kevinrush.us

Writings. Thoughts. Musings.

Page 4 of 6

If I Saw the Movie, Should I Read the Book? Two Baseball Fantasies

Redford and Costner score with crowd-pleasing films, after novelists strike out. By Kevin Rush

The first year I followed baseball was a fantasy season worthy of the old Hollywood dream machine. The lowly New York Mets, my father’s team since returning east from grad school in 1964, pulled off the greatest miracle in professional sports history, winning 100 games en route to an upset of the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles. My dad, who’d grown up following the Brooklyn Dodgers, had suffered through two decades of disappointment before “Dem Bums” finally vanquished the “Damned Yankees” and won baseball’s ultimate prize. He looked at me celebrating and just shook his head. “Now he’ll expect this every year.” Unfortunately, no. What every Met fan my age learned at the knee of his Dodger fan father was how to say, “Wait ’til next year.”

And so, as this baseball season ends, Yankee fans are once again looking forward to the playoffs and Met fans have their sights set on Winter Meetings and Spring Training. Which is why, for us, baseball and fantasy are so intertwined. Winning, for us, is a rare, transformative, and even metaphysical experience. Our relationship to the game is a romance in the Shakespearean sense. It’s the kind of drama the two movies I’m discussing today delivered, making them hits at the box office. But how do the books they’re based on measure up?

The Natural, 1984

The Natural released in 1984 is a film imbued with wonder. I wondered if 49-year-old Robert Redford had ever played baseball before. I wondered how far he could actually hit a ball with that rusty gate swing, and why in the world director Barry Levinson would let us scrutinize its every hitch in super slow motion. But I also got caught up in a lush fable about love, destiny, and a determined soul overcoming evil. Nominated for four Academy Awards, The Natural was a pretty popcorn movie about a simpler time in sports, as uplifting as a cotton-candy sugar-high, and stayed with me about as long.

As for the book, Bernard Malamud’s 1952 debut novel is to Barry Levinson’s 1984 film what the Grimms’ fairytale Cinderella is to the 1950 Walt Disney cartoon. Walt excised a few details while sanitizing the story for a post-war American family audience. For example, in the Grimm version, the evil stepmother goes to great lengths to force her daughters’ oversized hooves into the glass slipper; she cuts the heel off of one, and lops toes off the other. The prince brings each back in turn, after the slipper fills with blood revealing the deception. A grim tale indeed. Just so, screenwriters Roger Towne and Phil Dusenberry gloss over many of the unsavory aspects of Malamud’s book, including Roy’s sexual dalliances, which are generally opportunistic and cynical. Despite Malamud’s feverish attempt to elevate the scenes of coupling with magical realism that would strain the credulity of Isabelle Allende, Roy’s sexual encounters lack any romance to stir the soul. The hero’s journey Malamud traces out for Roy takes myriad rough turns through a cynical, exploitative and corrupt world.

Young Arthur draws the sword from the stone. Malamud claims to have borrowed from this myth for Roy Hobbs’ bat.

This seems to be Malamud’s intention. Critics have seen in Malamud’s novel parallels with Homer’s Odyssey and Arthurian legends, and have noted how his various characters reflect those in classical literature. I felt myself transported back to English Lit 101, where a deeply depressed professor stroked his graying beard as he dourly explicated Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, pointing out each of the seven deadly sins the knights of virtue encountered along their way. (Roy Hobbs plays for a team called the New York Knights.) And as with my Spenser class, I found myself crying to get out. Arcane references are fine fodder for eggheads and bookworms. The true measure of a work isn’t how deftly the author has embedded the threading of Scylla and Charybdis, but whether the book entertains on its own terms.

Levinson’s film succeeds because it serves up a gentler allegory. Using costumes, settings, and lighting—sometimes subtly and sometimes heavy-handedly—Levinson conveys a world that exists like memory on the fringes of mysticism. Redford’s Roy Hobbs is a callow youth, cruelly robbed of his life’s purpose, who returns late in life to reclaim what is rightfully his. His Roy loves the game he was blessed with supernatural ability to play, but aside from the exploding stadium lights when Roy hits his triumphant home run, the story tends more towards romance than fantasy. We, the audience, like this Roy Hobbs, despite the slightly jarring hubris that threatens to undo him, and we root for him in his struggles. It’s hard to say the same about the Hobbs of Malamud’s novel, who personifies each of the Seven Deadlies in turn, starting with pride and proceeding through greed, lust, wrath, etc. until gluttony nearly kills him. Roy is so selfish, egotistical, and grasping that he exhausts our sympathy before the seventh inning stretch.

A reader who approaches Malamud’s The Natural after seeing Levinson’s film might at least hope that the purity of baseball (the game if not the business) and a boy’s love for it would redeem the cold world in which it must be played. Sadly, that’s not the case. The beauty of the game is lost in a too long litany of wins and losses, slumps and hot streaks, where the hero ultimately falls short and walks away unfilled. Closing the book, I felt the same way.

Field of Dreams, 1989

https://youtu.be/sHTsQ9qePrQ

The Natural opened the floodgates for baseball movies, so in quick succession there were Eight Men Out (1988), Bull Durham (1988) and Major League (1989). The first, I loved for the in-depth history. The second turned me off for various reasons, including its failed attempt to reconcile cinematic romantic comedy with the mores of the sexual revolution. RomComs are about the frustrated pursuit of love and the myriad obstacles overcome. When the obstacle to being with the object of your desire is the guy ahead of you banging her, who is just the latest in a long line of bangers, the bloom is off the rose. When Crash finally gets with Annie, his career is done, she’s tired of bed-hopping, and they just seem ready to settle, because their routines have worn them out. That’s not much of a payoff for the audience who’s hung with them for ninety minutes, because there’s no special trick to “getting the girl,” when the rest of the town has already had her. The film also suffered from Costner’s low-key performance, which I felt lacked charm, and a lot of way-too-obvious humor that fell flat. I know a lot of people love Bull Durham (Rotten Tomatoes has it ranked as the second greatest baseball movie of all time behind Moneyball), but upon its release, I dubbed it Dull Bore ‘em, and I stand by that assessment.

As for Major League, the trailer was so packed, I assumed it had shown all the best jokes. So since I had already seen Slap Shot, I figured I didn’t need to spend seven dollars.

