#mainly cause i find it funny how poor the quality of those images is in video format

[basslinegrave]

Sam & Max - DVD menu (all discs)

[revolutionary-demosthenes]

4th of July: John Laurens and Slavery, and why we shouldn’t idolize him

I’ve written several drafts of posts trying to explain John Laurens’s complicated relationship with slavery and, in a broader sense, how the hypocrisy of freedom for our country--while denying the freedom of enslaved people--has led directly to the situation we find ourselves in now, in terms of race in America.

I’ve struggled with even going there, because I’m trying to focus on the present now, not the past. But I firmly believe that America can only fix its present once we’ve faced our past. And I want this information on my blog. John Laurens was not a perfect man, not even close. He was an abolitionist, yes. But how he came to these views is complicated and his personal conduct towards African-Americans is often troubling. Too often, in fact, the racist ideas of his era are visible in his writings.

There’s lots out there about not glorifying or idolizing historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and other slave-owners.

This is becoming particularly clear today, with the truth of violent systemic racism in America finally becoming more fully recognized. When people watch videos of a black man begging for his life under the knee of a policeman, that brutality becomes undeniable.

But John Laurens is often exempt from this “historical disclaimer” of sorts. In the world of the Hamilton fandom and even more broadly in history, he becomes The Abolitionist, a White Savior figure who abhorred slavery and fought for racial justice, no exceptions, no fine print.

But there is a fine print for John Laurens. And it is a vital one to examine, because it shows us the importance of carrying our beliefs into our personal lives, not just our political ones.

First, let’s acknowledge the circumstances John was born into.

South Carolina, where he was born in 1754, was a southern colony, and as such relied mainly on agriculture in its economy. The rich plantation owners were the pinnacle of society. Washington’s family is an example of one such rich and powerful plantation owning family. The wealth and standing in society of these men led to positions in the government. And a man who illustrates this perfectly is none other than Henry Laurens.

Henry Laurens, John Laurens’s father, was, despite his pleading to the contrary, a significant slave owner and slave trader. Though in his private life he claimed to dislike slavery, he co-owned the largest slave-trading house in North America, Austin & Laurens. It doesn’t matter what he thought, or claimed to think. What matters is what he did.

Henry Laurens owned between close to three hundred slaves. His attitude toward the treatment of his own slaves was dehumanizing, self-righteous, and willfully ignorant. He chose to look upon himself as a “good” slave owner, rather than actually face the horrors he was perpetrating. He wrote in a letter that he’d rather treat his slaves “with Humanity” and make “less Rice” than “submit to the Charge of one who should make twice as much rice & exercise any degree of Cruelty towards those poor Creatures who look up to their Master as their Father, their Guardian, & Protector.” What Henry is trying to say here (to my reading) is that he’d rather his plantation produce less of a crop and not work his slaves too hard than treat his slaves cruelly to produce more profit.

Henry Laurens, in an attitude that is all too familiar today,  consistently chose to think of himself as an exception to the problem rather than as part of the problem. He was quick to talk up abolition and condemn cruel treatment of enslaved people. But when it came to his own slaves, he insisted that “my Servants are as happy as Slavery will admit of, none run away, the greatest punishment to a defaulter is to sell him.”

I don’t know how John’s mother, Eleanor Ball Laurens, viewed slavery, but she also came from a large slave-owning family. Even if she personally didn’t approve of the practice wholeheartedly, she benefitted directly from slavery and married someone in the slave trade.

So this is the life John Laurens was born into. A life of incredible privilege, sourced directly from the the slave trade and the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans. This is the first thing that needs acknowledging in terms of John’s relationship with slavery. He was able to accomplish much of what he did because of his social standing and wealth as the son of a very powerful South Carolinian, powerful mostly because of his standing in Southern society.

John was able to get his education in Europe because of slavery. He was able to use his father’s influence to become an aide-de-camp to George Washington. His social standing and quality of life all stood upon the backs of slaves.

Because of this background, John was exposed to the brutal truths of slavery since he could understand the world around him. Is this how he came into his abolitionist views? It absolutely could be. But it is more likely that John first became serious about abolition when he was taken to Europe for his education. He attended a school in Geneva, a cosmopolitan place that was very open to new ideas. Being an abolitionist was not considered as radical there as it was in the Southern Colonies, and there was more writing on the subject of abolition, including a poem by Thomas Day, an abolitionist patriot, whom John was friends with.

So John’s serious thoughts on abolition may have partly been a product of being away from a place where slavery seen as a part of life and being in a place which was more open to abolition. John may have thought slavery wrong for a long time, but lacked adequate support to be vocal about it.

