado here are the 15 dirty secrets the F1 execs hoped you’d forgotten about.

#1 State-sponsored racism Sad but true, racism is an ongoing problem for any sport and despite stronger sentences in the UK for the handful of spectators who prove to be bigoted good-for-nothings some European countries are a little more lenient. The world of F1 is no exception. Most famously at the Spanish circuit in 2008 some F1 fans showed us how dumb some people can really be. A group of them stood up with blacked-up faces and taunted and abused Lewis Hamilton every time he pitted. As if it couldn’t be any worse they had “Hamilton’s Family” written on their t-shirts. The apparent germ of this filthy onslaught comes from the long-standing rivalry between Hamilton and Spanish driver Fernando Alonso and an out-and-out simple-minded hatred of the first ever black F1 champion. The track abuse was only the tip of the iceberg as the shameful hate was picked up with glee by the Spanish press. Was anything done about it though? Seemingly not.

#2 Flavio Briatore – Fraud Before disgraced business magnate Flavio Briatore was offered a place as commercial director for Benetton in 1988 it was well-known to insiders that he had been convicted in Italy on several fraud charges in the earlier years of the decade. He was in fact convicted of multiple counts of fraud in the 1980s and received two prison sentences then, in 1986 was sentenced to three years for fraud and conspiracy for his role in an elaborate system of rigged gambling games using fake playing cards. The presiding judges described these as confidence tricks and outlined a secret scheme by which unsuspecting punters were “ensnared” by fixed games and fictional characters. Briatore and his fellow conspirators made a great deal of money from these scams. Briatore’s ways weren’t wholly dedicated to scamming unsuspecting card players though. His dangerous antics as Renault’s team principal played out in the 2008 race fixing scandal between Fernando Alonso and Nelson Piquet Jr, the inception of which Briatore played a pivotal part. Let’s face it, a leopard rarely changes his spots especially when there’s money involved. Following stringent denials, Briatore eventually resigned shortly after the scandal quoting his reason for leaving as, “Just trying to save the team”, “It’s my duty. That’s the reason I’ve finished.” We’ll hear more from him later.

#3 McLaren vs Ferrari – Espionage Let’s turn our attention to the curious case of Trudy Coughlan, wife of Michael Coughlan, chief designer of McLaren’s Formula One racing team. In 2007 she appeared in a copy shop in deepest darkest Surrey with a raft of around 780 secret bits of paperwork (including technical information concerning F1 cars, plans and finances) from none other than Ferrari. Let’s be honest, no one would have known any different if the guy behind the desk wasn’t such a big fan of the sport and an avid supporter of the prancing horse. Naturally, one call to company’s Formula One sporting director Stefano Domenicali sealed the deal on a high-level investigation of a leak from inside the Ferrari camp and a serious accusation of industrial espionage, if not more than a little amateur. The end result was an indictment of McLaren, plentiful penalties left, right and centre and a record $100 million fine. It can’t have been a warm and cosy Christmas in the Coughlan household after that, but let’s face it every action has a consequence. After it had all blown over it was downhill fast for the team and presumably the guy who leaked the documents to the Coughlans.

#4 The Mugging In November 2010 F1 Supremo Ecclestone was mugged in front of his Brazilian girlfriend Fabiana Flosi. He was wrestled to the ground in front of his Knightsbridge penthouse and left with a black eye and £200,000 less in jewellery. One of several victims of the “Millionaire Muggers,” Ecclestone chose not to go down the route of victim support like the rest of us but seized the chance to make a little back on the escapade. He had his injured face photographed for an advert with Swiss luxury watchmaker Hublot. By the oddest quirk of destiny, Hublot had at the start of the year agreed a deal with Formula One Management (FOM), the sport’s commercial rights holder to partner with F1. The company deny Ecclestone was paid for the advert, but it must have provided him with some fantastic rates of pay for advertising.

#5 Doping Allegations Now, we’ve all heard of drug-use in the fields of cycling, athletics and golf to name a few, but F1 has never really been afflicted by doping scandals. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been the odd space cowboy. According to Marc Sanson, former head of the French anti-doping council, F1 drivers have been known to take performance enhancing drugs before races. “For many years,” he is quoted as saying, “drivers have used tacrine, a product used in the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, in order to remember the circuits more easily.” But when it comes to drug abuse rife in the current sport, Sanson is less sure. What’s more, his comments back in 2013 were vehemently rebuked by former F1 doctor Gary Hartstein. In any case, the FIA is well known for its zero tolerance of banned substance use and runs an education service for drivers about the dangers of mixing high-speed driving with drugs.

