John Adams - HBO mini series

[Greg Peterson]

Just finished watching the HBO mini series John Adams.

I have to say it was quite interesting. I appreciated the slow, deliberate pace of the story. It was refreshing to not feel the producers were working within a severe time constraint. Even still, I feel like they skipped through or over matters that I was curious about.

All in all, I would recommend this mini series as a must watch.

It appears that indeed the more things change, the more they stay the same.

And Abilgails death scene left me slighty misty eyed. Well done!

[Frank Hagan]

Its my favorite historical drama. I thought they did an excellent job showing several things ... the formality of the Americans prior to the Revolution, and how that changed shortly thereafter (less bowing, etc.) From the beginning, with how they showed the Boston Massacre, to the end I think they did a magnificent job.

There was much left out of course; including attributing some famous words of Hamilton to someone else (Hamilton was hardly mentioned in the series). But its a fascinating portrayal of one of our least lovable founding fathers who was all the more irritating because he was, in the end, right.

[Leo Voisine]

I am reading the book.

So far I am about 1/3 of the way through.

Great book too.

I will definately be watching the movie.

[Belinda Barfield]

I agree, the series was very well done. We could use a little of the formality and respect for others exhibited in that time.

[Greg Peterson]

I agree, the series was very well done. We could use a little of the formality and respect for others exhibited in that time.

Huraah Belinda, I could not agree with you more.

When I meet my doctor, I always address him by his title, Doctor Mullens. He in turn calls me by my first name. I know it's petty and likely to meant to personalize the visit, but I for one would prefer to keep the interaction as professional as possible. Doctor visits get personal enough on their own as it is.

But in general I appreciated the courtesy, formality and the scope of their vocabulary. And and insult back then was cutting, scathing and a work of art (by today's standard at least).

"I'm quite finished speaking with you sir, good day."

I read somewhere a few years back that the vocabulary of modern society has substantially shrunk over the past several hundred years. The John Adams mini series seems to reinforce that idea. The Civil War documentary by Ken Burns also drove this point home with that famous letter that was sent from a soldier to his wife.

Frank - Hamilton was rightly or wrongly cast as a bad guy, if you will, and played a substantive role in several episodes.

It seems that politics haven't changed over the past 233 years.

Regardless, the politicians that signed the declaration had a lot more at stake than those of today. Would anyone of us be so willing to sign such a document today knowing the implications for ourselves and our families? Mind you, these were the elite and affluent of their day. I am doubtfulthat today's equivalent possess the same spirit.

[Frank Hagan]

Greg, you don't have to go back to the colonial era to see our language has shrunken. If you look at the clips of the first televised presidential debate, long before the advent of teleprompters, sound bites or spin-doctors, the candidates spoke at length, intelligently, and with full sentences. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QazmVHAO0os

(Please, let's not get political in this ... the clip above has both Kennedy and Nixon speaking in the language of the time; good meaty answers to pointed questions, and actually address the question. Its what the American public expected in 1960.)

I'll have to watch it again -- we saw it a year or two ago when it was first offered on DVD -- I'm a big fan of the author of the book, David McCullough, and read it in hardcover when it first came out. I remember running to the book at one point when someone brings up an objection to Adams that was really Hamilton's statement in real life.

Paul Giamatti is always great in whatever he does and in this role I thought he was spectacular. Laura Linney was great as Mrs. Adams too. The actor that surprised me the most was David Morse as George Washington; I thought he did a very good job.

Its also worthwhile to view the "extras" on the DVD set.

[Greg Peterson]

Frank - there was a study done in the past decade that analyzed the vocabulary of the time versus centuries ago. Perhaps our vocabulary was more robust forty five years ago, but even at that it was substantially diminished from centuries ago. Thousands of unique words were used on a daily basis by the most ordinary persons of the time while in the 20th century we were using less than 800 unique words per day.

I think today's emoticons and text messaging shorthand (BFF, OMG..) are only enhancing the gathering momentum as we careen down the linguistic slope. The final destination? Perhaps our means of communication will be reduced to a series of grunts and groans. Our language certainly seems to be quickly beating a retreat to our primal roots.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

The "means of commuication" are in my opinion what has caused or accelerated this declining vocabulary and has changed society in other ways too.

Television...the internet have caused our society to expect all things to arrive "faster". Faster isn't always better. Whether it's waiting until you have cash for that new tool instead of using your credit card and waiting to worry about paying for it later.

I think these "means of communication" also is what has caused the volatility in the stock market. Before the advent of the computerized trading, a majority of the people trading stocks were "investors". Since the advent of computerized trading, a lot of folks have become "day traders".

Prior to television people interacted with their neighbors and friends more. Today with television and computers and the internet, individuals have become more isolated and tend to interact with those with the same beliefs. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Communications has accelerated, if not caused these changes in my humble opinion.