But from my first glimpse of the theatrical trailer for Field of Dreams, I was hooked. Yeah, I was chagrined slightly that it starred Costner, because everything he’d done to that point including Eliot Ness in The Untouchables, had left me slightly disappointed. I did not see the onscreen magnetism of an A List movie star; I saw a tall, not so bad looking guy getting paid millions to learn how to act on the job. But the Hollywood machine seemed determined to make Costner a star, so what could I do about it? I decided to keep an open mind about Costner; I put down my seven or eight dollars and entered into the fantasy of an Iowa farmer who heard a voice telling him that “If you build it, he will come.” Costner turned out to be fine, though I still had my quibbles, but the film really spoke to me about where I was in my life: unsure what my path should be, stuck somewhere between prolonged adolescence and adulthood, and most importantly, uneasy in my relationship with my father, with whom I could not talk openly about anything except baseball. So, yes, I went along for the ride, I shared Farmer Ray’s urgency to get to the heart of the mystery, and, yes, I cried when he asked his dad to play catch.  

At the time, Costner had called the film “It’s a Wonderful Life for our generation,” which seemed plausible, since I’m pretty sure many baby boomers secretly regret their youthful radicalism and yearn for reconciliation with their parents. But I don’t think Field of Dreams has held up. Whereas each viewing of Capra’s classic, tied into my celebration of Christmas, endears me further to the Bedford Falls milieu with its many well-drawn characters and the all-too-human struggles of George Baily, Field is not anchored to any recurring observance and subsequent viewings, for me at least, have simply exposed its flaws. I get impatient watching Field, annoyed that I ever let it get to me that first time, and so I don’t think I’ve ever sat all the way through a second showing. Once again, I’m sure I’m in the minority. So much so, that readers of this column might choose to disregard what I have to say about the book, but here goes anyway.

Shoeless Joe by Canadian writer W.P. Kinsella was the inspiration for Field of Dreams. Published in 1982,  the novel, which won the Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship Award, tells the story of Ray Kinsella, an Iowa insurance salesman turned farmer, who hears the voice of a baseball announcer instructing him to turn his cornfield into a baseball stadium, because, “If you build it, he will come.”

The book is far more expansive, and dare I say meandering, than the film, featuring characters the screenwriters dropped to get a cleaner, more focused narrative. One such character is Eddie Scissons, the former owner of Ray’s farm, who bills himself as the Oldest Living Chicago Cub. Another is Ray’s identical twin Richard, whom he hasn’t seen for 15 years, since at the age of 16, he had a fistfight with their father and left home.

The writer whom Ray Kinsella kidnaps in Shoeless Joe is a fictional version of J.D. Salinger

But the most consequential character change from the book is that Ray does not “kidnap” the fictional writer Terrence Mann, author of the radical novel, The Boat Rocker, but a fictionalized version of the real-life writer, J.D. Salinger, who wrote A Cather in the Rye. In fact, Kinsella once told The Des Moines Register that the working title of the book was The Kidnapping of J.D. Salinger. This choice creates problems for Kinsella’s narrative which he never completely overcomes. That is, the portrayal of Salinger must be human enough for the reader to believe, but benign enough so Salinger would not sue for infringement. Thus, J.D. Salinger, whose name suggests edgy and subversive, is rendered bland enough to fade into the kitchen wallpaper.

If you admire Field of Dreams, as I do, for the clarity of Ray’s internal conflict, i.e., the regret he harbors over the distance he put between himself and his father, and how they never understood each other, and how Ray has a burning desire to bridge eternity to close that gap, be aware that such clarity does not exist in Kinsella’s book. The novel’s Ray had a warm relationship with Dad. The antagonism was entirely between his twin brother Richard and the dad. Unfortunately, his pugnacious twin comes very late to the narrative, and what he might be thinking is not explored or resolved. As far as the dramatic thru-line is concerned, that character might as well not have existed. Obviously, the film’s developers felt likewise, and made the wise choice of incorporating Richard’s daddy issues into Ray’s character. However, the book, because of the lack of tension between Ray and his dad, fails to deliver the movie’s emotional pay off when the two finally meet.

Now, if you’re a fan of dramatic thru-lines generally, good luck with Shoeless Joe. The novel, at 265 pages is roughly 90 pages of fluff I could have done without. That fluff includes effusive, treacly, yet vague paeans to the love he and his wife, Annie, share. Often. Like constantly. The characters are also a bit frustrating to deal with. If you thought Amy Madigan’s portrayal of the ever-so-chipper-never-complaining-always-supportive wife lacked depth, she’s James Dean in East of Eden compared to Annie in the book. Our narrator, Ray, is a wordy son of a gun with a touch of ADHD. He’s also a far cry from Kevin Costner, who was always a hunk and has matured into a first-rate leading man with intense gravitas, as shown in some fine performances in Open Range, Yellowstone, et al. Ray in the book is very much a beta male, and we get the impression that no matter how much his hair recedes or his frame fills out, he’ll always be a beta. Here’s how Ray Kinsella describes himself:

…it’s just that I’m uncomfortable with most men, especially “men’s men,” who know all about gears, rifles, and how to splice rope. They always make me feel like the new kid on the block, tolerated but not accepted, and they always act as though they have a common secret that I will never be party to.”

It’s hard to imagine Kevin Costner ever harboring such insecurities.

But, you might ask, is Shoeless Joe at least a fun read? Well, it’s not going to hurt you. The book, as you would expect from the film, is imaginative, and at times humorous and heartfelt. But it suffers from Kinsella’s too earnest desire to construct mythology out of snippets of baseball lore laced with random Americana and bound up in weak sentiment. His narrator often (and gratuitously) expresses his disdain for religion, and it’s clear Kinsella (either Ray or W.P. or both) would like to replace church rituals with ritual attendance of baseball games. At one point “Kid” Scissons goes on a rant about baseball as “word” which more than implies a desire for baseball fanaticism to usurp the vaunted station held by sacred scripture in the public consciousness. How a diversionary pastime might form the basis for a moral society while providing a salvific vision giving hope to the hopeless is not explained in the character’s flimsy tirade. And yes, I know, this is light fantasy, so we don’t want to crush dandelion fluff under the weight of eschatological ponderings, but the writer who deliberately raises questions cannot retreat behind pleas to his readers “not to think too hard.”  