Significantly though, John did not abandon his beliefs when he returned to America. He continued to be a vocal abolitionist, and unlike his father Henry, confronted actual slave owners and tried to convince them to free their slaves… including his boss, General George Washington.

He also converted Lafayette into an ardent abolitionist, and Lafayette, even after Laurens’s death, stuck to these beliefs. He later in life even bought a plantation and ran it with the labor of paid black people, to prove it could be done.

But once we get to the war, we must also talk about Shrewsberry.

John didn’t own slaves, technically. But his father dispatched two of his slaves to serve as John’s valets during the war, one of whom was named Shrewsberry. (Something to note: I am not sure if these slaves were paid or not. I would assume not, and I have yet to find a record of payment, if it did exist. But if anyone knows more about this, I would love to know the answer, as it’s an important question to think about.)

This alone would mar John’s “perfect abolitionist” image, but it gets more disturbing when you consider how John viewed and treated his valets. I should mention we don’t have a ton of evidence of their living conditions, but what we do have is distressing.

On to the primary evidence: if you read the correspondence between John and his father, a funny/not funny pattern is that John is always requesting clothes, fabric, hair powder, etc., from his father. He usually thanked his father for these items. But here is a quote from a letter John wrote to his father on December 15th, 1777: “Berry received a hunting shirt and a check shirt. If there be any difficulty in getting him winter clothes I believe he can do without.” So while John advocated for black Americans in his public life, his private conduct tells differently.

And this is further evidenced when, after Laurens’ death in 1782, Thadeus Kosciuszco wrote to Nathaniel Greene that John’s slaves (his father's technically, as explained above) were “nacked” and that they were in need of “shirts jackets Breeches.” (“nacked” meaning “naked.”)

While John Laurens was certainly more enlightened than the average man of his time on the subject of slavery, he still had trouble connecting his broader ideas of freedom and emancipation to his personal life. He also wrongly blamed Shrewsberry for the loss of a hat, writing to his father, “Shrewsberry says his hat was violently taken from him by some soldiers as he was carrying his horses to water. If James will be so good as to send him his old laced hat by the bearer I hope he will take better care of it.” The blame for this incident obviously lies upon the soldiers who stole Shrewsberry’s hat, but John acts like Shrewsberry was in the wrong, or somehow that having the hat “violently taken” indicated that Shrewsberry was not taking care of the hat. The automatic and unjust condemnation of Shrewsberry again speaks to how John did have the prejudices of his time period in his head, even as he fought against them in a broader sense.

Later in the war, John left Washington in favor of his home state, South Carolina. He wanted to raise a regiment of slaves to fight for the patriot cause, who would then be emancipated for their service. John had written his father about the idea earlier, saying,

“I would bring about a twofold good, first I would advance those who are unjustly deprived of the Rights of Mankind to a State which would be a proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty—and besides I would reinforce the Defenders of Liberty with a number of gallant Soldiers—Men who have the habit of Subordination almost indelibly impress’d on them, would have one very essential qualification of Soldiers—I am persuaded that if I could obtain authority for the purpose I would have a Corps of such men trained, uniformly clad, equip’d and ready in every respect to act at the opening of the next Campaign…”

Reading through this carefully, we can see some ideas expressed here that are important to note. Firstly, “proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty.” This means that though John did want to free the slaves, he did not think that black people should have the “perfect Liberty” that whites enjoyed. Additionally, when John writes, “Men who have the habit of Subordination indelibly impress’d on them” he is suggesting (to my reading) that because slaves were constantly treated as inferior, they would be good soldiers (I assume because soldiers have to obey their commanding officers.) Honestly, this reads to me like John wanting to take advantage of the cruelty slaves endured because “They’re used to it.”

Henry wrote back that what John was offering was hardly better than slavery, again assuming his attittude of “my slaves are happy.”

John wrote a long letter in return, explaining his reasoning and also basically being like, “dad please support me, dad, please.” But there are also some phrases here, in his letter defending his abolitionist views, that are revealing about the prejudices John harbored. 

He writes, “I confess, indeed, that the minds of this unhappy species must be debased by a servitude, from which they can hope for no relief but death, and that every motive to action but fear, must be nearly extinguished in them.”

Note John’s reference to slaves as a “species” rather than a race. (And, by the way, race is a social construct, not an actual biological thing.) The belief that blacks and whites were separate species was common at the time, and often used by slave traders to justify their actions. And this bit of writing shows that even if John didn’t really believe this wholeheartedly, he at least had the idea in his head. However, later in the letter John does use “race” so it’s a little unclear what he actually believed.

And we can see the belief that black people were not as intellectually capable as white people, owing to their enslavement.

