A review of Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” (PBS)

“Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.”

– Ernest Hemingway, in his acceptance speech for the 1954 Nobel Prize for Literature

Ken Burns delivers a stellar (and moving) biography of a great American author

Before watching this film, my only experience with Ernest Hemingway was watching the 1996 film “In Love and War,” which dramatizes both his experiences in World War One and his brief romance with Agnes von Kurowsky (played therein by Sandra Bullock). Admittedly, this was a fairly limited acquaintance with the man, and I still haven’t read any of his works. But I knew of his influence, and was willing to try just about any film made by Ken Burns, despite my admitted literary ignorance. I was a great admirer of his earlier film about Mark Twain, despite having a similar ignorance about Mark Twain and his works. Thus, I set out to record my reaction to Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” in this post.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of Shakespeare”

He had more influence upon the English language than any other individual – perhaps even more than the Biblical translator William Tyndale. Shakespeare’s plays are still read and performed today, more than three centuries after their author’s death. Even literary ignoramuses like me can recognize lines like “Brevity is the soul of wit,” or “To be or not to be” – an oft-parodied line, even in comic strips like “Calvin and Hobbes.” Relatively few of us have ever bothered to read a Shakespeare play when it’s not assigned, partly because the original language can seem rather inaccessible to us today. Yet he left an influence upon the way that we speak, which is still felt right down to the present day.

William Shakespeare

The best way to learn about Shakespeare is probably to read his sonnets and plays, or watch some of his plays performed on stage – or in certain good film adaptations. But this documentary approach will still tell you much about his life. It is a biography of the man – a man whose life has long been shrouded in mystery. In the documentary world, this may be the most in-depth biography of Shakespeare that you’re likely to find. To find something more in-depth, you’d probably have to turn to the world of books. I freely admit that I’m no expert on Shakespeare, since I never even bothered to read one of his plays in the original. The closest that I came was to watch the 1953 film adaptation of his play “Julius Caesar,” starring James Mason as Brutus. This, at least, is closer to him than watching “West Side Story” in my youth – an adaptation of his famous play “Romeo and Juliet.” Incidentally, I turned on the Spanish subtitles for that DVD of Julius Caesar. I had an easier time understanding the Spanish than the Shakespearean English, and I’m a native speaker of English (but not of Spanish).

Garlanded statue of William Shakespeare in Lincoln Park, Chicago

The unknown story behind the King James Version of the Bible

“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough, shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost!”

– William Tyndale (author of an early translation of the Bible into English), in a heated exchange with a priest

What led up to the King James Version of the Bible (first published in 1611)?

Even today, the King James Version of the Bible is the most commonly-used Biblical translation in the United States. Its influence is declining in some other English-speaking countries, but its status still remains strong today in many others. Even among atheists like Richard Dawkins, it is acknowledged as “a great work of literature.” Dawkins also added that “A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.” Certainly the KJV (as it is often abbreviated) has had a great influence upon the history of the English language. One would have to turn to Shakespeare to find comparable influence upon the history of our own language. I would like to pay a brief tribute to the unsung heroes who helped to bring us this translation into English, as well as those who brought us other translations into other languages. But my focus here will be on the history involved, and what led to the writing of the King James Bible.

St. Jerome, mentioned below

A review of Robert McCrum’s “The Story of English” (book)

In 1986, there were two versions of “The Story of English” – a television series, and a book. I never got to see much of the television series, since it’s almost impossible to get on VHS, let alone DVD. I had the opportunity to check out a few episodes from my local library, before that library got rid of these VHS tapes (why, I don’t know). Specifically, I watched the first three episodes, two of which are considered to be the best of them. But I was able to read the bestselling book, the version that I’ll be reviewing here in this blog post. It is a fine book, which I recommend to others interested in either linguistics or English – or history, for that matter.

John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost”

A review of “Australia: The Story of Us”

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.”

– “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900,” an act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which helped to establish the “Commonwealth of Australia”

It’s much easier to get English-language documentaries about the histories of English-speaking countries, as you might expect. This, to be sure, is part of why I got this documentary. But that’s not the only reason – I’m also very interested in the history of the British Commonwealth to boot, of which Australia is still a part. Australia also has a fascinating history in its own right. This is a good documentary about it, to be sure, but its style and focus are not really my favorites. Their focus does have its advantages, because they talk about other things besides the traditional focus on “politics and the military.” If you like the history of sports and music, of science and technology, or of business and the private sector, you will probably enjoy this documentary. But if you’d rather hear more about Australian involvement in World War Two than the origins of Australian football, you’d be better off going elsewhere.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Mark Twain” (PBS)

“I was sorry to have my name mentioned as one of the great authors, because they have a sad habit of dying off. Chaucer is dead, Spencer is dead, so is Milton, so is Shakespeare, and I’m not feeling so well myself.”