Which brings us to another grating point of style, which is the weird self-referential tone that Kinsella the writer has in relation to Ray Kinsella the narrator, as though the novel is in some measure a fantasy biography that only close relations and insiders can truly appreciate. It also gives the book an aura of an all-too-precious vanity project. And precious, unfortunately, aptly describes much of the prose. So, if you are a fan of masculine writing, and approach Shoeless Joe as a baseball book, you’re going to have a tough time sifting through a seemingly endless procession of saccharine similes, as Ray tells you how something he preciously feels or observes is preciously like something else.

Still, some of the writing is quite good. There’s a wonderful passage towards the very end, a speech given by Salinger about how visitors will come from all over drawn by their dreams, that rivals the prose of Jack Kerouac, whose influence is felt throughout.

My bottom line for Shoeless Joe is that the inspiration for the story deserves a better book, and W.P. Kinsella is lucky to have gotten so good a film made from it. Today, perhaps the only use for Kinsella’s novel is to instruct would-be screenwriters on how to take a cluttered, meandering story with potential and help it find its heart for the big screen.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

If you’ve enjoyed this post, I invited you to read the other posts on books made into film, including two by Hitchcock and two noir-ish Bogeys.

If I Saw the Movie, Should I Read the Book? Two Noir-ish Bogeys

Humphrey Bogart struggles In a Lonely Place; terrorizes in The Desperate Hours

From The Petrified Forest to The Harder They Fall, Humphrey Bogart was the undisputed King of Film Noir. As Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, Bogey set the tone for hard-boiled gumshoes navigating “the great wrong place” and surviving the intrigues of the deadly femme fatale. In Key Largo, he embodied the soul-dead weariness of a disillusioned crusader, who’d concluded the world was just too rotten to save. Bogart was so noir, he could shed the shadows and fog, defying the disinfecting powers of sunlight, to play betrayal, corruption and revenge on the picturesque streets of San Francisco. In Dark Passage, with the help of a fortuitous self-defenestration, and after the necessary extermination of underworld vermin no one would miss, Bogart extricates himself from peril and achieves one of the rare happy endings in a film that is nevertheless truly noir.

That said, despite Humphrey Bogart’s curriculum vitae—or perhaps because of it—I have trouble accepting the following films as full-blooded noir. They’re missing too many elements I consider essential: the femme fatale, the underworld lurking beneath the respectable world, and the false step the hero takes to plunge himself into danger we know will ultimately be fatal. I know, I know, Dark Passage broke some rules, but it cleaved to others. In my admittedly subjective opinion, these films are not scrupulously noir; although noir—ish, they are more mainstream suspense thrillers. I welcome contrary opinions in the comment section below.

So, without further ado, let’s get started.

Theatrical trailer for In a Lonely Place, 1950

In a Lonely Place — Directed by Nicholas Ray, and loosely based on the 1947 novel by Dorothy B. Hughes, In a Lonely Place (1950) features the best performance of Gloria Grahame’s career and what many have called the most complex performance of Humphrey Bogart’s career. Ray first. A reliable and often interesting director, Ray is generally not recognized as a great director. His most famous film is Rebel Without a Cause, which for me grows more tedious with each viewing. Essentially The Breakfast Club with blood, Rebel tells a cloying tale of misunderstood/ mistreated teens who bond as outcasts, and is only elevated from obscurity by its talented cast, Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo, who went on to better things before dying tragically (one a definite homicide, the other…eeeehhhhh), and James Dean, who achieved legendary status with fine acting, prematurely truncated by reckless driving.

Ray also directed a string of notable films, including They Live by Night (not They Drive by Night with Bogart), Knock on Any Door (with Bogart), The Flying Leathernecks (a serviceable John Wayne vehicle), The Lusty Men (not a porno, but an insightful look at rodeo performers with a great cast), The True Story of Jesse James (which no one really believes is true, but at least veers off the beaten Hollywood path of Robin Hood redux to depict James, played by Robert Wagner, as a murderous psychopath), 55 Days at Peking (in which 54 days are spent waiting for something to happen) and King of Kings (unfairly maligned as I Was a Teenage Jesus—Jeffrey Hunter was 36, older than Jesus himself). A solid career that deserves props if not effusive accolades. There may be underappreciated gems in Ray’s career that I haven’t yet discovered, but of the films I’ve seen, In a Lonely Place is the best.

US postage stamp dedicated to Bogart

Reclusive Dickson (Dix) Steele is a Hollywood, crime-film screenwriter, so absorbed in his work that he’s teetering on the brink between passionate romantic and psychotic strangler. When he’s linked to the victim of a late night murder, his new paramour, Grahame, is rightly unnerved. Complicating matters is Dix’s relationship with a homicide detective and his wife, who wonder if he might have slipped the rail.

Bogart, who practically owned the patent on cynical detachment, plumbs depths unimaginable from his prior roles. Scratch Rick Blaine, you’ll find a wounded narcissist; but you’d have to rent a backhoe to unearth Dix Steele (which, yes, I know is porno name to rival Dirk Diggler, but I’m trying not to go there). My point is that tough guy Bogey was more vulnerable as Dix than in any other role I’ve seen. And that’s not to say Bogart was an actor who relied on machismo or braggadocio. He often conceded the false facades of his characters to enrich the role. Remarkably enough, Louise Brooks, an actress who claimed to be an intimate of Bogart, said that Dix Steele came closest to the real Bogart she knew.

For her part, Gloria Grahame had a wide ranging and mostly underappreciated career playing supporting roles. Most moviegoers will recognize her as Violet Bix in It’s a Wonderful Life or Ado Annie in Oklahoma! An imperfect beauty, Grahame was relegated to secondary roles, but her skills shined in such noteworthy films as The Bad and the Beautiful (my favorite Kirk Douglas film) and Crossfire, an intense psychological drama centered around antisemitism. Grahame met Ray when she played in his second film, A Woman’s Secret. The two later married after an adulterous affair resulted in pregnancy. Thanks to Ray’s insistence that Grahame play the part of Laurel Grey, In a Lonely Place gave her the rare chance at a lead female. Judging by her superb handling of the nuances of her character, she should have had more. Grahame died young at age 57, a death sensitively portrayed by the lovely Annette Benning in a film worth viewing.