Gregory Massey puts it this way: “Young Laurens reasoned that blacks were not innately inferior to whites; rather, their apparent mental deficiencies resulted from generations of enslavement.”

John goes on, “I have had the pleasure of conversing with you, sometimes, upon the means of restoring [the slaves] to their rights. When can it be better done, than when their enfranchisement may be made conducive to the public good, and be modified, as not to overpower their weak minds?”

What sticks out here is, of course, the assertion that the slaves had “weak minds.”

Essentially, John thought that once black people were allowed to live free, “rescued from a state of perpetual humiliation” as he put it in the same letter, their nature would change to more like whites. Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for Emancipation in the War for Independence by Alan Gilbert states, 

“Nonetheless, John Laurens retained a slave-owner’s perspective about the psychology of blacks at the time. In a 1776 letter to his father, he ignored manifold black acts of resistance and their hunger to be free: ‘There may be some inconvenience and even Danger in advancing Men suddenly from a State of Slavery while possessed of the manners and Principals incident to such a State... too suddenly to the Rights of freedman. [T]he example of Rome suffering from Swarms of bad citizens who were freedmen is a warning to us to proceed with caution.’ [...] The son insisted, however, on the principal that slavery is simply wrong, the immoral shackling of another: ‘The necessity for it is an Argument of the complete Mischief occasioned by our continued Usurpation.’”

But the same book also says, “John Laurens was a practical abolitionist. Favored by nature and fortune, he chose no easy path. He could, for instance, have worked for Washington, recruited a company of white soldiers as his father urged, and still have advocated for the “public good.” Instead, he committed himself to the nobler course of fighting determinedly for abolition.”

However, “18th century abolitionist” usually did not mean someone who believed black and white people were equal and should have the same rights. It meant that you wanted to end slavery. The difference between these views often gets blurred for John Laurens. Saying that John Laurens was an abolitionist is accurate, but he probably did not believe that black and white people should have the exact same rights, at least not at first. That needs to be acknowledged. John was an abolitionist, but it is unclear how much equality he really wanted. 

Only paying attention to his anti-slavery professional life also leads to the idea that it is safe to idolize Laurens, rather than critically examine his complex views on race. The idea forms that he is the one white man from the 18th century we can be fully proud of. The one we can say is our beautiful cinnamon roll without having to confront his relationship with slavery. The fact that John Laurens wanted to help enslaved people gain their freedom doesn’t change the ways in which he benefited from white supremacy, nor how he treated his personal servants, nor the racist ideas he expressed in some of his writings.

This does not mean Laurens was evil, or that you can’t like and admire parts of him. By the standards of other revolutionary figures, like the aforementioned Jefferson and Washington (and Madison and Hamilton to an extent*) Laurens was remarkably enlightened. But also, that in itself is terrible. Like, the idea of a “good guy” from the 18th century is still one that believed that black people had “weak minds” owing to their enslavement. 

If we truly want to reckon with the racial sins of America, and how they originated, we need to see figures like Laurens for all they were. Not just the noble abolitionist, but also the inherently privileged white man whose righteous public crusade was enabled by the very system it sought to end, slavery. We also need to see him as the extremely wealthy young man who regarded the command of his servants as part of the natural order of his life.

I didn’t write this solely for history. John’s story is a reminder to all allies that actions based on our beliefs are important to make in our private lives, as well as public. Yes, it’s important to advocate for racial justice in our public and professional lives. But it’s also important to examine and be honest about our own forms of privilege and the ways in which we have internalized the racism of the world around us. All white people in America benefit from slavery and the systems it was built upon, even those whose forebears came to America long after slavery was abolished. I firmly believe that a step forward for racial justice in the US is simply to acknowledge privilege, because we cannot fix a broken system until we realize all the ways in which it is broken. 

[funkymbtifiction]

Is there going to be tritypes for Les Miserables ? I keep thinking it could be heavy with enneagram 4 either as a core or part of the fix. Thank you.

Jean Valjean: 8w9 2w1 6w5 sp/so - The Rescuer.

Valjean’s experience with authority and the law hasn’t been a favorable one, ever since he was convicted unfairly for many long years for stealing due to starvation, he has been defiant of any sort of authority and has sought his own survival over all else. However, once he’s become his own boss and he’s the one who makes the rules after the bishop assists him and show him the virtue in caring for others (integration into 2), he’s able to access his wing and become relaxed and peaceful (8w9). Under stress, he isolates himself, reduces his needs and becomes very detached and analytic in regards to circumstances, moving to 5.

