Kitty Hawk
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kitty Hawk
-
-
1) Invention of the printing press.
I'm unclear about its origin, but I'm pretty sure Americans have come up with subsequent, improved versions of the original printing press. And it made Thomans Paine's pamphlet on "Give me liberty or give me death" possible on a wide scale.
Gutenberg invented the printing press. For Thomas Paine, you must be thinking of his "Common Sense," or "Crisis" papers ("These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot . . . ") since "Give me Liberty or give me death" were the immortal words of Patrick Henry.
-
1. Declaration of Independence
2. U.S. Constitution
3. Abolition of Slavery
4. Industrial Revolution
5. The Wright Brothers and Kitty Hawk
6. Skyscrapers
7. Manhattan Project
8. Apollo Program
9. Ayn Rand
10. Computer Revolution
-
This Biblical reference was pointed out in a book I read many years ago. In the scene where Galt and Dagny (and a few others) are flying away after Galt was rescued from his torturers, over and away from New York City, as that city descends into complete chaos:
. . . men were deserting their posts, trying, in panic, to abandon New York, seeking escape where all roads were cut off and escape was no longer possible.The plane was above the peaks of the skyscrapers when suddenly, with the abruptness of a shudder, as if the ground had parted to engulf it, the city disappeared from the face of the earth. It took them a moment to realize that the panic had reached the power stations---and that the lights of New York had gone out.
Dagny gasped. "Don't look down!" Galt ordered sharply.
Which is supposed to refer to the Biblical Soddom and Gomorrah scene where looking back during their escape turned the people who looked back into pillars of salt.
-
There was also a recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject of oil and it's non-scarcity, here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007377
Excerpts:
The limits-to-growth crowd has predicted the end of oil since the days when this black gold was first discovered as an energy source in the mid-19th century. In the 1860s the U.S. Geological Survey forecast that there was "little or no chance" that oil would be found in Texas or California. In 1914 the Interior Department forecast that there was only a 10-year supply of oil left; in 1939 it calculated there was only a 13-year supply left, and in 1951 Interior warned that by the mid-1960s the oil wells would certainly run dry. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter somberly told the nation that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."We can ridicule these doom-and-gloom predictions today, but at the time they were taken seriously by scholars and politicians, just as the energy alarmists are gaining intellectual traction today. But as the late economist Julian Simon taught, by any meaningful measure oil (and all natural resources) has gotten steadily cheaper and far more bountiful in supply over time, despite periodic and even wild fluctuations in the market.
This spectacular pace of technological progress explains why over time the amount of recoverable reserves of oil has increased, not fallen. Between 1980 and 2002 the amount of known global oil reserves increased by 300 billion barrels, according to a survey by British Petroleum. Rather than the oil fields running dry, just the opposite has been happening. In 1970 Saudi Arabia had 88 billion barrels of known oil. Thirty-five years later, nearly 100 billion barrels have been extracted and yet the latest forecast is that there are still 264 billion barrels left--although the Saudis have never allowed independent auditors to verify these numbers.In this industry, alas, bad news tends to crowd out the good. When Shell announced earlier this year that its oil and gas reserves were down by 30%, there was a global outcry. But when Canada announced in 2004 that it has more recoverable oil from tar sands than there is oil in Saudi Arabia, the world yawned. There is estimated to be about as much oil recoverable from the shale rocks in Colorado and other western states as in all the oil fields of OPEC nations. [Emphasis added by Kitty Hawk] Yes, the cost of getting that oil is still prohibitively expensive, but the combination of today's high fuel prices and improved extraction techniques means that the break-even point for exploiting it is getting ever closer.
Our point is that the constraints on our ability to find and extract new oil are not geologic or scientific. The real constraints on oil production are barriers created by government. Myron Ebell, an environmental analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that roughly 90% of the oil on the planet rests under government-owned land and these resources are abysmally managed. -
It has been quite some time (since the first Matrix) that I have watched a "new" sci-fi concept film and really enjoyed it from an entertainment, philosophical, and artistic level. I haven't seen the TV series but have them Q'ed in NETflix to be watched ASAP. I assume there will be either a return of the series as mentioned above, or a sequal film. Since my understanding is that things are going well for the film. I went to an almost packed house...All in all, I hope they continue the story in one form or another. It was lots of fun.