Yet the script from which Ray worked and the roles Bogart and Graham play are departures from the novel. In a Lonely Place was Hughes’ third book adapted to the screen. Her 1942 novel, The Fallen Sparrow was filmed in 1943, and her 1946 novel Ride the Pink Horse, also filmed with alacrity in 1947, produced a minor noir gem. Published in 1947, In a Lonely Place had too may sharp edges for classic Hollywood, thus, changes to the plot and characterizations were necessary.

Cover of the Penguin Classics edition

In Hughes’ novel, Dix is not a waning screenwriter in need of a hit. He’s a poseur, much like Ripley in Patricia Highsmith’s popular series of novels, but without being light in the loafers. It’s also clear from the very first pages that Dix is hiding a deep secret related to a series of stranglings in the West Hollywood area. Laurel, the Grahame role, is less important to this narrative, which consists mostly of Dix’s internal monologue as he concedes, denies, admits, retracts, and rationalizes thoughts related to the homicides his best friend Brub is investigating. Dix is the classic unreliable narrator, and the dramatic irony between what he admits and what we readers come to realize creates an unnerving air of suspense.

While the movie is certainly worth viewing, Hughes’ novel is a masterpiece in crime fiction. Hughes invites the reader into the disturbed psyche of her protagonist and proceeds to tease, titillate, disappoint, cajole, offend, frighten and evoke pity. I must admit that, early in, I wondered if I could keep reading, because the lonely place that Dix inhabited was bringing me to a dark place that I didn’t want to be in. My fertile imagination was filling in the gaps that Hughes had tastefully left empty. I’m glad I stuck with this book, although I now need to take a break from noir-ish reading for mental health reasons. My recommendation: dive in. A short stay In A Lonely Place is well worth the visit.

The Desperate Hours, 1955 theatrical trailer

The Desperate Hours — Twenty-five-year-old writer Joseph Hayes won the Trifecta with this 1954 thriller. His first novel, it was a bestseller. The next year, he adapted it as a stage play which starred Paul Newman and Karl Malden, ran for 212 performances on Broadway, and won the 1955 Tony Award for Best Play. That same year, producer/director William Wyler had Hayes adapt that stage play as a film starring Humphrey Bogart and Frederick March. That’s a lot of mileage from a single idea, reportedly based on a real-life incident. But if that wasn’t enough, the movie was remade for TV in 1967 and got a theatrical reboot as Desperate Hours in 1990, this time starring Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins.

The original film is a taut thriller about a suburban household invaded by three escaped convicts who hold a family hostage for a couple of days. The tension in the story relies heavily on the unlikely decision by the ringleader to keep up appearances by letting the head of the household and his 19-year-old daughter go about their business outside the home, while he keeps a gun poised over the wife and 10-year-old son. Wyler also goes a bit far out of his way to make the Liberal orthodox point that good people don’t settle their differences with guns. But for the most part, given the fine performances by the cast, led by Bogart and Frederick March, the film works as a suburban nightmare. 

Cover of The Desperate Hours featuring film cast

As for the book, I found it engrossing, with much more depth of character and many more moving parts than the film. The characterizations in the book are very different from the actors chosen for the film. Glenn Griffin, the ringleader, is described as young and tall, which is hardly the impression a viewer gets from the 54-year-old Bogart. (And though Paul Newman was young when he originated the role on Broadway, he’s also on the short side.) Jesse Webb, the Sheriff’s Deputy hunting the fugitives is described as young, tall and lean. One gets the impression of a young James Stewart, not the middle-aged Arthur Kennedy we get in the movie. But perhaps the greatest difference is the depth of character and consequential action taken by the daughter’s young boyfriend. Played in the film by Gig Young, he basically exists to be annoyed by the girl’s odd behavior. In the book, he’s a combat veteran who’s spurred to action.

The book suffers a bit by relying on characters making silly decisions to elevate the tension, but overall, it’s a fun escapist read that will surprise you here and there and draw you into the conflict, even if you’ve seen the film.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

Stumbling Across the Legacy of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton

My unexpected rendezvous with a saint I already should have known

I don’t like being stuck in traffic. Who does? So when my digital GPS lady warned me about a tie-up on I-81 and offered me a diversion onto U.S. Route 15 South, I took it. Just to keep moving towards my goal for the day, a cozy AirBNB room on a farmhouse at the lower end of the Shenandoah Valley. That’s where my quest for history was scheduled to start, with a few battlefield markers, remnants of Stonewall Jackson’s legendary campaign. But as so often happens, God had other plans, and for me that meant encountering a different hero.

Chapel interior

After about 20 minutes on Rt. 15, I saw a brown sign for a point of interest: the National Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. Since it was right along my way, I decided to make the stop. I’d stretch my legs, make a courtesy visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and maybe get a few snapshots of a nice-looking church. I’m a huge church nerd when I travel. I feel they tell the people’s history, their devotion, their struggle for a better life, better than any collection of museum artifacts. But I had low expectations for Mother Seton, especially out in the nowhere of Emmitsburg, Maryland.  

Did I know who she was? Vaguely. I was in eighth grade at St. Aloysius School in Jersey City, NJ in 1973-4 when the drive for her canonization had reached a fever pitch. She would be the first American-born saint in the Catholic Church. The nuns were elated; they were Daughters—or Sisters—of Charity, and Mother Seton had been their Foundress. But we students, at least at the too-cool-for-school junior high level, didn’t share their euphoria. Not that I had anything against nuns generally or Sisters of Charity in particular. They didn’t hit us like the Sisters of St. Joseph in Bayonne had, but they were boring ladies living dull lives. They taught grammar school all day, then went back to the convent to grade papers while watching The Mod Squad, and who knows what they did during the summer? Now, tell me Roberto Clemente is going into the Baseball Hall of Fame, a player I watched on TV and in person, whose death I read about in the sports pages and even cried over, that’s the kind of induction that would mean something to 13-year-old me.

Plus, there had been an unfortunate changing of the guard at our school. We’d gotten a new principal the previous year, who had canceled a few vaunted traditions, such as honors at graduation. I didn’t care; as a bespectacled runt at the head of the class, I preferred to downplay academics and score social points as a joker. But some kids on the cusp of smartness would really like to have had their smartness affirmed in some small way. Then there was the Spring Musical, an elaborate production which the previous principal had staged as a fundraiser. Every musical number sung by the leads got an encore by a particular class. Thus, every student in the school appeared on stage and parents packed the gym-auditorium to glimpse their little darlings. Well, the new principal put the kibosh on the extravaganza after a dismal staging of The Red Mill flopped badly. There would be no musical for my graduating class. Our Eight Grade teacher, Sister Barbara Ann, not the inspiration for the Beach Boys, offered a compromise: we could do a small play on Mother Seton.

