Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 20, 2020 21:41:17 GMT -8
I watched this old documentary on Amazon Prime called The Wright Brothers At Huffman Prairie Documentary. It’s grainy, black-and-white, and looks like a product of the Air Force. But it was a pretty good roundup of the Wright brothers. And it made me realize how much fundamental stuff was left out of McCullough’s book. In retrospect, although I enjoyed it, his book is a tad slipshod. But some of the questions I had about the brothers were answered in this video. It talked about their flight school, for example, something the book never mentioned. They charged $250 a pop for lessons…and students were not responsible for any damage to the plane. It showed much more about the development of the aircraft. They did much more than the book even hinted at. For example, Orville created some kind of stabilizer/autopilot for his plane…and it worked. I looked back at the table of contents of McCullough’s book seeing if I had inadvertently skipped some chapters. But, no, it’s simply a case of a very truncated story. What it contains is interesting enough but I wouldn’t suggest this book as a first look at the Wright brothers. There must be much better biographies out there. But this one was free at the online library. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 8:52:12 GMT -8
I read the free Kindle sample of Fred Howard’s Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright BrothersI haven’t decided if I want to spend the $12.48 for it yet but I thought Mr. Kung, in particular, would appreciate this bit from “The Preface to the 1987 Edition.” Speaking of his own book, Howard writes: Hallelujah. How many biographies (including that of Grant) have I tried to read but couldn’t get through because of the completely boring family history? More than one, I can tell you. The author was involved in the employ of the Library of Congress in the publication (to fulfill the terms of the Wright will) of The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright. The author notes: Clearly the McCullough book veers too much in the direction of the “general reader” — so much so that vital and central facts are omitted. As one reviewer at Amazon (who is clearly in the minority) noted: Amongst the volumes of fawning praise for McCullough’s book, I think that is a very fair evaluation of it. McCullough’s book is a good read, but like cotton candy, you realize you haven’t actually had a meat-and-potatoes meal. The author also notes: This is written in 1987 but could have been part of a fair review of McCullough’s book of 2015. Indeed, in the free Kindle part of the book, we get a fairly good rundown of Chanute’s efforts in the sands outside of Chicago. In McCullough’s book, we know little about him other than some basic talking points. In Howard’s book, he has already very much become a real person. Fred Howard, in the “Preface to the Dover Edition” (the edition I downloaded), he praises a book by Tom D. Crouch titled Wilbur and Orville—The Bishop’s boys: A life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. One Amazon reviewer writes: Wow. If that is a fair description, that is certainly part of the gaping hole in the story that I intuited from the patchy work of McCullough and what I had subsequently read online or seen in a documentary. Mr. Kung is of the opinion that McCullough more or less wrote a hagiography of John Adams, leaving out the bad stuff. If he is correct (and he may well be), I can see how this same soft-focus treatment was given to the Wright brothers as well in his biography. I’d like to read both books but I’m not sure I have the gumption to do so. I may start with the Howard book and see how much lift I have left. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 21, 2020 9:29:22 GMT -8
It's just a guess, but I having read McCullough's Truman bio, which is the worst type of hagiography, I believe I can safely assume he gave the same treatment to Adams. This made me think that perhaps McCullough only writes about people he greatly admires. I can understand that as it must be misery to spend years writing about a real villain.
Too many biographers take the biblical approach to family trees, i.e. "Abraham begat Isaac and Isaac begat Jacob and Jacob..."
While I generally have some interest in the antecedents of the subject of a bio, I think the writer should develop interest in the subject before going into much detail on the family.
I suspect that McCullough did not have a very deep grasp of the technology involved in the Wrights' work. To find a biographer who is a good writer and competent in technical field is not that common. That being said, you would think that when writing about someone who is known for being the first in flight, the author would spend a fair amount of time on the question of "flight" and all that entails, much like writing about artillery and battles should be an obvious subject when writing about Napoleon.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 9:43:37 GMT -8
That makes me think that a biography of admiration is better than one of derision. The mains errors of the former are of omission, not manufactured stuff.