I'm no expert on box office success, but I don't think Serenity is doing too well at the box office. This Friday only took in half of last Friday. The film cost $39 million to make, and has so far made back about $14 million or so. But they are hoping to do very well on DVD, which may make up for a so-so box office take.
I personally would prefer to see the tv series renewed, rather than more movies.
Correction: Serenity has taken in $17,594,000, through Sunday, Oct. 9th.
-
On the other hand, I think Gong Li, while having slightly imperfect features, can project enormous spiritual strength, power and depth in her roles.
The same can be said for Michelle Yeoh, whom I mentioned earlier in the thread. I find her far more attractive than Zhang Ziyi. But Erika Sawajiri, whom I had never seen before, is quite lovely.
-
What's going on Kitty Hawk? I think I have been talking with you for about 9 years here and on the Cap-Mag forum. Anyway, I really want to to see this but need a babysitter! I think I have seen all the TV shows on SCI-FI network. I'll check back when I've seen it.
The CapMag forum is gone with the wind, isn't it? As for Serenity, I hope enough people go to see it to allow a sequel or two to be made. Sci-Fi network hasn't yet shown all the Firefly episodes, I think there are still 4 or 5 more to show, all excellent. Happy viewing.
-
I have heard that you do not need to have watched the 'Firefly' series to catch up with the movie but would it make for a fuller 'experience' of J. Whedon's vision, and a good grounding of the characters' pasts, to check it out beforehand? A friend has the series box-set and has offered to loan it to me but it'll be a tight squeeze to fit watching it in before I see the movie when it comes out in the UK.
It definitely makes the experience better to have seen the tv series first. Even if you can only watch a few episodes, it would help. It isn't essential, but enhances the experience greatly.
-
Anyway I have kind of a very specific question about the text if anyone has read it and can remember:
I believe when talking about plot or plot-theme Rand makes mention of a plot in which a lawyer must prosecute the woman he loves....I believe this is in Art of Fiction. Can anyone tell me where in the text this is because I can't find it and I am writing a story that has a plot somewhat similar to that and I'd like to re-read that passage but can't fin it in the text anywhere.
Thanks
It's on page 57 of The Art of Fiction, in the chapter How to Develop a Plot Ability, section Think in Terms of Conflict. Evidently this was the plot of the Cecil B. DeMille movie, Manslaughter.
-
Only the Valiant, a 1950 Western starring Gregory Peck. Kind of hard to find now, but worth the effort.
The hero is Captain Lance, a cavalryman. He finds himself stationed in the desert Southwest, Fort Winston, with as motley a crew of cavalry troopers as were ever assembled in one fort. The theme of the movie is that integrity is the essence of leadership. Strength, courage, resourcefulness, intelligence, ambition---all these too are aspects of a leader. But without integrity, they are insufficient. And the movie demonstrates this in a tightly constructed plot. The movie's symbol for integrity is West Point, where men who lack integrity are sent packing.
Many plot spoilers follow.
Several of the troopers are shown to hate Captain Lance, all for bad reasons. The true reason for their hatred of Lance is identified by one of these men, Corporal Gilchrist, who both hates and admires Lance, during a heated exchange in the barracks. Sgt. Murdoch, a brutal malcontent, complains that Lance has prevented him from being commissioned as an officer. Gilchrist responds:
"And would you say that was his fault, or your fault?"
Murdoch has no responce to this, because everyone knows it's his own fault. Finally, Gilchrist says:
"If the truth be known, you're all just sore because he knows you for what you really are: a bunch of flea-bitten bellyachers."
The climax of the movie comes during the defense of Fort Invincible, to which Lance led a small detail to stem the tide of marauding Indians. First, Lance calls the men into formation, and tells them all exactly why they were chosen for this seemingly suicidal mission.
"I'd like to straighten out any misapprehensions you may have had about why you were picked for this detail. In every case, my only consideration was the safety of Fort Winston. The fort is undermanned, and I picked the men that I felt could best be spared.
"Sgt. Murdoch, you have a record of bullying and brutality, which is why I have repeatedly denied your requests for a commission. The result is you are a malcontent . . .