#6 Rascasse Gate, 2006 It was the final qualifying lap for the Monaco Grand Prix; if Fernando Alonso could finish his storming lap 0.064 ahead of Michael Schumacher he would reach pole – the vital position for the Circuit de Monaco. With the German’s chances of the position slipping from him by such a minuscule margin, his driving became “a touch too much”; he got it all wrong at Rascasse, locking up his front right tire and veering off across the exit of the right-hander. An innocent mistake you say but let’s not forget Alonso driving his last qualifier on a cert to see him at the front of the grid. But because of where Schumacher ended up, the qualifying session was called to a halt denying Alonso his pole-winning time. Coincidence or foul play? To this day the latter is denied but suspected by just about everyone in F1. In reality, only the most idiotic could avoid the conclusion that Schumacher had crashed deliberately to delay his rivals, yet he protested innocence. Ferrari’s anger at the stewards’ verdict – which saw him demoted to the back of the grid – put a downer on Schumacher’s final year in the sport.

#7 BAR Honda’s fuel tank, 2005 FIA regulations are sometimes hard to interpret but on other occasions, it’s fun to interpret them the way it suits. In 2005, constructor team BAR (British American Racing) were brought in front of the headmaster to explain why their cars weighed 594.6kg when completely emptied, rather than the sport regulation minimum of 600kg. Having taken Jensen Button to the podium and Takuma Sato to fifth in the San Marino Grand Prix of that year, stewards waited with baited breath for an explanation. None really came comprehensively, although when pressed the BAR team line was that their cars’ engines required a minimum of 6kg of fuel stored in a special collector to function. That the stewards’ inquiry accepted the verdict was a great relief to BAR but didn’t stop the FIA vetoing the result and requested BAR serve a year’s ban. Fortunately for BAR at a hearing in Paris, the FIA’s counter – although agreed upon by the Justices – did not result in a ban because a positive intent to cheat could not be proved. So let’s face it, why make something like that public? Until now.

#8 Senna vs. Prost Now, Hamilton and Alonso aren’t the only pair whose tiffs were unconvincingly covered up by the bosses. Take the curious case of Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost back in 1989. With the Japanese Grand Prix approaching, Prost made no secret of the fact he thought the 29-year-old Italian’s driving tactics were a little suss. Come the race at Suzuka, Prost got the better start of the two, jettisoning the Brazilian’s pole position advantage. But by lap 46 Senna had caught the Frenchman and as he overtook at a chicane Prost deliberately turned his car into Senna’s, taking them both out. Although Senna was able to re-join the race, he was disqualified soon afterwards, leading him to believe there was a conspiracy to make Prost champion. In 1990, Senna got his revenge as the pair collided yet again at Suzuka’s chicane. Running Prost off now ensured that Senna’s French rival couldn’t achieve a greater number of points and although speculation was rife the accident was still put down to just one of those things!

#9 Max Mosley – The Cover Up Hey, sex scandals happen; there’s probably one happening right now that we’ll only hear about in a year’s time. It doesn’t matter if someone is rich or poor there’s always a chem-sex party behind a closed door. Of course, the key to responsible partying is, as always: know your boundaries and stick to them. But back in 2007 then FIA president Max Mosley had another mantra in mind: and according to the press, it was last heard in a bunker in Berlin 72 years ago. Mosley became entangled in a bizarre sex scandal which execs of the sport again tried to cover up. No luck though because the News of the World got hold of a video which “allegedly” showed president Max enjoying Nazi-themed fun with some prostitutes. Mosley successfully sued the paper but didn’t argue about the authenticity of the tape; he just didn’t like the label of a Nazi-themed sex party. So, maybe National Socialist Leitmotif would have been more appropriate… and $92,000 cheaper.