[Mike Henderson]

When I meet my doctor, I always address him by his title, Doctor Mullens. He in turn calls me by my first name. I know it's petty and likely to meant to personalize the visit, but I for one would prefer to keep the interaction as professional as possible. Doctor visits get personal enough on their own as it is.
I share your view. Some situations are "formal" in my mind and visits to a professional, such as a doctor, fall into that category. I just have a problem with some young front office kid, who I don't really know, addressing me by my first name. I just tell the front office staff that I want to be addressed by my last name. They put a notation on my chart and I don't have any problems.

I am on a first name basis with a couple of doctors and I'm okay with that (I address him by his first name and he addresses me by mine). And it turns out to be the younger docs who are easy with the use of their first names.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

Mike - Formal. That is the word I was looking for. And yes, when interacting with a professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant...) I think the relationship should be kept formal unless both parties come to an agreement on the level of informality that is exceptable.

Ken - Indeed technology has invented an entirely new class of language; jargon. Once one field adapts the pervasive nature of acronyms as common practice, ever other field apparently feels obligated to join the arms race.

And yes, we do tend to flock to online communities that we share something in common with. And while we may share woodworking as a common interest, in many instances this is the only interest in common. Online interactions tend to be very one dimensional. This is slowly taking place of actual human interaction with friends, family and neighbors.

Where will it end?

[Dan Mages]

I think today's emoticons and text messaging shorthand (BFF, OMG..) are only enhancing the gathering momentum as we careen down the linguistic slope. The final destination? Perhaps our means of communication will be reduced to a series of grunts and groans. Our language certainly seems to be quickly beating a retreat to our primal roots.

"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak […]. Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.”

—Orwell, 1984

Next year HBO will show a 10 episode miniseries called The Pacific from Steven Speilberg and Tom Hanks about Marines serving in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. They spent $200 million on the project, so the production should be just stunning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pacific_%28miniseries%29

Dan

[Belinda Barfield]

When I meet my doctor, I always address him by his title, Doctor Mullens. He in turn calls me by my first name. I know it's petty and likely to meant to personalize the visit, but I for one would prefer to keep the interaction as professional as possible. Doctor visits get personal enough on their own as it is.


I worked for years for a group of doctors and always addressed them by their professional title and last name. Even when requested, and in social situations, I would not address any of them by first name. The only time I addressed a patient by first name was when the patient was a child. For me it was just a matter of respect.

I once told my sister-in-law that I was discombobulated. Her response was "Hey, there's no cause for using big words that people don't understand.":eek: My thought on that was, why not?

I love to read letters, etc., from the "good old days" when folks really knew how to communicate a thought, idea, insult, etc.

[Rod Sheridan]

Manners, courtesy and the use of language are few of the choices completely within our control.

It doesn't matter how old you are, or what your educational experiences have been, to a large extent you alone are responsible for your use of language, manners and respect shown toward others.

Technology does influence the words we use, and we use many acronyms in daily speech, however those words aren't responsible for our actions.

In my opinion, we have become more selfish, and less concerned with the welfare of the group, as opposed to ourselves.

Previous generations were responsible for developing healthcare, unemployment insurance, welfare etc. I wonder how many of these programs, developed out of a concern for the group, would be started in these more self centered times?

We've accomplished many technological accomplishments during our lives, which have greatly benefited those of us fortunate enough to have won the "Ovarian Lottery".

Those of us born into the affluent Western world, have in my opinion become more self centered, more rude, and have lost much of the veneer of civilization that our parent's enjoyed.

Regards, Rod.

[Greg Peterson]

Rod - Grand Slam. Or to put it into the vernacular our northern neighbors are accustomed to, Hat Trick!

Belinda - I was watching part of Borat over the weekend (I found parts of the movie funny, but that is not my brand of humor in general.) and was pleased to see the stereotypical southern manners on display under even the most trying of circumstances. The ladies were every bit ladies as someone in the NW would expect, and the gentlemen lived up to their reputations as well.

Courtesy, manners and respect continue to well serve those who choose to use them.

[Clifford Mescher]

I will go against the grain here. I thought the series was good at best. Things to remember before comparing the present and the past. The series was based on the privileged of that era. They were far from the norm. Most people in those days had minimum education and farming and essential trades were the norm. I'm sure that if you could hear normal conversations from woodworkers of that day..you would not be impressed. Clifford.

[Greg Peterson]

Obviously these were privileged people. They were also great thinkers, an attribute held in contempt these days. By today's standard, we would consider the likes of Adams, Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson 'elites'. Ignorance has become is a badge of honor in modern times. Public figures are required to make claims of being ordinary, average, 'common sense' folk so as not alienate their fans, followers or whatever.

But the common folk of that era, according to an article or report I read some time ago now (I'll google it if you require further evidence) indicated that our modern vocabulary is nowhere near as expansive and robust as it once was.