"Trooper Rutledge, your only reason for being in the service is to revenge yourself on me for [getting you kicked out of West Point for dishonesty]. Your record shows no ambition, nothing but a merely adequate soldier . . .
"Corporal Gilchrist, you are a drunk, which would find you inevitably brought in front of a firing squad if you got drunk at Winston during an attack . . . "
Finally, during a lull in repeated Indian assaults against Fort Invincible, Lance discovers that Gilchrist has filled all the extra canteens with whiskey, instead of water. So, as Lance goes along the wall, rationing out the remaining water to the men, he passes by Gilchrist without giving him any. Gilchrist fumes, then picks up his carbine and aims it at Captain Lance.
"The Indians are on the other side of the wall, Corporal," Lance says calmly. And Gilchrist backs down.
"Why didn't you shoot, you fool?" Rutledge asks him.
"I thought better of it," Gilchrist replies. "He's the only man can keep this outfit going."
Which is exactly what the movie set out to prove. QED.
Some humorous lines from the movie that I like:
Lance, to his second in command:
"I'm taking some men into the pass tonight. You'll be in command here."
"In command of what?"
"The horses."
Corporal Gilchrist, while on a fatigue detail loading ammunition against the wall:
"Captain, this is mighty thirsty work."
"Most work is," Captain Lance replied.
-
How did the cannon cause the ship to land? I didn't understand what happened.
Oh, well the ship didn't actually land. It needed to because the cannon had knocked several holes in its sides, and the waves were high, causing it to take on water.
But before the Claymore could even think about landing, they were caught between some reefs and a French fleet, and had to go down fighting, which they did. But the Marquis de Lantenac was saved by putting him on a small rowboat with one sailor to row him in to shore while the battle raged.
Of course, with Hugo it is never that simple. The sailor rowing Lantenac to shore turned out to be the brother of the man who had been responsible for the cannon running wild on the Claymore.
And Lantenac had just had that man shot.
-
I love Prog-rock (which if you don't know, is a more produced thought-out genre of music, emphasizing skill with instruments vs. garage rock). I like way too many bands but some of my ultimate faves: David Bowie, Built to Spill, ELO, new order, Nico, Queen, Royksopp, Scissor sisters, Supertramp, Talking Heads, t-rex, and Todd Rundgren.
I liked the Todd of the Seventies . . .
and probably my favorite lyricist of all time and fellow atheist Randy Newman.Being short, I never took a shine to Randy Newman . . .
-
In addition to Audrey Hepburn, I would add Michelle Yeoh, famous for her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Even at 40 something years of age, she is really beautiful, graceful, and with feline agility---no doubt a byproduct of martial arts and ballet training.
-
I'm not entirely sure why, in conceptual terms, but I think (as do many other men apparently, I've noticed over the years) that Audrey Hepburn was perhaps the ultimate in female beauty.
I also find Audrey Hepburn very appealing. She radiates femininity. I love watching her and listening to her speak in any of her movies. I especially liked her in War and Peace.
A typical wonderful scene with her is in a movie with Cary Grant (To Catch a Thief?) where she says:
"Do you know what's wrong with you?"
"What?" responds Grant.
Then, opening her beautiful eyes to their widest extent, she says:
"Nothing!"
There is a wonderful sense of life in her that shines through whatever role she plays in her movies.
-
Can you explain to me the scene in the begininning of the novel; in which while everyone is on the boat, a cannon breaks loose down below and forces them to land? Do you know what I am talking about?
That's an excellent scene. What do you want to know about it? It's purpose is to show the courage and leadership--and ruthlessness--of the Marquis de Lantenac. He rewarded the sailor for his courage in securing the loose cannon, and then punished him for his negligence, which led to the cannon's coming loose to begin with.
The royalist characters have spent the whole chapter commenting on the need for a leader with strength and without pity, and this scene shows they have found one.
-
This is from the Helike website:
APPENDIX B: HELIKE AND ATLANTISTaylor (1928) and Frutiger (1930) first suggested that the sudden and dramatic disappearance of Helike, destroyed by an earthquake and submerged in the sea, inspired Plato to devise the myth of Atlantis. See also Forsythe (1980), Giovannini (1985), and Ellis (1998).
