And why is Manson's guilt so hard to believe? Aside from the mountain of evidence tying him to each crime (including Manson's own words to dozens of different people about "offing pigs"), the guy had a rap sheet of serious felonies, property crimes and violent crimes a mile long. When the physical evidence available is corroborated by the statements of multiple witnesses and defendants, it becomes pretty clear that what is alleged is actually what happened. Conversely, in the light of that evidence and those statements matching up, it becomes a stretch to think something else occurred (i.e. Manson wasn't involved in any of this). In other words, doubt becomes unreasonable. Once you hit that point, the State's burden has been met and you must find the guy guilty. That's what the jury did here.
Thanks, man, your post said it way better than mine. I'm baffled at someone thinking Manson isn't guilty. If that's the case, why isn't he a cause celebre with countless people screaming for his release?
As I recall from the end of the book, even Manson told Bugliosi that he'd received a fair trial.
Murder
-Hinman: he lopped off Gary Hinman's ear with a sword that he received from a biker gang he was trying to recruit, after ordering Hinman tied up, went outside, and told the others to "finish him off"; Hinman was subsequently killed thereafter. (that's also conspiracy to commit murder too)
-Tate/Labianca murders: multiple members of the family all stated to police and on direct examination that the murders were done at the direction of Charles Manson; Manson was present at the Labianca murders and again tied them up with instructions to Tex Watson and other Family members to finish them off
-Donald Shea ("Shorty"): Bruce Davis stated that Manson was present during the murder and dismemberment of Shorty Shea and that Manson handed him the machete used during the killing
Conspiracy to Commit Murder
-see above; dozens of statements and witnesses stated that all murders were done as part of broader plan, all at Manson's direction; doesn't take much for a conspiracy to develop
On top of that, there's tons of testimony and statements regarding burglaries, robberies, sex crimes, auto theft, and harassment that Manson either did directly, or that others did at his direction.
Bugliosi has spent the first 350 pages of a 600+ page book mounting evidence about why Manson was guilty of these things; I am extremely skeptical that he will drop a line in the last 300 that he doesn't actually think Manson was guilty. Like I said, you must be thinking of a different book.
And why is Manson's guilt so hard to believe? Aside from the mountain of evidence tying him to each crime (including Manson's own words to dozens of different people about "offing pigs"), the guy had a rap sheet of serious felonies, property crimes and violent crimes a mile long. When the physical evidence available is corroborated by the statements of multiple witnesses and defendants, it becomes pretty clear that what is alleged is actually what happened. Conversely, in the light of that evidence and those statements matching up, it becomes a stretch to think something else occurred (i.e. Manson wasn't involved in any of this). In other words, doubt becomes unreasonable. Once you hit that point, the State's burden has been met and you must find the guy guilty. That's what the jury did here.
Why do you keep suggesting that I may be thinking of a different book? I read the Bugliosi book. I also read the book 'Manson in his own words'.
Perhaps you need to finish the book before making such pronounced judgements on it's merits?
From what I understand, Manson didn't even set foot in either of the houses where the murders took place.
There’s actually more physical evidence pointing towards Charles Watson being the ringleader.
And did Manson tie up the LaBiancas? Charles Watson confessed to doing that in his 1978 book 'Will You Die For Me?'
“Self-preservation won out in court and I admitted only what I felt I had to, what the prosecution already knew. I admitted shooting or stabbing everyone at the Tate house except Sharon. I denied killing her since Bugliosi and a previous jury were convinced Susan Atkins had done it. I claimed that Linda had driven to 10050 Cielo Drive, and tried to lay all the evidence of premeditation on Charlie or one of the girls. Also, since all the other witnesses to the events outside the LaBianca house had said that Charlie went in alone to tie up the victims, I went along with that story, figuring it made me look that much less responsible.” — Charles “Tex” Watson, from “Will You Die For Me?” 1978
According to Manson, he stayed outside in the car.
None of the statements you've mentioned above are reliable. And most of the 'confessions' were later retracted. I.e, 'Originally, a deal had been made with Atkins in which the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty against her in exchange for her grand jury testimony on which the indictments were secured; once Atkins repudiated that testimony, the deal was withdrawn.'
And as for Manson's previous criminal history: none of that had anything to do with his guilt or innocence in relation to the murders.
