Hi -- I haven't been around for a very long time, so no clue who remembers me and who doesn't. I was at the Burbank fest, so here's a few comments: I agree that Jonathan's comments about Grayson are being taken too seriously. He commented on a range of acting, the over the top being not only part of that, but a part that the fans have commented on quite often as well. The "missing" episode was interesting, but one can see why it wasn't produced. I can't add anything new to the comments on John Karlen, Marie Wallace, et al. I DO have to agree however that Jonathan's readings from
The Heiress, etc. were without expression, monotone, and, to me, disappointing. I expected far better from having heard the readings on his website. And I agree with everyone who said the Banquet was not up to par. The non choice of foods was not a good move, given the prevalence of food allergies -- and the meal chosen was practically designed to cover most of the major food allergies.
As to the comments stating that David Selby's talk was nothing but electioneering -- as borghosi says so well in the quote below, I wonder what those who witnessed it and were offended were expecting.
Everything that I had read about Selby's appearance at the fest said that he would be doing a reading from his book "Lincoln's Better Angel". This being an election year and Lincoln being who he was I don't know why anyone wouldn't expect politics to get in that. When you add to that the fact that Obama is black I would have been extremely susprised had his name not come up.
The book has been out since last year, and it's clear in any materials about the book what it covers, as well as it being a reworking of the original play
Lincoln & James which was presented at a Fest some years ago, and there are many write ups on the play from those who saw it.
I didn't see the play, so I was very happy to hear that a novel was being made from it. I am a long time history buff, with emphasis on Lincoln (also Teddy Roosevelt and the Victorian/Gilded age, which is why the 1897 storyline is my favorite). I read the book before I went to the fest, and I had a reasonable idea what to expect from Selby's talk on the book. I did not see the mentions of Obama as "electioneering" but the drawing of some of the same parallels which were used in the book, as well as perhaps an attempt to make it clear that the book had been written first. For those unfamiliar with the publishing industry, it often takes years for a book to see print, and with historical novels this time is spent revising and rechecking both the story itself and the historical facts so that (hopefully!) no embarrassing glitches see the light of day. So, by the time the book is published, the author ends up knowing their facts inside outside and upside down and can probably recite the major portions in their sleep. That I think was a lot of the problem with Selby's presentation. He knew his facts and his trains of logic to a degree that he didn't realize that the audience wasn't working from the same knowledge of facts. I know that even having read the book, I found some of his seques between his opinions and experiences and those of the characters in the book a bit confusing at times.
Some thoughts on the mentions of Obama: The parallels drawn are based in historical fact and as a matter of fact some that were mentioned in the talk and the book can be found on the website of the Lincoln presidential library. During the talk Selby referred to Illinois being basically fenced off from black migration in Lincoln's time. The website provides some examples of the laws in effect. It seems then to be a natural parallel to use the example of the state having those policies, but having progressed to the point where a candidate such as Obama can exist and be a viable presidential candidate. Also, Selby's official website notes a number of newpaper interviews with him about the book. The reporters mention similar interchanges regarding Obama, but are careful to note that Selby would not state his preference in candidate for the record. Maybe its just me, but if i were "electioneering" for a candidate, why would I NOT use my name to publicize my choice of candidate with a potential newspaper audience in the hundreds of thousands, but "electioneer" instead at an event with under two thousand people. Doesn't seem logical to me.
And on a final note -- the oft critiicized rap version of the Gettsyburg Address. That is directly from a scene in the book, where lead character Charles Huggins and Lincoln are at a church service where a youth does the rap version of the Address. The purpose of the scene is to illustrate the fact that the words are not just words on paper to be read, their true meaining lies in being SPOKEN.
If anyone is interested, I have my review of the book up on my website :
http://mediafanfiction.tripod.com/jeanniesdavidselbysite/id38.htmlMy apologies if this has ended up disjointed. I wrote a previous post that was eaten by the internet when I tried to pull up my site to copy the url.
![[8311]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/8311.gif "Bang Head Against Wall")
Hopefully I remembered all the points I meant to make.
Jeannie