– Mark Twain, in a “Speech to the Savage Club,” 9 June 1899 (about ten years before his death)

I should give a disclaimer that I’ve never read a single book that Mark Twain wrote. I watched a movie or two based on “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” and have often heard of his masterpiece “Huckleberry Finn.” But since I didn’t take Honors English in high school, I was never required to read any of his works (although I have heard bits and pieces of them). But I have often been amused by some of his quips, and have admired the quality of his language despite this. Nonetheless, I don’t claim to be an expert on Mark Twain, and can give only a layperson’s view of this documentary. I shall leave the literary criticism to reviewers more qualified to engage in it.

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of Huw Edwards' “The Story of Wales”

“ … That [the] said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this Realm of England … ”

– “Laws in Wales Act of 1535,” an act passed by the Parliament of England

If you've ever looked for “The Story of Wales” on DVD, you've probably discovered that it's somewhat pricey. Fellow Americans would be lucky to get a copy of it for less than $100 of our own currency. But in my opinion, the benefits may be well worth it; if you're into British history as I am, and if you have British ancestors as I do. My ancestors are from all over the place, actually, and my family tree includes some branches from Wales. But I also have ancestry from Scotland, Ireland, and England as well as Wales. Thus, I have ancestors from all over the British Isles. As you may have gathered, I am an American; and this is my only nationality. But I have a great respect for the United Kingdom, and am proud of my heritage from the British Isles – including, and most relevantly, my Welsh heritage. Thus, I have devoured things related to British history; and was glad for the opportunity to watch this series.

The document that changed everything in America …

When the Founding Fathers wrote the original Constitution in 1787, they were creating a document that would change everything in America, keeping a fragile union of thirteen states from descending into war debts, bankruptcy, and even armed rebellions. One uprising in particular came from a disgruntled Revolutionary War veteran named Daniel Shays, whose uprising against the government of Massachusetts had been an impetus for holding the Constitutional Convention in the first place. It did not start out as a popular document, and was opposed openly even by some of the men who had been present at the Convention. Thus, the particulars of this document were debated fiercely from one end of the thirteen former colonies to the other.

George Mason

Luther Martin

What were the particulars of this document, and why did they create such an uproar when they were first written? What relevance might its passages have today, when our world is so different from the one they inhabited 200 years ago? What was it about this document that caused it to be so successful, and which made the country that adopted it into the greatest superpower that the world has ever known? And why is this most essential ingredient to the country's remarkable success story such an obscure and forgotten secret?

In this series, I will try to answer these questions, as I talk about everything from the people that influenced the Constitution (such as John Locke, and Baron de Montesquieu) to the men that commented on it (such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Abraham Lincoln). I will try to be informative, but I will not shy away from inserting persuasive commentary at times as well. I will lay out the case for why the Constitution of the United States is the greatest success story that human politics has ever known.

A review of Alistair Cooke's “America: A Personal History of the United States”

" ... these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ... "

- The American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

The British writer George Bernard Shaw is supposed to have once told a joke about the relationship between Britain and America. "The United States and Great Britain," he said, "are two countries separated by a common language." We argue about how to spell words and how to pronounce them, I think, and the "common ground" between us can sometimes be a battleground. All kidding aside, though, there is something special about the relationship between our two countries; and our shared English language could just be the most obvious manifestation of this extreme closeness. In ways that we sometimes take for granted, I think, we understand each other's humor and share each other's values. Our love of democracy and liberty, furthermore, is a characteristic that is somewhat rare in the world; and though it is found abundantly in both countries, it is not often found elsewhere to the same degree.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt meets with Winston Churchill aboard the HMS Prince of Wales - Atlantic Charter, 1941