As I recall from the end of the book, even Manson told Bugliosi that he'd received a fair trial.
No, he didn't say that.
Firstly, Manson was denied his right to defend himself in court. Also, when he was finally permitted to make a statement, the jury was removed from the courtroom.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#Trial On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions, the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness. Shouting their disapproval, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten demanded their right to testify.
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved. By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this.
And another thing; during the trial the Los Angeles Times published a front page whose headline was "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares." Could this possibly have prejudiced the jury?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... big-cases/ In the Manson case, Nixon’s words were used to seek a mistrial. While Manson was on trial in California on charges of conspiracy in the murder of Sharon Tate and others, Nixon was talking to reporters in Denver, and complained of a media tendency to “glorify and to make heroes” out of people like Manson. He noted that the trial was getting daily coverage in the newspapers and on the network evening news, then added, “Here was a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.”
According to an account in Time magazine, reporters dashed to the press rooms and filed bulletins that swept the country. Within half an hour, Ron Ziegler, Nixon’s press secretary, issued a correction, saying, according to The Associated Press, that the president had simply failed to use the word “allege” and had not intended to prejudge the case.
In court the next day, Manson was able to grab a copy of The Los Angeles Times and flash its front page (“Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares”) to the jury. The judge denied the defense’s motion for a mistrial, though he did sentence the person who had left the newspaper within Manson’s reach to three nights in jail.
Also:
http://voices.yahoo.com/was-charles-man ... 76993.html 'Tex Watson, who in a tactical sense was the true ringleader of the murders, had skipped off to Texas, and was tried separately due to the exigencies of extraditing him from Texas -- or so the L.A. Prosecutor's office said. Instead of waiting for the Lone Star State to send back this fine example of a Native Son to sunny California, the Prosecutor's Office decided to go ahead with the trial of Atkins, Manson, Krenwinkel and Van Houten, with Linda Kasabian as their star witness, and damn the expense of having to try Tex Watson separately. For you see, if Tex Watson had been tried along with Charles Manson, Charlie's public defender Irving Kanarek might have been able to shift the blame to the Native Son, the man who actually captained both crews of murderers.
...When Linda Kasabian, who had skipped out from the "Family" after the LaBianca killings, surrendered in Concord, New Hampshire and was extradited back to California, her attorney tried to make a deal with Bugliosi. He turned her down. He had Susan Atkins, a.k.a. Sadie Mae Glutz in the prosecutorial fold, she having turned state's witness and testifying before the Grand Jury that handed down the murder indictments. When Atkins balked and withdrew her Grand Jury testimony, Bugliosi then went to Kasabian's lawyer and cut the deal. In his summation at the trial, Bugliosi -- who originally had wanted nothing to do with her when he had Sadie Mae as his prize witness -- praised her.
...In theory, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. By keeping Tex Watson out of the trial, didn't Bugliosi engineer it so as to minimize the doubts that the defendants' attorneys could raise in the minds of the jurors?'
And did Manson tie up the LaBiancas? Charles Watson confessed to doing that in his 1978 book 'Will You Die For Me?'
And Linda Kasabian stated that it was Manson, not Watson. Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins both stated that Charles tied up the Labianca's. Does that fact change because Susan Atkins and Tex Watson, both of whom also believe Manson was Jesus Christ, changed their stories later? Does that fact change because Tex Watson wrote a book later and took the fall for tying up the Labiancas well after it mattered? :? Pretty tough to speculate that Watson would've taken the fall for this because he wrote a book saying as much 10 years later. If anything, you have a stronger case for thinking that Watson wouldn't have taken responsibility for this, simply because he was fighting extradition so hard.
According to Manson, he stayed outside in the car.
According to Manson, he was also Jesus Christ and there was an impending race war. According to Manson, he and his followers would live in a bottomless pit to avoid the race war. So...I guess he wouldn't be my most credible source.
None of the statements you've mentioned above are reliable. And most of the 'confessions' were later retracted. I.e, 'Originally, a deal had been made with Atkins in which the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty against her in exchange for her grand jury testimony on which the indictments were secured; once Atkins repudiated that testimony, the deal was withdrawn.'