I still remember Connie D. huffing as she pushed past me in crimson indignation, “Every class gets a musical; we get Mother Seton!” I don’t know whether Connie had set her heart on playing Dolly Levi, but she didn’t want the parade to pass her by, and in her mind, Mother Seton had just rained on it. Again, I was totally neutral. For one thing, my lovely boy soprano had gone rogue last year, and I never knew when Alfalfa would show up. For another, I had played Friedrich in The Sound of Music in sixth grade, which had been enough. I still remember Sister Catherine Maurice, who had not studied Stanislavski, bellowing, “You can’t cross in front of her, she’s a lead! Cross behind! There’s no crossing in front of a lead!” and the tearful girl answering, “But then no one will hear me!” It was not an experience I yearned to repeat. The matter soon became moot, as Sr. Barbara forgot all about the Seton play, and the students didn’t dare remind her.

In the fall of 1975, I vaguely remember time set aside to celebrate Mother Seton’s canonization. But aside from “First American Saint,” I don’t recall the Jesuits at my high school filling us in on any details. Maybe there was some chauvinism in the slight. If we wanted inspiration from a saint who had founded an order, we already had St. Ignatius. Mother Seton was a nun who had founded an order of nuns. End of boring story. But how wrong. And how tragically so.

What I found at the Shrine was the life story of a courageous woman, whose courage was at turns genetic, instilled and grasped for desperately at the edge of despair. Elizabeth Ann Bayley was the daughter of a crusading New York physician Richard Bayley, who fought heroically to curb yellow fever outbreaks that periodically ravaged quarters of Manhattan. He travelled to England to study infectious diseases, and returned with vital information about draining swamps to reduce mosquito-borne contagion. Dr. Bayley succumbed to yellow fever, but his work saved countless lives.

Elizabeth’s mother died when she was three, perhaps from complications of childbirth. Her stepmother brought her on charitable rounds, delivering food to the poor. She eventually separated from Elizabeth’s father, taking the five children of their marriage and rejecting the two children of his first marriage. Thus, Elizabeth’s early life was marked by painful separations, a trend that was destined to continue.

In 1794, at the age of 19, Elizabeth married William Magee Seton, a wealthy but sickly trade merchant. His business declined as Jefferson’s embargo on trade and the subsequent War of 1812 devastated the overseas shipping industry. But the worse decline was in his health; as tuberculosis ravaged Seton’s lungs, he desperately sought a cure in the fair climate of Italy. Elizabeth was at his side throughout, reading her Bible and praying ceaselessly. At age 29, she became a widow with five children and no visible means of support. Yet, encouraged by Italian friends, the Protestant Elizabeth felt the call to convert to Catholicism, which she did upon her husband’s death, even though it meant ostracism from a family network that could provide financial support for herself and her children. That decision also placed her in real physical danger, as evidenced by a Protestant attack on her Catholic Church. On Christmas Eve, less than two years after her conversion, a mob was thwarted in its attempt to burn the church.

I could go on. About her children who also died from tuberculosis, and her personal struggle with the disease that took her at age 44. And how in spite of all that was bleak around her, she maintained the optimism and drive to found a religious order in a country where Catholicism was widely reviled. At the tender age of 13, when I was so much more certain about what I knew than I am now, I wouldn’t have granted much credit for starting an organization or keeping it running despite financial hardships. In the years since, I’ve gained an appreciation for those leadership and administrative skills that I sorely lack, and which are sorely lacking in society as a whole.

Mother Setons tomb
The tomb of Elizabeth Seton

All of what I saw at the Shrine made me grieve for the lukewarm catechesis of my formative years. I had been reared on heroes, real and fictional. I idolized Patrick Henry, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Davy Crockett, Abe Lincoln, Jackie Robinson, and the aforementioned Roberto Clemente, who in my lifetime died tragically attempting to deliver relief supplies to impoverished earthquake victims. But in my formation, the heroism of saints got short shrift. They were generally portrayed as well-behaved, pious and dull, maybe because that’s how our parochial schoolteachers would have preferred us. But how much more enriching it would have been to have been told the gritty details of Elizabeth Ann Seton, how she had fought the perils of this Earth to beat a path towards her and our eternal reward?

Exhibit at the Shrine Museum

I was heading to Shenandoah hoping to rekindle my fascination with Stonewall Jackson and his display of tactical brilliance in a lost cause. What I found was a tactically brilliant saint who fought for a winning cause and whose legacy lived on in the women her convent schools trained as nurses and teachers. At the outbreak of the Civil War, 600 battlefield nurses had been commissioned, all of whom were Catholic nuns. Somewhere Elizabeth Seton must have been smiling as her sisters responded to the red landscape of Antietam to nurse the wounded of either side. These “angels of the battlefield” labored tirelessly in an era of bone saws sans antibiotics to give young combatants comfort when they were beyond hope. Among the casualties was a captain of the Forty-first New York Volunteers, French’s Division, Sumner’s Corps. His upward gaze at his angel of mercy must have had profound meaning. For his name was William Seton III, and he was the grandson of Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton.   

There’s a saying I’ve heard often lately, that no one goes to hell or heaven alone; wherever we go, we take others with us. That’s why one saint’s canonization should be a moment of joy for all believers. And as Christians, we should share that joy at every opportunity, especially with the young who don’t know what they don’t know.

For your consideration:

To learn more about St. Elizabeth Ann Seton’s life, legacy and writings, click this link.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices

The field was once Rich; now there’s Little worth imitating. By Kevin Rush

Rich Little photograph by Barry Morganstein

In July, I had the pleasure of meeting Rich Little, the famous TV and nightclub impressionist who had been so popular during my youth in the 1970s. Those of us gathered for the intimate event spent the first hour before his arrival reminiscing about his many appearances on The Tonight Show, Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, The Hollywood Squares, The Mike Douglas Show, Here’s Lucy, and countless other TV shows.