He’s always tended and cared for the needs of those under his care, first with his sister’s family, then with the whole town of Montreuil-sur-mer when he opens his factory, and he prides himself on his fairness in regards to his employees and citizens during his time as mayor, not to mention he strives to follow the noble example of bishop Myriel (2w1).

Valjean is naturally alert and suspicious which has allowed him to escape and adapt to every new situation many times, he relies mostly on his own knowledge for his conclusions and despite he appreciates support, he is usually fine without it (6w5).

His instinctual variant reflects how he mostly cares for his safety and that of those under his care (self-preservation) but he also feels he has a responsibility to society and despite he’s reluctant to become mayor, he proves to be perfect for the job (social).

Javert: 1w9 6w5 3w4 so/sx -  The Taskmaster.

Javert lives to right the world’s wrongs, he has the detached air of righteousness characteristic of 1w9, a colder attitude compared to 1w2 who reaches more for others and focuses on meeting their needs over following every word of the law. He’s ever suspicious and endlessly loyal to his code of honor manifested in the law, he feels without it the whole world will fall to pieces, it is his duty to uphold everything it entails. He doesn’t follow it completely blindly but it is made up of principles his own experiences have reinforced, which he has analyzed and approved (6w5). He is concerned with being a model of virtue and he would never allow his image be ruined by his actions, which is why he strives for perfection in everything, however there is a brooding quality to his image, as shown in his deep thoughts and internal conflicts. When the image of perfection upheld by his 3 fix is threatened, the dark and intense aspect of the 4 wing comes forth (3w4).

His instinctual variant reflects he lives mostly for society, however there is an intensity about him that is explained by his sexual second, which mainly justifies his fixation with Valjean. He simply will not rest until he sees him behind bars, for all of those years he’s managed to elude him. His self-preservation blindspot can be seen in how attending to his own needs is most likely seen as selfish by him.

Marius: 4w5 1w9 7w8 sx/so - The Visionary.

The sweet Pontmercy boy is continuously delving deep into his intense feelings in a very analytic way. He’s quite detached unless something very important to him is discussed (his father, the issues with his grandfather, his family’s differing political views, his love for Cosette) in which case, get ready to know exactly how he feels about it in the most poetic way (4w5). He is very concerned with morality and doing the right thing and isn’t afraid to call people out if he feels they’re doing something wrong, even his own kin, as seen when he promptly left his grandfather after he found out what he had done to his father, however he’s not as people oriented as his friends and prefers to ponder the theoretical aspects of morality on his own. Groups aren’t really his thing (1w9). He definitely is the head in the clouds type, envisioning the wonderful life he’ll have with Cosette by his side (when he’s not drowning in pessimism over not being able to be with her, or when the guilt he feels for his friends’ fate doesn’t take over, that is). It takes Cosette to get him to see the brighter side many times, but there’s a wonder and zest for life in his best moments. His 8 wing shows when he becomes confrontational and assertive at the barricades, he is able to stand his ground very well. He’s usually self contained but can be impulsive on occasion (7w8).

He has a tendency to focus on one person at a time, first it was his father, then Cosette. He generally shows a disregard for groups (until he warms up to Les Amis) and is very self absorbed but he’s even less concerned with his own needs: leaving his grandfather’s house over a political and familiar dispute with nowhere else to go is definitely something only a self-pres blind could do.

Cosette: 9w1 2w1 7w6 sx/so - The Peacemaker.

Cosette is content doing what others expect of her, she loves harmonious environments and is concerned with doing the right thing, especially in regards to her father, she never considers running away with Marius because it would be ungrateful of her (9w1). She lives for others, to give and receive love and she loves to help those less fortunate than her (2w1). Lastly, there’s an adventurous spirit in her, like the adventurers who run barefoot, she is curious about the world around her and very optimistic but also cautious (7w6). Her instinctual variant reflects her focus on Marius and Valjean (sexual) and society at large (social).

Éponine: 8w9 2w1 6w7 sx/sp - The Rescuer.

Éponine is quite resentful she has to do what her father asks of her, she wishes she could have her way. However, he’s about the only person she listens to, as she’s in the words of her own brother “only a kid but hard to scare”.  She’s very good at finding her way around the poorest streets of Paris. She’s usually fierce and assertive but will become peaceful around the right people, like Marius. She’s more than content with going along with his wishes because she loves him (8w9). Everything she does is for Marius, even in the book where she’s far less selfless, she still does what she does in hopes she will get love back from him, which is basically type 2′s main motive. Even if she’s hurt because Marius loves Cosette over her, she still does the right thing and not only gives him her letter but selflessly (not so much in the book, it must be said. Sorry, book Ponine) sacrifices her life for him (2w1). Ponine can be a bit naive when it comes to Marius but she makes no mistake, knows she can trust nobody and is ever alert whenever she has to deal with Patron Minette, her father’s criminal gang. Her 7 wing makes her sweet and funny, often telling jokes to Marius to lighten the mood (6w7). All of her attention is on Marius and she uses every tactic she knows to help him find Cosette. Her social blindspot explains her little concern with the motive behind the revolution and the fact she shows scorn for those society sees as superior to her.