What I notice about much modern writing is the unwillingness to analyze or have an opinion. It’s as if to offer even the mildest criticism is verboten. That’s what I get from the McCullough book. Has the audience for books become Snowflakes? That’s the flip side of revisionist tear-them-all-down biographies by some where the very point is derision, to put the writer on a Know-It-All pedestal by showing how vastly deceived we have all been by cultural myths meant to praise white male capitalists, etc. I don’t want the Wrights torn apart. But it would be interesting to understand that era better than just a soft-focus praise. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 10:02:51 GMT -8
Well, you’re exactly right. Bring it into context. Space it out a little. Unless your great grandfather walked on the moon, what we’re usually going to find out is grandfather was a farmer, grandmother’s family were bankers, and little Jimmy ran off to see the South Seas when he was 15. It all becomes much the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 21, 2020 10:03:26 GMT -8
Many non-fiction works, including biographies, have appendices dealing with ancillary issues. That would be a good place to provide detailed family tree information. A small amount is generally useful and even necessary in the main text, but the rest can be kept for those who are really interested.
As I mentioned, I now have a Kindle text of the McCullough biography available, and was thinking of making that my next read (though I have plenty of good alternatives, such as P. J. O'Rourke's book on the election of Trump). So: Would you recommend I continue that plan, or hold it off for a while, or just forget about it? It's not like I have a lot of alternatives on this particular topic.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 10:46:15 GMT -8
Fred Howard did include a small amount. I guess he got it about right about Wrights. I enjoyed the read. But clearly the more I went into the book, the more I intuited that much was missing. What is included is interesting enough. I think you’d enjoy it. But, frankly, if you’re read what I’ve written about it so far (and I hope you have), you may already have the gist of it. I thought the time and circumstances in France were very well done. It was a real “fish out of water” story. And, in this case, the fish stayed wet. That is, Wilbur (in particular) was so anchored into who he was and what he was doing, his head wasn’t easily turned by luxury and notoriety. Imagine having 100,000 people (including princes, kings, and prime ministers) in the stands waiting for you to take to the air…and you hold off from doing so because the wind is just a bit higher than you’d like it. It takes a major set of balls to resist simply pleasing the crowd. And Wilbur decided who he would take into the air. You couldn’t buy your way into the passenger seat. I would have liked to learn a bit more about their bicycle shop. In reading just the free Kindle sample of the Fred Howard book, I learned that they actually had a baking station for the enameling of their bikes. And the process of “home made” bicycles was a little better explained. Zillions of businesses were manufacturing the parts for bikes (frames, gears, wheels, etc.). But only a relatively few businesses were dedicated to putting them together. So there was an opportunity and business in basically making your own bikes (assembling the parts in whatever combination suited you) and selling them…by buying these manufactured pieces. Even so, obviously there was the ability to customize these pieces. The Wrights apparently (in their premium models) put the paint on very thick. There may have been other things they custom-built in the shop. That would be interesting to know. Actually, the author notes that their career as printers has been covered in 1988’s Printing History by Charlotte and August Brunsman. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 11:00:15 GMT -8
Well, exactly. And I won’t say that McCullough didn’t at least gloss over some of these technical aspects. But it was indeed usually just a gloss.
What I learned from McCullough’s book is how extraordinarily technically talented these two boys were, how much they enjoyed doing and learning new things, and how much energy they had. You had noted as a primary characteristic of great men (such as Churchill) their ability and desire to work. The sheer energy in their life. These boys had that in spades. It’s astonishing.
My father had a bit of that. If he needed something, he could more likely make it. And he was always involved in something. He was very mechanically handy. I’m not. But it’s interesting to learn (even from the brief bio in the Fred Howard book) that mechanical skill was highly manifested in his mother’s side of the family.
Howard brilliantly describes why these boys were not content with just becoming gazillionaires by franchising their bicycle business. (This also describes my father as well who was a rolling stone and tended to gather little moss):
Frankly, I don’t remember any kind of analysis like that in McCullough’s book. Was Howard just making this up? Or was this his analysis (perhaps from reading some of their letters as well) of the character type of Wilbur and Orville which, to me, is so obvious to see from the basic facts of their lives?
What can also be learned (at the very least) from McCullough’s book (again…it seems not to be put into context) is that Wilbur was a pretty good speaker, if only because he was no-nonsense and got to the point. But otherwise he was generally as non-touchy-feely as you can get. I guess I like that more old-fashioned, non-girly-man stoic aspect of him.