We recalled the many celebrities he had impersonated: John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Jack Benny, Carol Channing, and especially his bread and butter, Richard M. Nixon. In fact, Mr. Little was in NYC to portray Nixon in an Off-Broadway play (a rare bird in this age of COVID), called Trial on the Potomac, which imagines the impeachment proceedings for the president who refused to step down amidst the Watergate scandal. That Mr. Little was still playing Nixon struck me as quaint, but it also provoked a rather uncomfortable thought: if Rich Little were starting out today, talented as he was, he would starve to death. The reason is two-fold: there is no one to imitate, and everyone takes offense.

In this post, I’ll deal with the first issue. For the last 40 years at least, there has been a serious problem in Hollywood in the development and promotion of what we used to call movie stars. Paul Newman saw this problem coming in the 1970s, when he lamented that the biggest box office stars were two robots and a mechanical shark. Certainly, trends in movies—reliance on CGI and pyrotechnics—have stunted the development of actors, who might have otherwise achieved some level of stature, but acting training has had a great deal to do with it as well. Over the last several decades, actors have not trained for the stage; they’ve entered whatever acting academy will take them, focused entirely on television and film style acting, which emphasizes naturalism to a fault. As a result, they don’t develop their voices, and those voices never become distinctive.

I remember reading David Mamet’s intelligent 1987 collection of essays, Writing in Restaurants, in which he argues “Against Amplification” in live stage theatre. He posits that amplification robs the audience of the richness of a trained voice, which is a glorious part of the theatrical experience. Amplification has led to decadence in vocal training. Fast-forward 34 years, and I can barely make out what TV and film actors are saying, especially when the cine-luxe auteur has decided to mix the soundtrack music above the vocals, as if it were all one lush wave of sound or a singular grunge-fest growl. Yes, I’m looking at you, Tom Hardy in The Revenant.

But getting back to my original point. Of course, Rich Little is still doing Nixon, because no one would know who he was doing if he did Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Ben Affleck, Robert Downey, jr., or that guy who plays Wolverine. And it’s not that they’re bad actors (okay, Affleck, yes), it’s just that there’s nothing distinctive about their light, breathy, underdeveloped voices. Moreover, as actors, they’ve been trained to be chameleons rather than icons, the better to expand their range and marketability. That means purging their voices and vocal mannerisms of distinctive traits. Unfortunately, it means they all sort of blur together as interchangeable A-List commodities. If you can’t get Ryan Reynolds and want to plug in Bradley Cooper you can do so without missing a beat. In an age when actors were distinctive, trading, say, Cary Grant out for Gary Cooper would mean making an entirely different picture.

So, this got me thinking about voices. Who were the great male voices of Hollywood, and what was it that made them great? I limited the inquiry to leading men, and my admittedly arbitrary criteria were as follows:

  • Masculinity — A male voice is only aesthetically pleasing to the extent that it projects a masculine ethos. This requires a low register born of testosterone. This is a heavily weighted category.
  • Emotiveness — The voice must retain its masculine ethos throughout the range of emotions the actor plays. That’s not to say pretty, because emotional turmoil can inflict dissonance, but the voice cannot strain weakly to meet the emotional requirements of the role.
  • Distinctiveness — Another major criteria is that the voice must be unique and immediately recognizable.
  • Range — The voice must move easily and naturally from the chest to the head without breaking.

So, without further ado, here are Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices.

Who are Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices?

5. Vincent Price — When Michael Jackson was creating Thriller, and needed a distinctive, campy, but menacing voice with gravitas, he turned to the Master of Gothic Horror. Famously overeducated, Price learned his acting craft on the job, on stage, where necessity proved the mother of his unique timbre. Having distinguished himself on Broadway, Price caught the discriminating ear of Orson Welles, and signed a five-show contract for The Mercury (Radio) Theatre. Though ultimately known for the horror films that made him wealthy, Price was not particularly fond of the genre, and was also adept at comedy and melodrama. One of my favorite Price performances has him taking a comic turn in the noir-ish romp His Kind of Woman with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell, below.

4. Kirk Douglas —No throat could possibly vent the full force of charismatic rage Kirk Douglas carried inside him. Perhaps emanating from the depths of a tortured conscience, his voice always seems on the verge of a rupture. Sure, Kirk teeters on the brink of parody—if his jaw was set any tighter, he’d have been Jim Backus—but he always manages to make his anguish credible.

3. Humphrey Bogart — While most moviegoers might focus on Bogie’s famous lateral lisp, the rasp of his distinctive nasal baritone embodies the cynical detachment of many of his noir characters. Every line from Bogart’s mouth seems to be soaked in bourbon, cigarettes, and betrayal. Though Bogart could speak volumes through his eyes without uttering a word, his unique voice was the product of roughly 17 years on the stage before he began working steadily in film.

2. James Mason — If a speaking voice ever evoked the image of an iron fist in a velvet glove, it was Mason’s. Refined, seductive, and capable of quiet menace, Mason’s vocal instrument allowed him to play romantic leads and villains with equal panache. And, as his portrayal of the self-sabotaging alcoholic Norman Maine in A Star Is Born shows, Mason could project soul-shredding desperation without sounding unreasonably shrill. Below, his acidic pleasantness burns to the bone.

1. Gregory Peck — A perfect match of appearance and sound, Peck was at once ridiculously handsome and perhaps the most vocally virile leading man in Hollywood history. Rumbling like low thunder, Peck’s voice lent gravitas to his matinee idol looks, allowing him to play towering heroes, scowling outlaws and monomaniacal psychotics.  And for those who might object that the previously cited actors are “too stagey” and their acting isn’t natural enough for contemporary tastes, Peck demonstrates we can have the best of both worlds. Trained by Sanford Meisner at the Neighborhood Playhouse, Peck mastered the leading technique for today’s film and TV naturalism.

Honorable mention: Cary Grant, Clark Gable, William Powell, Burt Lancaster, James Stewart, James Cagney, Charlton Heston, James Coburn, and Lee Marvin.

(My thanks to my friend, the talented photographer Barry Morgenstein for use of his photo of Rich Little.)

For your consideration:

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

If I Saw the Movie, Should I Read the Book? Two by Hitchcock.

Two suspense thrillers by women writers, Rebecca and Strangers on a Train. By Kevin Rush.