#10 Bernie Ecclestone – The Sexist Let’s climb right to the very top of the F1 ladder and talk about Bernie Ecclestone, the recently usurped CEO and President of Formula One Management. A former racer and team owner, billionaire Ecclestone is one of the most prominent and well-known faces in F1 with his shock of silver hair, round glasses and occasional black eyes. The former F1 Supremo worked hard to bring success and money to the sport but he hasn’t been without scandal and controversy. To some, his behaviour has demonised himself against women, to others he is a boy-done-good saviour of the sport and all sins are forgiven. Either way, there is no denying some of the opinions of this 87-year-old have landed him in hot water. In 2005, Bernie showed us a glimpse of his brilliant mind when he suggested that “women should be dressed in white to match the appliances” and not satisfied with saying it once he said it again, causing just as much consternation. What’s more, in 2009, the Times quoted Ecclestone saying that “Hitler was a leader who could get things done”. Anyway, take from that what you will; we can only imagine what else he’s saying behind closed doors.

#11 Twin Chassis Lotus 88 – Circumventing The Technicalities Back in 1981, Lotus’s Colin Chapman, Peter Wright, Tony Rudd and Martin Ogilvie had a rather unique idea. According to Wikipedia, the twin-chassis design that supported their ongoing efforts to maximise the downforce produced by ground effects and could run a car to take corners faster than any other in the paddock. Chapman’s plan was simple: the inner chassis held the cockpit and was independently sprung from the outer one to take the pressures of ground effect, while the outer one was basically one big ground effect system from nose to tail. It was a clever idea and one that legendary designer Chapman argued fell within the strict technological guidelines of the F1 regulations, but rival teams did not agree with his optimistic naivety and protested. Lotus’ competitors were rightly incensed by the way in which Chapman was circumnavigating the regulations. Protests were lodged on the grounds that the twin chassis idea broke rules. Without much further discussion, the FIA banned the car and it never got the chance to race.

#12 Crash Gate 2008 Here’s a little more on Briatore’s staggeringly dodgy career. One of the most unforgivable and frankly reckless controversies in recent history was called ‘Crashgate’. It was a secret that execs managed to contain for only a year until Nelson Piquet Jr announced to the world that his Renault managers had instructed him to crash during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. Despite the arrogance of the top order assuming the motives for the crash would never be found out it became common knowledge that the subsequent safety car period following the crash helped promote team-mate Fernando Alonso to first place and claim the win. It was only after German-born Brazilian Piquet Jr was dropped from Renault mid-way through 2009 that he revealed he had been asked to deliberately sabotage the race. The team did not contest the charges; how could they? Renault F1’s managing director Flavio Briatore and the team’s executive director of engineering Pat Symonds left; the former given a lifetime ban from the sport, the latter banned for five years, although later overturned by a French court.

#13 United States Grand Prix, 2005 A Max Mosley foul-up back in 2005 made F1 a laughing stock in the heartland of American road racing but so too damaged relations with hugely influential Michelin. It was discovered only too late by main tire provider Michelin that the banked final turn of the Indianapolis circuit caused the side walls of its tires to collapse. Too late to do anything about and with seven teams relying on rubber, Mosley stepped up in absentia with masterminded idiocy and instructed drivers to take the corner at a snail’s pace. The better suggestion of constructing a makeshift chicane to bypass the corner was opposed although on what grounds no one is really sure, even after the Michelin-supplied teams offered to start from the back of the grid. In the end, Mosley’s terminal decision to bring the cars’ speed right down on the last bend was a sure sign that the sport was being governed by people who cared not one iota for the safety of the drivers, spectators or for that matter the techno partners.

#14 Minimum Weight Rules Against the rules, or just economical? This was the big question for execs in 1982 after a weight issue reared its head for constructors who realised that racing well against turbo-powered rivals was going to take more than a little tweak. A lighter car even without a turbo was the answer, but how to cheat the weigh-in was the question. It came down to Lotus’s Colin Chapman (familiar?) who devised a reserve water tank which when full at the pre-race weigh-in would provide the correct regulation weight. During the race, the water could be dumped and afford the car the advantage and before post-race weigh-in could be as easily topped-up as a kettle. Excellent results followed. However, when execs discovered the secret to their success their positions were disallowed. To some, this was an unfair judgement and politically motivated. The British teams boycotted the San Marino Grand Prix…and now you know why.

#15 Schumacher Returns Notwithstanding the controversy surrounding Rascasse-gate, Michael Schumacher is no stranger to on-track confrontation. The question is how much of it is team-led? We could be forgiven for thinking most of it is. With both drivers seeking the F1 crown at Adelaide in 1994, the German crashed into Damon Hill as the Englishman was overtaking, forcing the two of them to retire from the race. The race was won by Nigel Mansell but Schumacher won the championship… by a single point. Then again, in 1997 in Jerez, a repeat of the same manoeuvre against Jacques Villeneuve assured the cynical among us of Schumacher’s team’s tactical motivations. However this time the strategy backfired spectacularly as Villeneuve became F1 world champion and Schumacher was thrown out of the championship, discredited and sanctioned by the FIA.