And he (Orville as well to some extent) was a very learned man.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 21, 2020 11:45:34 GMT -8
I think you’ll also like the part about the nitty-gritty details of the hardships they faced at Kitty Hawk. Plus, I would appreciate another set of eyes on this to gain some perspective. Perhaps I’m being unfair to McCullough. Not that anyone would know, but I wonder how Wilbur contracted typhoid. Another reason to build the wall. I wonder what Wilbur ate or drank: It is a real shame that antibiotics were not available: |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 22, 2020 14:05:01 GMT -8
"Vienna Blood" by Dr. Frank Tallis
Last Sunday, PBS ran a new crime mystery titled "Vienna Blood." The program takes place in Vienna around 1900. It introduces Detective Oskar Reinhardt and Dr. Max Liebermann, an acolyte and acquaintance of Sigmund Freud. Reinhardt is a hardened detective who has not solved a big case for some time, and Liebermann has pulled strings to observe the inner-workings of a police investigation. If for no other reason, I would have found the program of interest as there were shots of Vienna which were familiar to me. But I also found the sets and acting worthwhile, so I decided to watch till the end. It is a two part program, therefore I will tune in next Sunday to see how things wrap up. The show piqued my interest so I looked into the series and found it was based on books written by a Frank Tallis; a clinical psychologist who writes fiction. That should have scared me off, but as they say, "fools rush in...." In any case, I logged into my local lending library's webpage and found several books by Dr. Tallis and checked out one of the series titled "Vienna Blood," which has nothing to do with the story of the PBS series. Apparently, the TV producers liked the sound of Vienna Blood and used it to cover the whole series of episodes which they produced. Something like Star Wars covers a number of film titles. I finished the book on Monday and wanted to give myself a little time to think about it before making any comments. The book deals with a sexually motivated serial-killer, so the subject is not for the delicate. But what makes the book somewhat odd and over-the-top is the detail which is gone into by those involved when looking into the motivations of the killer. On the one hand are the notes of the serial killer himself, on the other are the "discussions" between Liebermann and Freud and Liebermann and Reinhardt which are unnecessarily detailed. In my opinion, the serial killer's notes damage the flow and suspense of the book and Liebermann's musings are somewhat prurient. The novel itself is an easy read and the story quite plausible. There are also a couple of side-stories which are of interest. The writing is above average, which is something one does not encounter often enough in our half-literate days. I am not yet sure if I can recommend the series as I want to be sure that it is not just another case of psycho-babble covering for smut. I have therefore reserved another of the series and will pick it up from my library in the next day or two. Once I read that novel, I will make my determination whether or not I can recommend the series.
On a side note, much of Freud was completely debunked decades ago. I recall my intro-psych professor being called the last living Freudian. This was in 1972-73. But I assume the author is trying to give a certain verisimilitude to the novel by the nonsensical spoutings of Freudian theory.
Another side note is that I do not particularly like the term "Vienna Blood." This is, no doubt, a translation of "Wiener Blut" which is a famous Strauss operetta. I think "Viennese Blood" is a better translation. Maybe it was already copyrighted.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 22, 2020 14:33:29 GMT -8
I look forward to your report on the next novel.
There’s a lot in the Freudian view’s inner works of how it’s all supposed to work…much more detail than I know about. But I would say the psychobabble is necessary because of these two central aspects:
1) It claims to be scientific
2) It is a materialist view of human beings
If man can be reduced to the mere transfer of chemicals in brain synopses (or even just unconscious impulses or unresolved traumas), and if science is to claim the territory of human behavior, it must furnish an explanation.
We see the same thing with Darwinism. Regardless of how life actually came about (and we have little idea at present), Darwinism has the two same central aspects:
1) It claims to be scientific
2) It is a materialist view of human beings
To be those two things (in contrast to any sort of spiritualism or “spooky” religious view), it must have answers and have them now. And so Darwinism, exactly like Freudianism, is full of the equivalent of psycho-babble — what is referred to as “just-so” stories which attempt to explain but are only ever stories.
