Tweet "Historical facts are treated with particular contempt"

Well, I had to ask. I don't take the genre lightly anymore. I've been through enough bios where the biographer attempted to milk sympathy out of me for a character who didn't deserve it (usually after said person has aged and/or lost power) that I'm no longer too patient with any book which does so. Facts are alright, I just prefer mine drier than most people. As soon as they start getting wet with fond remembrances and suppositions, I'm not so eager to read.

Not a problem with either biographer. After reading Eyman's work on both Mayer and DeMille, I don't know if I liked either party any better than I had before, but (especially with DeMille) I had a lot more respect for both and now don't think about them in black and white terms. That is always a plus. Oh heck, I'd probably very much enjoy having a coffee and a chat with Mr. DeMille. With Hearst, I genuinely think I might have liked the guy, although I'd take great care not to cross him.

[Mike Gebert]

There was one quote, I think in the old Swanberg bio of Hearst, that I thought came as close to being a Rosebud as anything I ever read, and made Hearst human for at least a minute. Hearst once mused to someone about a third party, "I don't know why he hates me, I never did him a favor."

There's a lot of insight into being a fabulously rich man in that observation.

There are monsters, and then there are monsters who achieve something. Someone once observed that (the genuinely predatory) Howard Hughes would have had more of his daddy's fortune left if he'd just put it in the bank at 2% interest and lived a moderate playboy's life without Spruce Gooses and Outlaws. And who'd know him now?

There was one quote, I think in the old Swanberg bio of Hearst, that I thought came as close to being a Rosebud as anything I ever read, and made Hearst human for at least a minute. Hearst once mused to someone about a third party, "I don't know why he hates me, I never did him a favor."

There's a lot of insight into being a fabulously rich man in that observation.

There are monsters, and then there are monsters who achieve something. Someone once observed that (the genuinely predatory) Howard Hughes would have had more of his daddy's fortune left if he'd just put it in the bank at 2% interest and lived a moderate playboy's life without Spruce Gooses and Outlaws. And who'd know him now?

One of the things I find most attractive about Hearst is his childlike glee when shopping...for everything! and for everybody! Hearst's business manager's job was to find the money, Hearst's job was to spend it. The guy genuinely enjoyed his money, which is not something you can say for your usual plutocrat.

The one point in Nasaw's book where he does inject some personal irritation is when discussing Citizen Kane and how it has colored beliefs about Hearst, Davies, and others. Welles apologized for the unfair depiction of Davies, but he never apologized for the equally unfair depictions of Phoebe Apperson Hearst or Millicent Hearst, or, frankly, of Hearst himself. It's a great film but people tend to take it as gospel. At the very least, film buffs should know better.

BoaN is an entirely different problem. One of the strange elements of the Griffith film was the filmmakers's surprised reaction to the outcry after the film was released, after all, weren't they just telling the truth? So one can hold the white American society contemptible for the egregious falsehoods promoted in the film, but these lies were bedrock in American culture at the time, so one can hardly say the filmmakers were lying deliberately.

O. K., so there was an "outcry" against the film, yet its content was "bedrock in American culture?" Which was it? The outcry must have been disturbing enough for Griffith to to feel its "Intolerance." And there were plenty of witnesses to the fact that the Klan was great at lynching and intimidation, not riding to the rescue.

There was one quote, I think in the old Swanberg bio of Hearst, that I thought came as close to being a Rosebud as anything I ever read, and made Hearst human for at least a minute. Hearst once mused to someone about a third party, "I don't know why he hates me, I never did him a favor."

There's a lot of insight into being a fabulously rich man in that observation.

There are monsters, and then there are monsters who achieve something. Someone once observed that (the genuinely predatory) Howard Hughes would have had more of his daddy's fortune left if he'd just put it in the bank at 2% interest and lived a moderate playboy's life without Spruce Gooses and Outlaws. And who'd know him now?

I know that nothing makes some one hate me liking lending them a substantial sum of money.

Bob

O. K., so there was an "outcry" against the film, yet its content was "bedrock in American culture?" Which was it?

The latter, without doubt. Said outcry arose from a fringe minority of "the usual suspects"--small beer contrasted with the endorsement of such a main-stream liberal as Woodrow Wilson, & many others of equal stature.