Fantine: 2w1 9w8 7w8 sx/so - The Peacemaker.

Fantine’s main motivation is her enormous love for her little Cosette. After being left heartbroken when all the love she gave to Thólomeyes isn’t reciprocated (and basically the worst nightmare of a 2 comes true), she feels there’s nothing but her daughter left for her in the world, which is why she gives her life completely and selflessly for her. She is deeply concerned she had to give up her virtue and pride for her daughter, but her love for her knows no limits (2w1). She usually has a very peaceful and quiet demeanor, she’s a dutiful and careful worker but do not dare violate her boundaries, as she won’t hesitate to stand her ground and assert them (9w8). She left her family and home in search of love and adventure, a full life. She used to be a very cheerful and optimistic child, if quite guarded compared to her friends due to her 9 fix, if a bit naive which caused her to blindly give all her love to Thólomeyes without ever suspecting or doubting him until he left. Her 8 wing shows in her assertiveness and willingness to take chances. Her instinctual variant reflects how she mostly cares for others’ needs, first Thólomeyes, then Cosette. She’s concerned with the way the foreman and her coworkers feel about her as their suspicions could lead to her getting fired. Her self-preservation blindspot shows in how freely she was able to leave her home with very little preparation and forethought.

Gavroche: 7w8 8w7 2w3 so/sp - The Free Spirit.

Gavroche is the true definition of a free spirit, he wanders around the streets of Paris adventurously getting himself in and out of trouble and confidently asserting himself and the rights of the poor, forever fearless. He doesn’t hesitate to defy the French officials and offer his life for the cause (7w8 and 8w7). Gavroche has a very soft spot for his two younger brothers and quickly takes them under his wing when he finds them starving in the streets on their own, without even knowing they’re actually his brothers. There’s a flamboyant quality about him, he’s an expert at making what he does look easy and no big deal (2w3). Social concerns are important to him as seen in his devotion to the revolution and he’s adept at taking care of his and others’ needs easily.

Enjolras: 1w2 4w3 5w6 so/sx - The Researcher.

Enjolras will not rest until his ideals in regards to French society are true, despite his visions and goals could be said to be utopic, he knows he needs realistic measures to take care of the issue and the people affected by it right now (1w2). Despite he insists “their little lives don’t count at all”, he bases his identity on his beliefs and his noble cause which leads him move his fellow companions with such a passion it makes them all the more eager to follow him. He also has a somewhat poor and defective vision of himself and is very quick to notice and point out what’s wrong or not working in every case. He might not realize it but there is an image of dignity and perfection he likes to maintain (4w3). He’s self referential when dealing with fear, he finds out his own way of dealing with things and he trusts his own council (5w6). His disregard for his own needs and his focus on society justifies his instinctual variant.

Grantaire: 4w3 9w8 7w8 sx/so - The Gentle Spirit.

Grantaire has somewhat of a pessimistic view of life, despite he’s more optimistic and playful in the musical. In the book, he’s similar to Marius in their poetic outlook and emphasis on their feelings (which is very much in line with the Romantic spirit of the novel) and has pretty much given up on the cause, he’s only there because Enjolras inspires him, which explains his instinctual variant. However, there still is a small spark of hope in his saddened heart. I’m giving him a 3 wing for the way he’s characterized in the musical, more showy and jesty, teasing Marius on his newfound love (4w3). He pretty much goes along with what the others want and he will do anything for them, even spark and deal with conflict if necessary (9w8) and his optimism, even if little, is still there, waiting to be awaken (it is emphasized in the musical). He’s also quite the escapist, he acknowledges his darker feelings but that doesn’t mean he’s willing to deal with them (7w8).

Thénardier: 3w4 7w6 8w7 sp/sx - The Mover & Shaker.

Thénardier loves to put up a show, he’s charismatic and is able to get anyone to like him (3w4), impulsive, opportunistic, suspicious (7w6) and aggressive in pursuit of what he wants (8w7). He doesn’t really care for society and regards it with spite.

Mme. Thénardier: 8w7 3w4 7w8 sp/sx - The Mover & Shaker.

Quite similar to her husband, Madame Thénardier is even more assertive than him, we can see she’s the one who’s in charge at the inn. She’s playful and flirty and out to get what she wants.