How many times have you heard someone say, “Oh, the book is so much better!” It’s practically the mating cry of literary snobs. Yet, how often do we put that claim to the test? I grew up watching classic movies on our tiny 19 inch black and white TV, so if ever there was motivation to get a more expansive view of a story, that would have been it. Yet, rarely did I turn off the TV thinking, “Ooh, now I’ve got to get the book!” Okay, I was watching the Bowery Boys, but still. People who spent two weeks reading the book when a movie only took a couple of hours were peculiar to say the least. I’m thinking of Maria H., my high school acquaintance who claimed to have read Gone With the Wind six times and would recite the opening passage at the least provocation. (This is the only reason I know that Scarlet O’Hara had eyebrows like bat wings.) I remember feeling like such a big boy, when I had read The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three during the summer after eighth grade and the film was released the following fall. This put me on par with my buddy Tom S., who had read Jaws in advance of the definitive summer blockbuster. (He hinted at the racy chapter Spielberg had omitted, but never gave us the whole scoop.) As I’ve matured, I’m still more likely to read a contemporary novel that’s going to be made into a film than to scour my local library for movie source material, especially when it’s a half-century-old bestseller that didn’t make the canon of my college English curriculum. But this summer I decided to change that. I decided to explore the novels that became movies, and what better place to start than two books Alfred Hitchcock used for his films

https://youtube.com/watch?v=d9eWjSt1VQw

Rebecca — Nominated for 11 Oscars and winning two, the original 1940 version of Daphne du Maurier’s novel was director Alfred Hitchcock’s first Hollywood film and, to that point, the crowning achievement of his career. The Oscar Winner for Best Picture and Best Black and White Cinematography had a stellar cast: a darkly brooding Laurence Olivier, who had brooded darkly to great effect in 1939’s Wuthering Heights; relative newcomer Joan Fontaine, whom Hitchcock would imperil again in 1941’s Suspicion; and Judith Anderson, whose turn as Mrs. Danvers set the standard for Gothic housekeepers for decades to come. (In the 1946 Abbott and Costello comedy The Time of Their Lives, a grim provincial maid greets a party of visitors, prompting the group’s designated wise-cracker to ask, “Didn’t I see you in Rebecca?” I’d also wager that Cloris Leachman owes much of her inspiration for Frau Blücher to Anderson’s eerie domestic.) Audiences flocked to see Rebecca, which was the top-grossing movie of the year.  

The film’s success was hard-won. Legend has it that Olivier had wanted his then girlfriend, later wife, Vivien Leigh to play the female lead, and treated Fontaine horribly. Hitchcock, no doubt hoping such treatment would spill over into the character of a lone woman surrounded by inexplicable hostility, reportedly informed Fontaine that others on the set despised her. And Hitchcock had his own problems; shooting had begun just as Britain entered the war against Hitler’s Germany, weighing emotionally on the British members of cast and crew. Hitch was also at loggerheads with producer David O. Sleznick, who like his director was an obsessive perfectionist. In these days of “safe work spaces,” it’s hard to imagine any good emerging from what was certainly a toxic work environment by contemporary standards, but the proof is on the screen. Rebecca would be the only Best Picture Oscar winner in Hitchcock’s career. Though he was nominated five times as Best Director, including for Rebecca, Hitchcock would never win a competitive Oscar.

I had not seen Rebecca for maybe 25 years before sitting down this summer to read Daphne du Maurier’s classic thriller. I’d forgotten who, save Laurence Oliver, had been in the cast, but the final scene was seared into my memory, and I wondered if the book would be spoiled for me. Happily, it was not. What I discovered was a brilliantly plotted thriller enriched by fine characterizations. The unnamed narrator (Fontaine’s character) is a bit cloying at times. Early in what I’d call the second act, her self-pity was a drag, but her character did not remain stagnant. In fact, many of the characters had surprising depth and personal arcs that made the book work on many levels. The story had numerous plot twists that make you snap your head up from the page and go “Wow!” As for the ending I knew was coming, it’s handled more subtly here than in the film, so the story ends on a haunting note of mystery. If you’re looking for escapist fiction that’s intriguing and artfully crafted, Rebecca is well worth your time, even if you’ve seen the film.

Strangers on a Train Patricia Highsmith’s 1950 debut novel earned critical praise as well as moderate commercial success. Though it never cracked the New York Times Bestseller List, Strangers on a Train caught the unblinking side-eye of Alfred Hitchcock, who promptly bought the film rights, bidding anonymously to keep the price down. Hitchcock’s 1951 version of Strangers starred Fairly Granger as the squeaky-clean Guy Haines, who late one night on a train trip meets a flamboyant, drunken psychopath, Bruno Antony (played deliciously by Robert Walker), and gets drawn into his sinister plan to “trade murders.” Hitchcock had directed Granger in his 1948 experimental thriller Rope, one of a string of postwar mediocrities (The Paradine Case (1947), Under Capricorn (1949), Stage Fright (1950)) that incited whispers that maybe Hitch had lost his touch. The once-and-future Master of Suspense badly needed a hit to buff the tarnish off his image, and Strangers delivered, ushering in the decade that would arguably produce Hitchcock’s finest work.

It’s somewhat ironic, however, that Hitchcock’s film is most famous for two vignettes which do not appear in the book: the tennis match and the merry-go-round catastrophe. Moviegoers will remember that Guy has a match at Forest Hills on the day he suspects Bruno will return to the scene of the first murder and plant incriminating evidence against him. Guy has to get home to foil Bruno, but must play the match, because withdrawing would bring him under further suspicion. The match, naturally, goes into overtime and the suspense builds to an excruciating pitch. The scene is not in the book, because Highsmith’s protagonist is not a tennis player, he’s an architect. And even though the movie is faithful to the book in placing the first murder in an amusement park, the book does not depict a climactic return to the scene of the crime.

The memorable out-of-control merry-go-round crash is not Highsmith’s invention. Rather, it’s lifted in all its major details from a 1946 British crime novel, The Moving Toyshop, by Bruce Montgomery, writing under his pseudonym Edmund Crispin. The Crispin books are noted for combining edge-of-the-seat suspense with high-spirited humor, so it stands to reason Hitchcock would have read them. One can imagine Hitch reading Highsmith’s chilling sequence—where Bruno stalks Guy’s wife Miriam to and through Lake Metcalf’s Kingdom of Fun—and musing, “We’ll have to go back there for that Crispin cataclysm.” Neither Crispin nor Montgomery is credited in the screenplay, which lists Whitfield Cook, Czenzi Ormonde (then an assistant to Ben Hecht, whom Hitchcock wanted but was unavailable), and Raymond Chandler.