We view people of earlier times as simple, inarticulate, course and base when in fact it is our own era that is diminishing the value of the subtleties and nuances of our language, placing greater value on the most pedestrian words and acronyms of the time. BFF, 24/7, you betcha, yup, ahuh, nope....

[Rich Stewart]

Hmmm. Makes me wonder what y'all thought of Deadwood.

[Belinda Barfield]

Hmmm. Makes me wonder what y'all thought of Deadwood.


LOL, now that's a whole different discussion entirely!!

[Greg Peterson]

Deadwood was awesome. It took a little getting use to, but the dialog was a work of art.

[Belinda Barfield]

Deadwood was awesome. It took a little getting use to, but the dialog was a work of art.


The dialog was a work of something, but I'm not sure I'd call it art!:eek::D

[Greg Peterson]

The dialog was colorful at times certainly, but the way David Milch twisted the sentences gave the words a meaning that was rich beyond their literal meaning.

The dialog writing was superb. The unconventional sentence structure was indeed a very deliberate process that helped make the series unique.

[Clifford Mescher]

Average folks in those days didn't have the time or inclination to stand around and talk. And if they did , I doubt you would have a very sophisticated TV show based on their dialogue. Clifford.

[Greg Peterson]

Yes Cliff, whatever you say.

I merely mentioned a study that was done some time ago indicating that the average person of that era used more unique words per day than those of us in modern society.

Of course you've come to your conclusion based on ....?

To be honest, I shared your opinion at one time. I found it very interesting that the breadth and depth of the modern vocabulary is greatly diminished from what we once considered a time populated by simple people.

[Frank Hagan]

While the founders were privileged, Adams was probably the least so; he wasn't born rich, or particularly wealthy, but he was educated.

I think you can see the difference between today and the past by looking at things like Civil War soldier's letters ... not from the officers, but from the soldiers. At that time, you could pay someone to take your place if you were drafted, so there were very few rich and privileged soldiers. They wrote much more formally than we do, and yes, their vocabulary was large.

I have a book that provides copies of many of the guild charters, town incorporation papers, etc. of the 1600 and 1700s. These were the working class people, and they used a much more formal language than we use.

If you look at the originals, you do notice one area where we do much better today: standardized spelling. The number of variations in words, and even in names, is surprising. My cousin has a great, great uncle who has his last name spelled differently than his wife's last name ... on their headstone. The family story is that they argued about it all the time.

[Greg Peterson]

Frank - My grandparents spelled their last name with a D instead of a T. The proper spelling was indeed with a D, but when he went into the Army back in the 50's some clerk misspelled his name. Good luck telling the Army they made a mistake. So it's been Peterson ever since.

Writings of the common folk indeed provide a window into the thoughts and thinkings of the time. It is clear they were indeed articulate and thoughtful and no where near being simpletons.

[Clifford Mescher]

Here is just a small cut & paste from England:
changes in literacy: in the wake of the French Revolution, various institutions -- the Anglican Church and the Dissenting religious movements throughout Europe prominent -- decided that the only way to prevent the "infection" of domestic populations by the disease of Radicalism was to make them literate. Richard Altick, the leading historian of the literarcy phenomenon in the UK, writes that the prevailing beliefe was that "If, however, the millions could be herded into classrooms, if only for a brief time, they could be permanently immunized against Jacobinism, radicalism, subversion, blasphemy, atheism, and every other ill to which they were exposed by the east wind of social change. Their native reason, however crude and untutored, could be depended upon to accept the truths of religion and society as laid down before them by the superior classes..." [1] (http://www.noumenal.com/marc/unstamped.html#bib_Altick). Literacy -- the ability to make sense of the printed word -- was, we need to remember, the key to enter the dissemination mechanism: one had to be able to read to tap into the machine. We don't have any really good data on literacy levels in, say, the UK, for the period 1780-1830 (remember that statistics, called "political arithmetic" for a lot of the 19th century, was invented as a science in the late 1700s, and was not practiced reliably until the second half of the 19th century), but here is a swag. class with In 1814, there were roughly 17 million people in the UK (England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). 1.5 million of these were either upper- or upper-middle class, where the literacy rate was 75% or better. 2.8 million were shopkeepers or small farmers, with a literacy rate of 1 in 3 to 1 in 4. Roughly 12 million were "mechanics, artisans, meanials, servants, paupers and vagrants" a a literacy rate of perhaps 1 in 20. By 1850, if we were to look at those same classes, we would find literacy rates of around 90% for the upper/upper-middle classes, 75% for the skop-keeping/small-farmer class, and 50% for the "lower classes". More importantly, the size of each band has grown substantially creating by 1850 or so what Wilkie Collins, the popular novelist, called "the unknown public," a reading culture that bought his books in the tens of thousands.

[Greg Peterson]

Cliff, what is your point?