The story of Atlantis and its destruction first appears in Plato’s late dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written only a few years after the destruction of Helike in 373 BC.
-
That is a fascinating discovery. If they unearth "dozens" of original bronze and marble works by the Classical sculptors, it will be a treasure trove indeed.
Spyridon Marinatos, late Director General of Antiquities and discoverer of the prehistoric town on Santorini, pursued the search for Helike over many years. He estimated (1960) that the site contains dozens of original bronze and marble works of the Classical sculptors. Marinatos (1964) looked forward to "the discovery of a whole ancient town far more precious and interesting than Pompeii" and said it would be "almost surely the most spectacular archaeological discovery ever made." -
Well, the point is that Goya's painting was a form of journalism. That explains the title: The Shootings of May Third 1808. The work depicts the revenge Napoleon's troops took on those in Spain who were seeking independence. It is a recording with oil on canvas of a military atrocity. The subject could not “be left to journalistic photographers,” because in 1814 when the artist began work on it, there was no such thing as photography. Minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all. It would be equivalent to a painting of Auschwitz, showing the residents as well fed and happily tending their flower gardens. Goya focused on suffering for a reason: he wanted the viewer to be outraged by what he saw.
I did not realize this was of an actual incident in the war. Journalistic art is naturalism, of course. But this painting still retains elements of Romanticism, in choosing to depict resistance to tyranny, rather than submission.
I do not agree that "minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all." Showing people stood up against a wall, about to be shot, would get the point across perfectly well to any rational adult. Gore is never necessary.
As for painting a scene from Auschwitz, showing a line of skeletal adults marching into a gas chamber would make the point crystal clear. There is no need to show them inside, choking, vomiting, etc. That is horror for horror's sake. But a Romantic artist wouldn't even paint a scene of Auschwitz like that (just marching to the gas chamber). He'd show the camp being liberated, with perhaps a view of inmates marching to the chamber somewhere in the background. A better naturalist (i.e., one with a benevolent sense of life) could show the camp being liberated, also, since that actually happened in reality.
My evaluation of Goya's painting is that the subject is naturalistic with elements of Romanticism, and the style is naturalistic. A mixed bag. But not something I would hang on my wall.
-
What about Ayn Rand's very own "We the living"? Its ending certainely does not depict life as it "ought to be" but I doubt many people on the board here consider the novel not worth reading because it does not champaion Objectivist values to the same extent as FH or AS. (I have not read WTL, I just know the basic plot outline)
Again, suffering can be portrayed incidentally in Romantic art. Kira's death is certainly a depiction of suffering, but the context was that she was struggling towards freedom, a Romantic theme. She definitely lived life as it ought to be lived, given the context of her existence. She did everything in her power to live a life proper to man---but the State smothered her.
-
Furthermore, whatever one thinks of Picasso, I believe that there is room for the depiction of suffering (tragedy) in art and literature. Consider another politically focused artist from Spain, Francisco Goya, and his Los Fusilamentos del 3 de mayo en Madrid:
.
This is one of the most gripping depictions of naked oppression ever painted. But I should hardly conclude from it that the artist believes that "that life IS suffering."
As I said earlier, suffering can be depicted incidentally in Romantic art. This painting of Goya's shows suffering, but the main theme, as I see it, is the heroic, intransigent struggle to resist tyranny, a perfectly Romantic theme.
Goya's style of painting I do not like, but the subject is at least potentially Romantic. I think a more Romantic artist would have portrayed rebels attacking the soldiers, rather than suffering the consequences of resistance. Both are aspects of resistance, but Goya chose to show the more depressing aspect of it.
I also think the depiction of "goriness" is not Romantic. Blood and gore is a naturalistic trait, and isn't necessary to depict suffering or resistance to tyranny. That kind of thing can be left to journalistic photographers. That's one of the elements of Goya's style that I do not like.
-
Would that mean that Objectivists regard works such as Picasso's Guernica as "inferior" because it does not realistically portray human suffering adequately by being abstract as oppsed to realistic, or would it still be considered a "good" piece of art that is just not 100% in line with Objectivist logic?
Have you read Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto? It will answer all your questions about what Objectivism has to say about art.