Given the departures the film takes from the book, it’s reasonable to ask whether the book is worth reading, but it absolutely is. Patricia Highsmith enjoyed a prolific, though by some measures an underappreciated, career as a crime novelist, giving us classics, such as The Price of Salt (produced for the screen as Carol) and the Ripley series. She was a pioneer in weaving sexual deviancy into her examinations of killer psychology. In Strangers, Highsmith strongly hints at Bruno’s homosexuality and his attraction to Guy, a theme which is present, but muted, in the performances of Walker and Granger. Highsmith also takes a darker turn in her narrative than Hitchcock would dare with a mainstream Hollywood feature, especially when he was much in need of a hit. Hi-jinx on a calliope served his purposes much better than a chilling examination of the human soul. Highsmith, who had nothing to lose on her first effort, was willing to risk shocking and alienating her audience by blurring the line between Guy and Bruno, while Hitchcock framed the tale as a more-or-less clear battle between good and evil, rational and insane. As an artist, Highsmith deserves praise for her daring, which makes her novel edgy and intriguing even 70 years after its initial release.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

Free Amazon Download of Sci-Fi Saga, ‘Nauts

For five days only, September 8 through 12, you can get a FREE Kindle download of the opening chapter in the ‘Nauts science fiction saga. The series written by award-winning author Kevin Rush explores the early days of commercial space flight in the third decade of the 21st century. Taking a decidedly conservative/libertarian tone, the story plays out against a backdrop of political corruption, international intrigue, and radical terrorism, but is full of the action, humor, and romance that makes for a great adventure. You can get your free download of ‘Nauts — Episode One: Persephone here.

And while you’re at Amazon, check out other offerings by Kevin Rush on his Amazon author’s page.

 

Doubtful Provenance Named Semi-Finalist in the Ashland New Plays Festival 2017

On Monday, March 6, word came that Doubtful Provenance, the full-length stage play by award-winning playwright Kevin Rush, has been selected as a semi-finalist for the Ashland New Plays Festival 2017, to be held in Ashland, Oregon, October 15 through 22. Only six percent of the submitted scripts advanced.

Here’s how the ANPF website describes the festival: “Founded in 1992 and managed by a volunteer board of directors, Ashland New Plays Festival is a nonprofit organization that encourages playwrights in the creation of new works through public readings.”

“ANPF has given scores of playwrights from far and wide the forum to have their fledgling works read before a supportive, knowledgeable, and insightful audience.”

“[I]n October, the winning playwrights are in residence for an entire week. During this fertile time, they talk with other playwrights, receive counsel from our host playwright, and have ample opportunities to discuss their plays in informal social settings.”

Having made it through the initial round, where 94 percent of scripts were eliminated, Doubtful Provenance now goes to the full reading committee. Final notifications go out in July. Winner received free room and board and a $1,000 stipend to cover travel expenses to the festival. Mr. Rush, who has never been to Ashland, and hasn’t even been to Oregon since 1994, would welcome the opportunity to attend. Fingers crossed.

The Lance and the Veil: A Novel to Enhance Your Lenten Journey

The Lance and the Veil: an adventure in the time of Christ, tells the story of how Veronica and Longinus made their way to Calvary, witnessed Our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross and experienced the glory of His Resurrection. Its depiction of their journey through a sinful world to salvation is an inspiring tale that can enhance our Lenten journey from the dust of Ash Wednesday to the Redemption of Easter. Many Christians, especially Catholics, have read this book as part of their preparation for Easter. In fact, it was originally written as a Lenten companion, in 40 chapters, one for each day of Lent, each with a short reflection, and published on the website, Making Lent Meaningful.

When it came time to publish the novel in book form, I removed the reflections and had to cut two chapters due to page limitations. But, as Lent 2016 approaches, I know there will be many readers who will want to make The Lance and the Veil part of their Lenten experience. So, I’ve posted the reflections and lost chapters here.

I wish you a rich journey towards Easter. May every blessing of this holy season be yours.

‘Nauts — Episode 3: Rules of Engagement

The Libertarian Sci Fi Saga Hits Back at Political Correctness With Its Most Controversial Segment Yet!

In the year 2025, free enterprise is on the ropes, as pioneers in commercial space flight combat the twin demons of political corruption and international terrorism. Can they hold their team together long enough to perfect the technology that will open the Solar System?

“Sir, with all due respect, sometimes, you get rules of engagement that set you up to fail. Put you on the defensive, when you should play offense.”

Ep_3

 

When the IGA calls on the crew of Persephone to dispose of the derelict International Space Station, it’s clear that playing by the rules won’t get the job done. But what are the rules anymore? For decades political correctness has shackled free citizens, empowered corrupt government and coddled extremist terrorists. Now Lone Star Aerospace fights to pursue a bold vision of interplanetary travel against a cluster of totalitarian forces demanding they submit or die.

 

“But my point, Cloyd, is that I have a dream. To drive that dream I created a business. I employ workers. They earn salaries with which they provide for their families. We make discoveries that we hope will drive other industries, providing more jobs for more people and lifting up more families. And you, my pitiable friend, want to destroy all of that. You are using the brute force of government to compel me and my people to enter into your delusion, and if we refuse, you will destroy us. Isn’t that right, Cloyd?”

Follow the adventures of these intrepid pioneers as they fight for the freedom to pursue their destiny.

If you’re caught up on the story, you can read Episode 3 here. If you’re just joining us, begin by reading Episode One — Persephone.

‘Nauts Episode 2 — “Ox-Bow International” is up at Liberty Island!

'Nauts_Ep_2_Oxbow_LIThere’s good news for Sci-Fi fans tonight, September 22, 2015, because Liberty Island Magazine has (finally!) posted Episode 2 of my Sci-Fi saga, ‘Nauts.

If you missed our pilot episode, Persephone, don’t sit there all antsy, get yourself caught up, then dive into Ox-Bow International, a story of political corruption, international intrigue, culture clash, and stone-cold revenge.

Let the folks at Liberty Island know how you like this series, because Episode 3 is on about to come hot off the computer.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 kevinrush.us

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