It’s like going to the Temple of Delphi. They claim to be able to foretell the future, so they’re not likely to behave like a Magic 8 Ball and answer “Try again later.” They’re supposed to have the answers so they, dammit, will have the answer. And they’ll couch it in whatever kind of bamboozling babble they have to in order to make it sound authoritative.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 22, 2020 14:54:59 GMT -8
Marx (Larry), Darwin (Curly) and Freud (Mo). The three stooges of the modern era. Every one a pseudo-scientist.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 22, 2020 15:50:58 GMT -8
Moe was always the bossy stooge (the one who played Hitler in their anti-Nazi parodies). Obviously Marx should be Moe.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 22, 2020 15:53:45 GMT -8
But his hair looks like Larry's.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 23, 2020 8:05:01 GMT -8
Marx = grievance
Darwin = atheism
Freud = eternal emotional drama
All are a dripping acid on any traditional ideas as surely a Three Stooges finger was a poke in the eye.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 23, 2020 13:41:04 GMT -8
I found this book, Life Below Stairs, on the online library. I almost wish I hadn’t. Thirty-percent into it, it consists of a general description of the duties of each type of worker downstairs as well as an overall look at the system. It’s actually been fairly interesting. Having watched my share of Upstairs Downstairs (Does not Richard Bellamy make the perfect aristocrat?), I can’t say yet there is a lot of new territory. But it’s likely the televised versions we see (including Downton Abbey) have been somewhat softened. However, in at least one of the Dr. Thorndyke books (and consistent with what this book is saying so far), for those lowest on the totem pole below stairs, it could be a very rugged life indeed — far more difficult than just hearing a few harsh words from Mr. Carson ( Downton Abbey) or Hudson ( Upstairs Downstairs). This book is interesting enough and I’ll continue with it. But the downside was that I was motivated to watch a little more Downton Abbey. I thought the first three seasons were fairly tightly written. But when I started the fourth (years ago), it was clear they were just repeating themselves. But I did blow my way through the fourth season in the last couple of days. Many elements are getting old. For example, the homosexual, Thomas Barrow, makes no sense in this as the villain any more. All know he’s a villain (or should know) and yet he’s kept on. And he just happens to be there overhearing a private conversation. Much of the writing in season four is highly of this nature: gimmicky, unbelievable, and unimaginative. Still, outside of a few storylines that are dullards there are others that can carry the plot along just fine. But it’s a mixed bag. Watching this, the desire to step into a time machine and join that era is strong. The correct answer is that you would want to materialize yourself into the laps of luxury of one of the blue bloods. But I’m not so sure things wouldn’t be much more interesting (if harder) downstairs. I have no idea of the truth of the British aristocracy. They are typically portrayed as the kind of goofy dullards or pompous personages that you seen in Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster. Neither Downton Abbey nor Upstairs Downstairs lend themselves to crude stereotypes, although one does wonder if Maggie Smith’s portrayal of the Dowager Countess of Grantham isn’t over the top — or completely spot-on. I just don’t know. But in at least the semi-fantasy lands of these two programs, life below stairs looks a tad more interesting. Upstairs they tend to be rather fossilized. It wasn’t a bad life to be in service….especially if the alternative was living in the streets or starving. They were paid very little but they got free room and board…and the food was very good, often feasting on the leftovers of the family upstairs. The senior staff could actually profit significantly with the perks they had, everything from reselling the items they were given to the extreme case of Mrs. Hume, the housekeeper (a co-senior position along with the butler) in the nineteenth century of Warwick Castle, who piled up a fortune of £30,000 (now about £1.3 million) in wages and gratuities. This was primarily achieved by “showing interested visitors around the property”.  |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 23, 2020 14:06:15 GMT -8
A little of this reminds me of the time Scooter on The Muppet Show was selling backstage passes to groupies of the guest star (Sylvester Stallone, I think). He got a lot of money doing it, which made him better off than the performers, as Fozzie Bear was reminded when his agent got Kermit to multiply his salary several times -- only to learn that zero is zero no matter how much you multiply it by. (The agent reminded Fozzie that he got 10% of that, and Fozzie figured he was worth every bit of it.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 23, 2020 14:51:05 GMT -8
Certainly Mrs. Hume was foreshadowing the need to resort to tourism as a means of maintaining in the family these large houses or castles.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 23, 2020 15:17:48 GMT -8
I did a book recommendation for ST for a book on the actors at Ford's Theater and what happened to them during and after Lincoln was assassinated. The description sounds a bit like that, except this is a general look at their lives instead of a study of the effect of a specific incident.