A Romantic artist does not portray human suffering as the main theme in any work of art. A Romantic artist portrays life, man's life, as it could be, and ought to be. Something to admire, something that inspires man to achieve the best within himself. Think of Michelangelo's David---that is Romantic art. Human suffering may be portrayed in a Romantic work of art, but only incidentally. The main theme is always "things as they might be and ought to be."
The fundamental requirement of Romantic art is the principle of volition. Art that portrays man as a pawn of fate, or of his environment, is denying volition, and is therefore non-Romantic art. In Romantic art, man is in control of his own destiny, and works to achieve his own goals, in spite of obstacles.
I'll just quote Ayn Rand here, extensively and to the point:
Two distinct, but interrelated, elements of a work of art are the crucial means of projecting its sense of life: the subject and the style---what an artist chooses to present and how he presents it.The subject of an art work expresses a view of man's existence, while the style expresses a view of man's consciousness. The subject reveals an artist's metaphysics, the style reveals his psycho-epistemology.
The choice of subject declares what aspects of existence the artist regards as important--as worthy of being re-created and contemplated. He may choose to present heroic figures, as exponents of man's nature--or he may choose statistical composites of the average, the undistinguished, the mediocre--or he may choose crawling specimens of depravity. He may present the triumph of heroes, in fact or in spirit (Victor Hugo), or their struggle (Michelangelo), or their defeat (Shakespeare). He may present the folks next door: next door to palaces (Tolstoy), or to drugstores (Sinclair Lewis), or to kitchens (Vermeer), or to sewers (Zola). He may present monsters as objects of moral denunciation (Dostoyevsky), or as objects of terror (Goya)--or he may demand sympathy for his monsters, and thus crawl outside the limits of the realm of values, including esthetic ones.
Whatever the case may be, it is the subject (qualified by the theme) that projects an art work's view of man's place in the universe.
The theme of an art work is the link uniting its subject and its style. "Style" is a particular, distinctive or characteristic mode of execution. An artist's style is the product of his own psycho-epistemology--and, by implication, a projection of his view of man's consciousness, of its efficacy or impotence, of its proper method and level of functioning.
Predominantly (though not exclusively), a man whose normal mental state is a state of full focus, will create and respond to a style of radiant clairty and ruthless precision--a style that projects sharp outlines, cleanliness, purpose, an intransigent commitment to full awareness and clear-cut identity--a level of awareness appropriate to a universe where A is A, where everything is open to man's consciousness and demands its constant functioning.
A man who is moved by the fog of his feelings and spends most of his time out of focus will create and respond to a style of blurred, "mysterious" murk, where outlines dissolve and entities flow into one another, where words connote anything and denote nothing, where colors float without objects, and objects float without weight--a level of awareness appropriate to a universe where A can be any non-A one chooses, where nothing can be known with certainty and nothing much is demanded of one's consciousness.
Style is the most complex element of art, the most revealing and, often the most baffling psychologically. The terrible inner conflicts from which artists suffer as much as (or, perhaps, more than) other men are magnified in their work. As an example: Salvador Dali, whose style projects the luminous clarity of a rational psycho-epistemology, while most (though not all) of his subjects project an irrational and revoltingly evil metaphysics. A similar, but less offensive, conflict may be seen in the paintings of Vermeer, who combines a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism. At the other extreme of the stylistic continuum, observe the deliberate blurring and visual distortions of the so-called "painterly" school, from Rembrandt on down--down to the rebellion against consciousness, expressed by a phenomenon such as Cubism which seeks specifically to disintegrate man's consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once.) . . . . .
Style conveys what may be called a "psycho-epistemological sense of life," i.e., an expression of that level of mental functioning on which the artist feels most at home. This is the reason why style is crucially important in art--both to the artist and to the reader or viewer--and why its importance is experienced as a profoundly personal matter. To the artist, it is an expression, to the reader or viewer a confirmation, of his own consciousness--which means: of his efficacy--which means: of his self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).
Now a word of warning about the criteria of esthetic judgment. A sense of life is the source of art, but it is not the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is not a criterion of esthetic judgment. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Esthetics is a branch of philosophy--and just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his feelings or emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do it in the field of esthetics. A sense of life is not sufficient professional equipment. An esthetician--as well as any man who attempts to evaluate art works--must be guided by more than an emotion.