Source: TheRichest

[spryfilm]

“Hell or High Water ” (2016)

Thriller

Running Time: 120 minutes

Director: David Mackenzie

Featuring: Ben Foster, Chris Pine and Jeff Bridges

T-Bone Waitress: “I’ve been working here for 44 years. Ain’t nobody ever ordered nothing but a T-Bone steak and baked potato. Except one time, this asshole from New York ordered a trout, back in 1987. We ain’t got no goddamned trout.”

Old Man: “You fellas robbin’ the bank?”

Tanner Howard: “What’s it look like, old man?”

Old Man: “But you ain’t Mexicans.”

Having heard early reviews of this movie I had been looking forward to watching this film for some time, and it did not let me down, from the rugged depressed landscapes, to the real life characters, as well as the performances from all the  actors. The inhabit their roles like they were born to them with a deserved mention of Chris Pine in a role that he has been waiting for a long time. I will mention him again later but he is a revelation in this role, and i would like to see him rewarded for it.

Plot and narrative wise “Hell or High Water” is pretty tight, it takes place in West Texas, where we find divorced father Toby Howard (Chris Pine) and his ex-con brother Tanner (Ben Foster) carrying out early morning robberies of two branches of the (fictional) Texas Midlands Bank. They plan to commit several small-scale bank robberies over the course of a few days. Though the robberies are well planned, Tanner’s wild nature leads to him taking unnecessary risks. It is revealed that their mother has recently died, leaving their ranch in debt due to a reverse mortgage, which, if not paid off in a few days, will result in foreclosure on the property. Toby is determined to pay off the mortgage and, because oil has recently been discovered on the land, he plans to sell the oil rights in order to pay for a comfortable life for his estranged sons.

While on the run they do not appear on either the local polices or FBI’s radar because of the low amount taken but they do come to the attention of two Texas Rangers, Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges) and Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham), are sent to catch the robbers. Hamilton, who is close to retirement, quickly determines the brothers’ methods and personalities.

From here the film really gets going and the description of the plot will end here to avoid any possible spoilers but this film will not end how you might think – after all many of the characters have been raised in similar environments over an eighty year period and have seen their homes and economy change so much.

There are three main elements of this film I absolutely loved and they are in no particular order, the transportation of a classic film noir into a socially conscious Western Neo Noir that captivates with its story and takes into account the real stresses on human life in dealing with their jobs, lifestyles, choices made and to make as well the human condition. The frailty each of us faces in our daily lives – it is also about choices and the consequences of those choices and where we are led by them.

The direction is simple but effective using the natural surrounds of the country and representing Texas in a kind of backward way where people say what they think and everyone has a gun – but there is always someone with a bigger one.

Finally the key to the believability and success of this film relies on the four main characters led I believe by the brilliant Chris Pine fresh of playing Captain Kirk it is great to see him reacting without special effects and playing someone real who has a family and motivations many people can understand especially in poor rural town s in the US. Jeff Bridges and Ben Foster give their normal great character performances but I do believe it is Pine’s show and it is fantastic.

I recommend this without hesitation. Out now on DVD and Blu-ray.

Features Include:

Enemies Forever: The Characters of Hell or High Water (HD, 13:36) – An EPK that basically goes over the entire plot of the film, with interviews gauging the filmmaker’s and cast’s interpretations.

Visualizing the Heart of America (HD, 9:28) – A look at the locations found in the film.

Damaged Heroes: The Performances of Hell or High Water (HD, 12:24) – A look at the actors featured in this film and what they bring to their roles.

Red Carpet Premiere (HD, 1:53) – A brief clip mixing footage from the Austin premiere with clips from the film.

Filmmaker Q&A (HD, 29:51) – All four lead actors and director David Mackenzie speak about the film, following a screening at Arclight Hollywood in the Cineramadome.

Blu-ray Review: “Hell or High Water” (2016) “Hell or High Water ” (2016) Thriller Running Time: 120 minutes Director: David Mackenzie Featuring: Ben Foster, Chris Pine and Jeff Bridges…

[iuniverseblog]

Great Literary Works of Early America

In honor of July 4th, we thought we’d talk a bit about the early literature of our country, especially some books and writers that we no longer read in school. Even in these early works, we see the richness of American literature coming alive.