Of course, in addition to the wealthy with their large serving staff, you would have the smaller staffs of middle-class people. Watson and Holmes once discussed his problems with his maid (or "slavey"), who had been given notice by his wife (Mary Morstan Watson).
The Amazon description seems to imply that these servants knew a lot of secrets. One wonders how often these found their way into the wrong hands. Can you say Charles Augustus Milverton? Of course, he would need some sort of proof, as would the servants themselves. (They wouldn't want to expose their treachery to potential employers, especially their existing one.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 26, 2020 15:30:38 GMT -8
"Night School" by Lee Child Jack Reacher is at it again in Night School. The book takes place in 1996 while Reacher is still employed by Uncle Sam's Army. In the opening scene Reacher and a number of others are receiving various medals for special service. In Reacher's case, the medal is the Legion of Honor and the service was assassinating two war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. Jack is looking forward to some down-time after his latest assignment, but upon leaving the ceremony, he is met by a sergeant who passes on an order for Reacher to proceed to his commanding officer, immediately. In that meeting, Reacher is ordered to attend a "school." Jack wonders what this is all about, but all the general says is that he should be happy to receive these orders as the attendance of such schools is a path to career advancement. Reacher receives an old government vehicle and starts off to the address he is given. Once he arrives at his destination, he finds himself in a room with two other men who have also been told they are attending a school. One of the men is from the CIA and the other from the FBI. Both are, like Reacher, in their thirties, have been in their jobs for about 15 years and are reasonably high in their organizations. All three have just completed very successful assignments and are surprised to be shunted off like this. It quickly becomes clear that this is no school and that they are in fact "off the grid" as regards their families, friends and colleagues. Shortly after figuring this out, two black vans rush into the building's parking lot and out steps the National Security Advisor, one of his top deputies, and various guards who escort the two bigwigs into the building. The National Security Advisor confirms that they are here for a special mission which is ultra-secret and that the men, and any people they might require for the job, are to communicate only with him and his deputy NSA. He introduces his deputy, a female, tells the boys that she will be the point woman and then departs. The deputy NSA advises the men that they have been brought together because they cover all potential areas which might be legally covered, i.e. domestic law enforcement, international espionage and the military and that inter-agency cooperation could be vital for this mission. She tells them that something very big is about to happen, but they have little idea what that "something" is. All the NSA knows is that a group of Arabs, who are radical Islamist plants, are living in Hamburg. Luckily, the CIA in Hamburg, has an Iranian operative living in the same apartment with the Arabs and he has advised the CIA that the Arabs have been visited by a courier who was sent by terrorist leaders in Afghanistan. The courier has met someone who is demanding US$100 million for something which the Muslim terrorists want very badly. What that "something" is, and who is demanding it, the NSA doesn't know. The only certainty is that the terrorist leaders in Afghanistan must want it very badly if they are considering paying US$100 million for it. And if they want something that badly, it must be potentially very damaging to the West. What ever it is must be kept from them. From that moment on, the group works full out to put together the right team to analyze data and figure out what is about to happen. And stopping it. This takes them to Hamburg where they encounter some neo-Nazis as well as the radical Islamists. Needless to say, they do figure out what is going on and Reacher has a major part in de-cyphering the riddle and applying the necessary solutions. The book's final scene shows Reacher again in some nondescript room receiving yet another medal, this time the Commendation Medal. In my opinion, "Night School" is the most plausible Jack Reacher story I have read. There were a couple of faults, such as a completely needless and illogical murder which was done to make a point later in the book, as well as a clear misstatement of fact. But once I got past those mistakes, I found the book a good read. Perhaps the premise was a bit of a stretch, but one expects such things from Thrillers and given what we have recently seen from our government, maybe Lee Child is not stretching possibilities all that much. I can recommend "Night School" for any fan of fast action thrillers. |
|