Bonus:

Courfeyrac: 7w8 9w1 4w5 so/sp -  The Gentle Spirit.

Courfeyrac is quite adventurous, he does like to go out and have a good time, but he can also be fierce when the situation calls for it (7w8). He is pretty chill and laid back most of the time and very concerned with doing the right thing, he gladly helps Marius when he basically has no one else to turn to (9w1). His deep feelings are expressed in his ideological beliefs and in his commitment to the cause (4w5).

Combeferre: 5w4 1w9 2w1 so/sp - The Mentor.

Combeferre is detached and analytical, he studies the works of the great thinkers of their time in an attempt to make sure their cause has a secure theoretical foundation and he’s the perfect man for the job (5w4). He has a strong aim for perfection and he definitely won’t settle for any less, while also always being very easygoing and well, always happily lost in a book (1w9). His main goal is ultimately to help and provide for those that suffer the most, which he considers is the best thing he can do (2w1).

I think the rest of Les Amis are pretty much either 4′s or 1′s with social instinct. I am open to tritype ideas for them but most of what we know comes from headcanons as neither the musical nor the book provide much information on them other than “deep Romantic (as in the art movement, not necessarily the usual meaning of the word) student with very high standards who’s fighting for a very important social cause” and a few peculiarities regarding their studies and such. ;)

- INFP Mod

[rosiep66]