The fact that one agrees with an artist's philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it--i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life . . . . .
Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: "This is a great work of art, but I don't like it,"--provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values.
Even in the realm of personal choices, there are many different aspects from which one may enjoy a work of art--other than sense-of-life affinity. One's sense of life is fully involved only when one feels a profoundly personal emotion about a work of art. But there are many other levels or degrees of liking; the differences are similar to the difference between romantic love and affection or friendship.
For instance: I love the work of Victor Hugo, in a deeper sense than admiration for his superlative literary genius, and I find many similarities between his sense of life and mine, although I disagree with virtually all of his explicit philosophy--I like Dostoevsky, for his superb mastery of plot-structure and for his merciless dissection of the psychology of evil, even though his philosophy and his sense of life are almost diametrically opposed to mine--I like the early novels of Mickey Spillane, for his plot ingenuity and moralistic style, even though his sense of life clashes with mine, and no explicit philosophical element is involved in his work--I cannot stand Tolstoy, and reading him was the most boring literary duty I ever had to perform, his philosophy and his sense of life are not merely mistaken, but evil, and yet, from a purely literary viewpoint, on his own terms, I have to evaluate him as a good writer.
Now, to demonstrate the difference between an intellectual approach and a sense of life, I will restate the preceding paragraph in sense-of-life terms: Hugo gives me the feeling of entering a cathedral--Dostoevsky gives me the feeling of entering a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide--Spillane gives me the feeling of hearing a military band in a public park--Tolstoy gives me the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter.
When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work--and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.
[Ayn Rand, "Art and Sense of Life," The Romantic Manifesto, pp. 50-55.]
Now that is a lesson in art appreciation. Who could read that and not want to read the whole book, not to mention everything else Ayn Rand has written?
-
This misused virtue of his . . .
That is precisely the point--he misused honesty. Just like a person who misuses a gun to initiate force. That is in no way admirable.
I am incapable of admiring a man who is honest, if he (mis)uses that honesty to inflict a tyranny upon me. I could no more admire Jimmy Carter's honesty than I could admire the honesty of a murderer who tells me, just as he's about to pull the trigger: "In all honesty, I'm about to kill you."
-
In searching Hugo's writings available at abebooks.com (used book site), I found there are at least three plays not included in my "complete" edition:
Le Roi S'Amuse (The King's Diversion)
Tyran de Padoue (The Tyrant of Padua?)
Inez de Castro
Those last two appear never to have been translated into English.
-
I would definitely like to read his plays, though, those sound interesting. Is there an English translation available?
I searched for a long time before finding a used copy of his complete plays in English. The version I found is called: Hugo: Dramas/Four Volumes in Two/by Victor Hugo/With Illustrations/Boston and New York/Colonial Press Company/Publishers. It does not give the name of the translator.
It contains these plays:
Hernani
The Twin Brothers
Angelo
Amy Robsart
Mary Tudor
Ruy Blas
Torquemada
Esmeralda
Cromwell
The Burgraves
The Fool's Revenge
Marion de Lorme
Lucretia Borgia
I'm sure you can find some of them individually in print, but I don't think there is a complete set of his plays currently in print in English. Unfortunately, this edition does not contain his long introduction to Cromwell, which is supposed to have constituted his "Romantic Manifesto." I believe excerpts from it were once printed in the Atlantean Press Review.
I would also recommend Hugo's two lesser known novels, Bug-Jargal, and Hans of Iceland. Hans of Iceland includes a character named Count Daneskiold, and another named Prince Ragnar-Lodbrok. These are his earliest two novels, but he was already skilled at creating dramatic value conflicts.
Who Should Play John Galt In Atlas Shrugged?
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Somewhere it's been noted that Ayn Rand wanted the guy who played a German officer on Rat Patrol, I forget his name, to play John Galt. He had dark hair, not blonde, so obviously hair color was not as important to her as an intelligent, focussed looking face.
With that in mind, I'd suggest Sean Maher, who played Simon Tam on Firefly and Serenity, for Galt.
For Francisco, perhaps Matthew McConaughey. I think he fits the aristocratic persona of Francisco well, in appearance and in his mellifluous voice.