The divide between the Americans and the British

Our culture is much the same, I think, and our view of the world is identical in many ways. But there are some differences between us that cause us both to misunderstand each other at times. It is somewhat unfortunate that my fellow Americans, for example, sometimes see the British as stuffy and unemotional (perhaps even snobbish), while the British sometimes see Americans as unsophisticated rubes who can be impetuous (and even obnoxious). I suspect that these differences have their origins in the fact that our histories diverged somewhat after the American Revolution, when the colonies declared that "all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved" (in the words of our Declaration of Independence). Thus, we have some significant differences between us, it is true; but these differences are not insurmountable. Thus, the BBC made this series about the history of America in 1973. This series was hosted by the famed journalist Alistair Cooke. This series attempted to explain us Americans - and I am an American, as you may have guessed - to our valued brethren in Britain. Thus, it helped to bridge the occasional gap of misunderstanding that sometimes pops up between us. (Although the misunderstandings are still pretty minimal even without this, and we are still a common family that gets along well most of the time.)

Alistair Cooke, the series presenter

A review of Michael Wood's “Story of England”

“... there was not one single hide, nor a yard [endnote] of land, nay, moreover (it is shameful to tell, though he thought it no shame to do it), not even an ox, nor a cow, nor a swine was there left, that was not set down in his writ [namely, the Domesday Book] ... ”

– “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” (a medieval document), chronicling the events of the Great Survey (for taxation purposes) in the year 1085, as recorded in the so-called “Domesday Book” 

Michael Wood, the series presenter

England is the dominant part of the United Kingdom today

Even a cursory look at the British population will show that the dominant part of the United Kingdom is England, since more than 80% of its population resides in England. (That's according to the country's last census in 2011.) The rest of them are often lumped together into the term "Celtic peoples"; which come from the Celtic regions of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each of these peoples has a long history of conflict with England, and the fact that they almost always speak English today (not to mention their smaller numbers, in comparison with the English) all testify to the degree that they were conquered by England. This is, of course, a major factor in British society today, and a painful situation for many a Celt.

Did prior series from the BBC cover English history too much (and Celtic history too little)?

It may have been England's predominance over internal British affairs that caused a prior series from the year 2000 - namely, Simon Schama's "A History of Britain" - to focus mainly on England in its political history, rather than to try to cover everything else in the British Isles. A number of Celts felt somewhat neglected by the larger Simon Schama history, and so the BBC made a few other series that focused more on Celtic history - such as Fergal Keane's "The Story of Ireland," Huw Edwards' "The Story of Wales," and Neil Oliver's "A History of Scotland." While these series may have served to pacify some of the Celtic audiences for the BBC, it is ironic that the BBC eventually decided to go back to English history (at least temporarily), and make another series about England - which is, of course, Michael Wood's "Story of England," the topic of this post.

King Henry VIII, the only person to be mentioned by name in an episode title

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

A review of Michael Wood's “The Story of India”

"As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan."

- Indian Independence Act of 1947, as passed by the British Parliament

I should give a disclaimer for my international readers that I am from the United States (rather than from India), and that none of my ancestors are from India, either - just from European countries like Britain, the country that financed this documentary. Thus, I do not claim to be an expert on India, as I am just a layperson in North America who is an outsider to this culture. With that disclaimer in mind, I will give an opinion on Michael Wood's "The Story of India," and how it compares with some other country histories I've seen on television.

A review of Fergal Keane's “The Story of Ireland” (BBC Northern Ireland)

" ... the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of 'the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' ... "

- Act of Union (Ireland) of 1800, passed by the Parliament of Ireland; and accompanying the Union with Ireland Act of 1800, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

I should preface this review by saying that I am an American, whose ancestors are predominantly from the "British Isles." Although this includes much English, Scottish, and Welsh; I also have a significant portion of Irish ancestry as well; and so Ireland is something of a heritage country for me. As a disclaimer, though, I will freely say that I have grown up with a generally positive view of the British (although one which recognizes that the British were not perfect people, and did a number of things that complicate their legacy). I will also say freely that all of these things notwithstanding, I have not always sympathized with the anti-British rhetoric coming from some in Ireland today, although I have disagreed with a number of things that the British have done over the years - including the way that they treated my American homeland, in the years of our own revolution; and the way they treated the other colonial peoples of their empire in the complicated history of British imperialism.