"POLDARK" Series One (1975): Episodes Nine to Twelve

"POLDARK" SERIES ONE (1975): EPISODES NINE TO TWELVE It has been a while since I had last viewed "POLDARK", the BBC's 1975-77 adaptation of Winston Graham's literary series about the post-war life of a British Army officer American Revolutionary War veteran named Ross Poldark. Real life and several movies releases distracted my attention from the series. Eventually, I found the time to watch Series One's adaptation of Graham's 1950 novel, "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791". Episode Eight had ended on a grim note. Ross' new smelting company ended in failure after his cousin Francis Poldark revealed the shareholders' names to the former's rival, George Warleggan. Ross now finds himself in financial straights. Francis was stricken with Putrid's Throat and Ross' wife, Demelza Carne Poldark, helped Francis' wife, Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark, nurse the stricken man back to health. Unfortunately, both Demelza and young daughter Julia were stricken with the same illness. Demelza recovered. Julia did not. Following Julia's death, one of the Warleggans' ships were wrecked off the coast of Poldark land. Despite Ross' efforts to conduct a rescue of the survivors (in this version, at least), many of the locals salvaged the goods from the ship and caused a riot on the ship. The episode ended with Ross being arrested for instigating the riot. Episode Nine began with Ross' return to his estate, Nampara, after spending a short period in jail. While he prepares to find a barrister (attorney) to represent him in court, Demelza tries to recruit help from the local gentry to have the charges dropped against Ross or ensure a not guilty verdict. Much against Ross' wishes, who stubbornly wants to guarantee his freedom on his own. Ross' friend, Dr. Dwight Enrys, meets the spoiled heiress Caroline Peneven, when she mistakes him for a veterinarian for her pug. Francis, who continues to feels guilty over his betrayal of the Carnmore Copper Company, sinks to a new low before sets out to make amends with Ross. And George and Nicholas Warleggan, who had arranged Ross' arrest in the first place, tries to guarantee a guilty verdict for Ross by bribing the latter's former servant, Jud Paynter, to testify against him. Following the trial in which Ross is exonerated, the Poldarks at both Nampara and Trenwith are forced to deal with their low financial straits. Ross and Francis reconcile and make plans to re-open Wheal Grace and dig for copper. To finance re-opening the mine, Ross allows local smugglers led by a man named Mr. Trencom to use the cove on Nampara land for a smuggling operation. Demelza is against the idea, but Ross refuses to listen to her. Meanwhile, Demelza discovers that she is pregnant with their second child. Due to their financial straits and the trauma of baby Julia's death, she fears that Ross will be unhappy by the news of her pregnancy. Demelza also resorts to solo fishing trips behind her husband's back to provide food for Nampara's inhabitants, while Ross' finances suffer. In fact, Episode Twelve ends with a very pregnant Demelza struggling to row back to the shore, while she goes into labor. What can I say about the 1975 adaptation of "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791"? I have mixed feelings about it. Perhaps my feelings for this adaptation is due to the source material. "Jeremy Poldark" is probably the shortest novel in Graham's twelve-book series. A novel's lenghth should not determine one's opinion of it. But if I must be brutally honest, I do not have a high regard for "Jeremy Poldark". It seemed more like a filler episode of a television series with a long-term narrative structure. The most interesting aspects of the novel were the emotional estrangement between Ross and Demelza, following their daughter's death and his deal with smugglers; Francis' attempt to reconcile with Ross; and of course, Ross' trial for the riot that had occurred near the end of "Demelza - A Novel of Cornwall, 1788-1790". Episode Nine mainly focused on Ross' preparations for the trial, Demelza's attempts to seek help for him, and the Warleggans' preparations to ensure that Ross will be convicted. That included recruiting Jud Paynter to testify against Ross. It was a pretty interesting episode. Somewhat. I thought the episode featured a colorful quality once the setting shifted to Bodmin for both the trial and upcoming local elections. It also featured a colorful assembly ball where Demelza, wearing the same gown she had worn at the Warleggans' ball in Episode Six, tries to recruit support and help for Ross. The episode ended with a cliffhanger, as Francis Poldark, who was also at the ball and in Bodmin to support Ross, contemplates committing suicide with a pistol in his hand. Episode Eleven mainly focused on Ross and Demelza's separate efforts to maintain their survival and rejuvenate their fortunes. And for the first time, the series delved into the strains that their their problems and Julia's death had placed upon their marriage. For Ross and Demelza, the honeymoon is finally over and I could not be any more happier. There is nothing that will bore me quicker than an idealized romance. Finally, the saga settles down to forcing the couple to work at making their marriage work. And I have to give credit to both Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees for their skillful portrayal of Ross and Demelza's struggles to make their marriage work. This was especially apparent in one scene that featured a quarrel between the couple following a supper party they had attended at Trenwith. Sometime during the evening, Ross and his former love, Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark, had the opportunity for a private conversation that ended with Ross complimenting her appearance. Unfortunately, Demelza appeared and was able to overhear his compliment. Which would explained the Ross and Demelza's quarrel. Ever since the current adaptation of "POLDARK" had first aired, I have encountered complaints about how actor Kyle Soller had portrayed Francis Poldark as an ill-tempered loser during the show's first season. To be honest, Clive Francis had did the same in the 1975 adaptations of "Ross Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1783-1787" and "Demelza". I noticed that once Francis had put his friendship with the manipulative George Warleggan behind him and reconciled with Ross, he finally became that wry and witty man that so many had commented about. And the actor gave a very charming and subtle performance. I also enjoyed the portrayal of the burgeoning romance between Dr. Dwight Enys and heiress Caroline Penvenen, thanks to Richard Morant and Judy Geeson's sparkling performances. The beginning of their relationship reminded me of the numerous Hollywood comedies between the late 1950s and mid 1960s. This was especially highlighted by Caroline's mistaken assumption that Dwight was more of a veterinarian and the latter's subtle contempt toward her privileged behavior. In a way, I find their relationship a bit more realistic than the one between Ross and Demelza. Dwight and Caroline's relationship strike me as good example of how class differences can effect a potential romance between two people of such disparate backgrounds. But the one episode that I truly enjoyed was Episode