Charles Brockden Brown

Let’s begin with taking a look at the earliest American novels. Popular consensus says that the first novel written in a free United States was The Power of Sympathy, by William Hill Brown, in 1789. The story is told in an epistolary form (i.e. through the exchange of letters), as was popular at the time. The Power of Sympathy is classified as a “sentimental” novel, one which deals heavily with the characters’ emotions. The plot is racy, even by today’s standards, as it is based on a real-life case of scandal and seduction.

While Brown’s book is considered the first American novel, the first American novelist to establish a reputation was another “Brown”, fully named Charles Brockden Brown. The writings of Charles Brockden Brown are famous as being early examples of the Gothic novel, involving old manor houses, eerie passageways, graveyards, and sinister doings. Some of Brockden Brown’s novels include Wieland, Ormond, and Edgar Huntly.

Shortly after Brockden Brown, we see the arrival of Washington Irving, generally considered the first American writer to support himself entirely by his pen. Irving’s literary fame commenced with his History of New York, a hilarious satire which poked fun at New York’s colonial Dutch families. This work was followed by The Sketch Book, which contained the tales of “Rip Van Winkle” and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” – both of which remain part of the standard American literary canon to this day.

James Fenimore Cooper

While Irving was not a novelist, the next writer of novels to gain notoriety was James Fenimore Cooper. Many of his novels focus on the American colonies before Independence. One of his early novels, The Spy, is an exciting tale of the American Revolution. His most famous novel, The Last of the Mohicans, is a story of the French and Indian War, which took place from 1756-1763.

Moving away from fiction, a book that serves as an embodiment of early America is The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Covering the first half of Franklin’s life, the book gives a first-hand glimpse of life in colonial Boston and Philadelphia, while capturing the American spirit of diligence and practicality. Franklin himself is often referred to as “The First American”. Lastly, the work is a great guide for how to improve our daily lives — in addition to being an autobiography, it is also a self-help book!

While Franklin’s autobiography does not mention his political career, an early series of political writings is found in The Federalist Papers, a combination of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (our first Chief Justice). Written from 1787-1788, the essays had the intention of motivating states to sign the Constitution, which was being criticized by people who did not want a strong central government. The Federalist Papers is a stimulating insight into the brilliant minds of our Founding Fathers – it shows their intellect, education, and genuine concern for the republic. The most famous essay is #10, written by Madison, and discusses the dangers of faction. The writing style is sublime, featuring the beauty of 18th-century prose and comparable to Burke and Gibbon in England – showing that these young American whippersnappers could write just as well as their cousins across the pond. To give you a taste of this literary flair, one early sentence by Hamilton reads, “The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.”

(There is also a series called The Anti-Federalist Papers, though it has not fared so well in literary longevity – perhaps because its overall message failed!)

Jonathan Edwards

It’s difficult to think of early America without thinking of the religious dimension. Our first successful colony, Massachusetts, was largely founded by Puritans, and their influence remains in our culture to this day. William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation contains descriptions of colonial life from 1620 to the late 1640s, though for the sheer religious side of life, one can look at the sermons of Jonathan Edwards. A Puritan minister, Edwards adhered to a very strict interpretation of Christianity, and his sermons were characterized as having a “fire-and-brimstone” quality, with references to the “black clouds of God’s wrath” hanging over us. Mankind was doomed, except for a very select few — whom, inexplicably, God apparently had already saved. Check out his most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, here.

Finally, if you liked the film The Revenant, you will probably enjoy reading about the travels of Lewis and Clark through the Louisiana Purchase. For some reason, this adventurous journey has received relatively little attention in literature and film, but it must have been both fascinating and extremely dangerous. These explorers were up against a completely unchartered territory, with deadly animals and hostile inhabitants, and they braved through it with true American manliness and perseverance. You can order The Journals of Lewis and Clark over amazon.com for free, and for further study, there is the masterful volume Undaunted Courage by Professor Stephen E. Ambrose.

Naturally there is a wealth of other works from early American literature, and we encourage you to delve deeper into this period. Let us know any books that you can recommend!

Make sure to check out the iUniverse site for more advice and blogs, as well as iUniverse Facebook and iUniverse Twitter.

— By Tom McKinley