I know that nothing makes some one hate me liking lending them a substantial sum of money.

Bob

A perverse paradox, but oh, so true! And to engender even greater animosity, pay someone well in advance for some significant piece of work; your money will have been long since spent, with only the prospect of an unprofitable job hanging over the head of the resentful debtor.

BoaN is an entirely different problem. One of the strange elements of the Griffith film was the filmmakers's surprised reaction to the outcry after the film was released, after all, weren't they just telling the truth? So one can hold the white American society contemptible for the egregious falsehoods promoted in the film, but these lies were bedrock in American culture at the time, so one can hardly say the filmmakers were lying deliberately.

O. K., so there was an "outcry" against the film, yet its content was "bedrock in American culture?" Which was it? The outcry must have been disturbing enough for Griffith to to feel its "Intolerance." And there were plenty of witnesses to the fact that the Klan was great at lynching and intimidation, not riding to the rescue.

The outcry was from the African American community and the small thin slice of white liberals who saw the dangers of the film, but that was a very small component of the overall reaction to the film. The protests tended to be regional, Chicago and Los Angeles being examples, where the black press had more penetration into the larger community. So there was enough protest to get back to Griffith and upset him, after all, even an elephant would respond to a pin being jabbed in the foot, but overall the majority white culture swallowed the story hook-line-and sinker. President Woodrow Wilson supposedly said the film was "like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." He probably didn't say that line, but he didn't dispute that he said it either, the 'truth' part is what many if not most white Americans believed at the time, and the Klan lynching aspect was conveniently forgotten or dismissed as a side issue.

Well, I had to ask. I don't take the genre lightly anymore. I've been through enough bios where the biographer attempted to milk sympathy out of me for a character who didn't deserve it (usually after said person has aged and/or lost power) that I'm no longer too patient with any book which does so. Facts are alright, I just prefer mine drier than most people. As soon as they start getting wet with fond remembrances and suppositions, I'm not so eager to read.

Not a problem with either biographer. After reading Eyman's work on both Mayer and DeMille, I don't know if I liked either party any better than I had before, but (especially with DeMille) I had a lot more respect for both and now don't think about them in black and white terms. That is always a plus. Oh heck, I'd probably very much enjoy having a coffee and a chat with Mr. DeMille. With Hearst, I genuinely think I might have liked the guy, although I'd take great care not to cross him.

Considering the reportage I've read about Hearst some years back, it would be impossible for me to like him. I'd have to look at everyday people as though they were ants in an ant farm. If you could like someone you were afraid to cross, you're a better person than I am.

Considering the reportage I've read about Hearst some years back, it would be impossible for me to like him. I'd have to look at everyday people as though they were ants in an ant farm. If you could like someone you were afraid to cross, you're a better person than I am.

If you insist.

[Mike Gebert]

One of the things I find most attractive about Hearst is his childlike glee when shopping...for everything! and for everybody!

Years ago, a friend of mine co-wrote a screenplay about vampires on the loose in hippie-era California (and behaving in a way that can only be described as Manson-like). The way that vampirism came to California was that Hearst had bought a castle in Romania and had the whole thing shipped to San Simeon... tombs included.

It ended with a hippie chick infecting the then-governor of California...

[

Years ago, a friend of mine co-wrote a screenplay about vampires on the loose in hippie-era California (and behaving in a way that can only be described as Manson-like). The way that vampirism came to California was that Hearst had bought a castle in Romania and had the whole thing shipped to San Simeon... tombs included.

It ended with a hippie chick infecting the then-governor of California...

Well, CA is still stuck with him, except he's aging.

Rick

Well, CA is still stuck with him, except he's aging.

Rick

And with no Linda to sing him to sleep.

Considering the reportage I've read about Hearst some years back, it would be impossible for me to like him. I'd have to look at everyday people as though they were ants in an ant farm. If you could like someone you were afraid to cross, you're a better person than I am.

If you insist.

I do!

[Mike Gebert]

Actually it was Governor Reagan, but it could as well be Brown by now.

Actually it was Governor Reagan, but it could as well be Brown by now.

Either one of them could be one of the Undead...