Ten. It featured the assizes in Bodmin and especially Ross' trial. If I must be brutally honest, Episode Ten did not feature one of Robin Ellis' best performances as Ross Poldark. He spent most of the episode looking rather stoic and occasionally, disapproving. It seemed as if the world of 18th century Cornwall had merely revolved around him. And a colorful world it turned out to be. The excitement actually began in the second half of Episode Nine, which featured the local elections, a local ball and the preparations for Ross' trial. But it was the assizes itself, which included Ross' trial that made Episode Ten fascinated for me. Not only did it feature Ross' trial, filled with attempts by the corrupt prosecutor to circumvent the law; but also another in which a woman was convicted for a minor crime and punished with a public whipping. At least three performances made Episode Ten very interesting. One of those performances came from Paul Curran, who portrayed Ross' former servant (at the time), Jud Paynter. Curran's Jud spent most of the episode getting drunk in order to shore up his courage to testify against Ross. It almost seemed as if Curran had to sustain the image of a drunken Jud throughout the entire episode. He also had to constantly irritate George Warleggan, portrayed by Ralph Bates. And the latter is the second performance that really caught my interest. I really enjoyed Bates in this episode. His George Warleggan was a man irritated not only by Jud's drunkeness, but also by the tight-fisted Nicholas Warleggan. Bates did an excellent job in basically portraying a straight man to a pair of comic performances. That second comic performance belonged to Nicholas Selby, who gave a rather subtle, yet funny performance as the venal, yet penny-pinching Nicholas. Poor George. His father is vindictive enough to demand that Ross suffers for the looting of his shipwrecked ship, but cheap enough to demand that George pay a small amount to arrange for Ross' conviction. Talk about a man between a rock and a hard place. Despite these narrative and character virtues, I still remained somewhat unimpressed by Episodes Nine to Twelve. I was not impressed by how screenwriters Peter Draper and Paul Wheeler, along with director Kenneth Ives; structured the narrative for these episodes. One, their use of cliffhangers seemed a bit off kilter to me. In two episodes - Episodes Nine and Ten - the screenwriters and the director used cliffhangers to tell the audience what happened and not show. Episode Nine ended with a despondent Francis Poldark pressing a pistol to his head, as he prepared to commit suicide. Yet, there was no gunshot or anything to hint what happened. Audiences did not learn that the suicide attempt had failed due to the pistol's misfire in a conversation between Francis and Dwight Enys. I found this handling of Francis' suicide attempt extremely annoying. Apparently, it was easier for Draper and Ives to tell the audience what happened via Francis' revelation than show it. As for Episode Ten, it ended with the judge about to announce the verdict at the end of Ross' trial. But audiences did not learn about the verdict, until George Warleggan had informed his father . . . at the beginning of Episode Eleven. It seemed ridiculously unnecessary to end Episode Ten in this manner. Worse, it was another example of the writer and director telling what happened, instead of showing. Speaking of "episodic interruptus", Episode Twelve, which is the last one that served as an adaptation of "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791", ended with a pregnant Demelza rowing back to shore as she goes into labor. One, this is not how the novel ended. It ended with a conciliation between Ross and Francis during the newborn Jeremy Poldark's christening; along with Ross and Demelza at home, as they contemplated on keeping their family and household. I see now that the screenwriter had allowed Ross and Francis to reconcile before Jeremy's birth, so that they could end the episode on this cliffhanger with Demelza struggling to reach the shore. I found this a waste of time. This was simply another example of telling the audience what happened, instead of showing. Episode Thirteen, which began the adaptation of "Warleggan: A Novel of Cornwall, 1792-1793", began with Demelza reaching the shore and later, Ross announcing the presence of his newborn son. Frustrating! And unnecessary. Although I had earlier complimented Paul Curran's comic performance of the drunken Jud Paynter, I must admit there is so much of Jud that I can take. He almost became something of a fly on the ointment to me during my favorite episode, Episode Ten. But Episode Twelve truly became something of a chore for me, due to the whole "Jud is dead" story arc. After double-crossing the Warleggans by failing to testify against Ross and keeping the fifteen shillings they had given him, Jud is assaulted by some of George Warleggan's men at the end of Episode Eleven. A great deal of Episode Twelve focused on Jud's funeral and wake, while Ross and Demelza attended another supper party at Trenwith. A great deal. To make matters worse, it turned out that Jud was never dead . . . just unconscious. No one had bothered to verify whether he was dead or not. Instead, they had mistaken his unconscious body as a corpse. Not only was I irritated that Jud was not dead, I believe that Winston Graham had committed something of a cheat with this story line. Worse, I had to endure thirty to forty minutes of Jud's wake, which seemed more than I was able to bear. I really wish he had remained dead. I have one last quibble and it involved at least two missing characters. What happened to Jinny Carter? You know . . . Jinny? Ross and Demelza's kitchen maid? The widow of one Jim Carter? What happened to her? Actress Gillian Bailey, who had portrayed Ginny in the adaptation of "Ross Poldark" and "Demelza", seemed to be missing during these four episodes. Worse, no mention was made about her lack of presence. I find this ironic, considering that Jinny's father, Zacky Martin, was not missing. Forbes Collins, who had portrayed Zacky, had a strong presence in these four episodes - including the sequence involving Jud's funeral. So why was Jinny missing? And I also noticed that after twelve episodes and adaptations of three novels, Aunt Agatha Poldark remained missing. I realize that she plays an important role in "Warleggan: A Novel of Cornwall, 1792-1793" and "The Black Moon: A Novel of Cornwall, 1794-1795". But why has she been missing for so long in this adaptation of Winston Graham's saga? How did producers Morris Barry and Anthony Coburn explain her appearance in future episodes, beginning with the adaptation of "Warleggan"? There were some highlights from Barry and Coburn's adaptation of "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791". These highlights include Ross Poldark's trial in Episode Ten; the burgeoning romance between Dr. Dwight Enys and Caroline Penvenen; and the performances of three cast members - Paul Curran, Nicholas Selby and especially Ralph Bates. But overall, I was not that impressed by Episodes Nine to Twelve. I found the narrative structure of these episodes rather troubling, especially with how cliffhangers were used. And the handling of the Jud Paynter character struck me as well, somewhat overbearing. Oh well. Onward to Episode Thirteen.