A modern stained glass window of Saint Patrick (the man who brought Catholicism to Ireland),

whose authenticity I will neither vouch for nor call into question

Catholics and Protestants is a major theme in Irish history

Nonetheless, all these things aside; I felt like I learned a lot from this landmark documentary on "The Story of Ireland," and it helped me to understand the other side of the story - a largely Catholic viewpoint, to be sure - from the one we often hear in my predominantly Protestant country. I consider myself a neutral in the wars between Catholics and Protestants, I should note; and as a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I don't feel compelled to pick sides in this argument. (As my dad might say, I "don't have a dog in this fight.") I sympathize with both sides in this struggle to a large degree; and I certainly can understand the Irish side - and even sympathize with some of their grievances against the British - without any feelings of shame about my other "British Isles" heritage.

Union Jack flag, a potent symbol of British union that is controversial in much of Ireland

A review of Neil Oliver's “A History of Scotland”

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with England Act of 1707," Section I (passed by the Parliament of Scotland, and completing the process of Union begun by the "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," passed by the Parliament of England)

For my overseas readers, I should preface this review by saying that I am an American, but one who has ancestors in both Scotland and England - meaning that in the many conflicts between Scotland and England, I have ancestors from both sides of these conflicts; which is actually not uncommon in America. My mother's maiden name is McGregor (a clearly Scottish name), and my father's last name is Sparks (a more English name). Thus, I might have a kind of objectivity about the struggles covered in this series - an objectivity which, perhaps, might possibly be somewhat harder for those whose ancestors are all on one side, or all on the other. I have great pride in both of these cultures, I should add - and in the significant portion of my ancestors who came to America from the various parts of the British Isles. Thus, I had reason to be interested in this series.

A review of Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain”

"That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," Article I (passed by the Parliament of England, and later made official by the "Union with England Act of 1707," passed by the Parliament of Scotland)

I should preface this review, for my international readers, by saying that I am an American; but an American of mostly British descent, whose ancestors come mainly from England and Scotland. (England and Scotland today are both part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.) I identify strongly with Britain; not only because of my ancestry, but because Britons and Americans share common values such as freedom and democracy; and because we have been allies in war and peace for over two centuries; not fighting a war against each other since 1815 (the year the War of 1812 ended). Thus, I am much interested in the history of Great Britain, and thought I'd learn a little bit more about it by watching this series.

The Bill of Rights: historical context and strict construction

"The enumeration [or "listing"] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

- Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791), a sometimes-forgotten amendment in the Bill of Rights

It's the most familiar part of the Constitution - the one that the most people can quote. It's the most disputed part of the Constitution - the one whose meaning is most debated. And it's the most tangible part of the Constitution - the one that writes into stone the rights we use every day, and which is thus easiest to apply to everyday life.

The Constitutional Convention

The original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights

The portion is, of course, the Bill of Rights; but it was not a part of the original Constitution at all. The United States Bill of Rights was the first ten amendments to the Constitution. For those who don't know, an amendment is just another word for a change. The Constitution has been amended (or changed) 27 times since its adoption, and the first ten amendments written into it were the ones we today call our "Bill of Rights." They can today be seen in the context of the ratification debates, or the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution did not become law until it was approved by nine of the original thirteen states, and the states fiercely debated about whether or not we should have this Constitution.

The English Lesson

I don't know where I came across this poem, but I thought it was clever.

A review of Melvyn Bragg's “The Adventure of English” (ITV)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

- William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" (1597), Act II, Scene ii

I did not like most of my English classes growing up. This is ironic, considering I wanted to be a fiction writer, but with the notable exception of seventh grade (and English 101 in college), I found my English classes less than inspiring. So it might have come as a surprise to me that I would one day enjoy a documentary about the history of the English language. But enjoy it I did, and I felt inspired to write a post about it here.

A review of "Canada: A People's History"

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

- Canada's "Constitution Act of 1867," also known as the "British North America Act 1867"

I would like to offer my American perspective to this 32-hour Canadian series. I hope Canadians will not mind. I got this series because I was interested in the history of America's northern neighbor. Canada is one of the United States' biggest trading partners, and being interested in doing trade with Canada, and able to speak both French and English, I thought it would be helpful to know something about Canadian history and culture.

This documentary did not disappoint. It was dramatic and interesting, and I learned much about Canadian history. Having read from many online comments that even Canadians learned something about their history by watching this series, I am struck by its informative and educational power. It is also very moving in places, with great acting, music, and narration. Those looking to learn something about the country will not be disappointed.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, a major battle in the Seven Years' War - Quebec, 1759

(an important year in Canadian history, because it was the year that Canada became British)