Why aren't they reliable? Because they speakers later changed their stories? Welcome to the world of criminal law my friend. Its not for me to decide who's credible, its for the jury to decide. Linda Kasabian testified and the jury found her credible. Period. That's our system. How that is Bugliosi's fault? How does that make Manson any less culpable? As for Atkins, what do you make of the fact that Atkins recanted her GJ testimony only after she spoke with Manson in jail? Remember, she thought he was Jesus Christ. If her personal JC (as he liked to be called) met her and told her not to testify, is there any doubt she would comply?
And as for Manson's previous criminal history: none of that had anything to do with his guilt or innocence in relation to the murders.
You're exactly right. And while substantive evidence of Manson's criminal record is not permissible under the rules of evidence (except in limited circumstances or impeachment situations), that doesn't mean its not persuasive for us in the court of public opinion, in the aftermath. The fact Manson has a violent and lengthy criminal record makes it easier to believe that he could have been involved in this type of activity.
For you see, if Tex Watson had been tried along with Charles Manson, Charlie's public defender Irving Kanarek might have been able to shift the blame to the Native Son, the man who actually captained both crews of murderers.
Maybe. But the only evidence we have is that Watson fought extradition and that Manson demanded a trial date. Right to a trial and a speedy one at that, is a constitutional right. If the State had waited to try Manson and Watson together, then people would be complaining that Manson was denied his right to a speedy trial. The State had a choice: try Manson alone (while Watson fought extradition) and comply with Manson's request for a speedy trial (OR) wait to try Manson/Watson together but deny Manson his right to a speedy trial. And why couldn't Manson still point to Tex Watson as the perpetrator, without being tried together? What prevented Manson from making that argument?
As far as Linda Kasabian goes, she was "praised" by the prosecution because plenty of physical evidence corroborated her story/testimony. When Susan Atkins recanted, they went with their best witness available. So...I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
...In theory, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. By keeping Tex Watson out of the trial, didn't Bugliosi engineer it so as to minimize the doubts that the defendants' attorneys could raise in the minds of the jurors?'[/i]
No. Tex Watson's attorneys probably "engineered" it so that Watson would be tried separately...that's called good lawyering. It was Watson, not Bugliosi, who fought extradition. It was Manson, not Bugliosi, who demanded that a trial date be set before Watson could be extradited.
I'm not trying to have a knock-down argument here, but as a prosecutor myself, I find it astonishing that there's still any doubt that Manson was guilty or that he somehow was denied a fair trial. Any of the procedural "irregularities" that might have existed in the trial, were of Manson's own doing. I keep asking if you're thinking of the same book, because so far, Bugliosi hasn't spent a word on saying he didn't think Manson was guilty, but that "he just wanted a conviction." (remember, he was a practicing lawyer when this was written, so an admission like that would cost him his law license). So I find it extremely hard to believe that he'll change tune in the last 150 pages and say "oh by the way, Manson wasn't actually guilty." :roll:
If we want to keep discussing this though, let's start a new thread. I don't want to derail thread integrity here. Let's talk about books!
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
Haha...I just hate when threads get derailed though. I don't want to do that to the book thread!
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
Haha...I just hate when threads get derailed though. I don't want to do that to the book thread!
I agree w/ rrivers. Im highly interested in the topic and am considering reading the book now.
then again, keep the discussion going, and I wont need to read it!
Now Vant...dont you have an actual Brief to be drafting? :nono:
Insight from an attorney on this topic is pretty cool in my opinion, and its not hard to tell what your background is from reading your posts on the subject.
Mansfield, MA - Jul 02, 2003; Mansfield, MA - Jul 03, 2003; Mansfield, MA - Jul 11, 2003; Boston, MA - Sep 29, 2004; Reading, PA - Oct 01, 2004; Hartford, CT - May 13, 2006; Boston, MA - May 24, 2006; Boston, MA - May 25, 2006; Hartford, CT - Jun 27, 2008; Mansfield, MA - Jun 28, 2008; Mansfield, MA - June 30, 2008; Hartford, CT - May 15, 2010; Boston, MA - May 17, 2010; [EV - Providence, RI - June 15, 2011; EV - Hartford, CT - June 18, 2011]; Worcester, MA - Oct. 15, 2013; Worcester, MA - Oct. 16, 2013; Hartford, CT - Oct. 25, 2013; Boston, MA - August 5, 2016; Boston, MA - August 7, 2016...
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
Haha...I just hate when threads get derailed though. I don't want to do that to the book thread!
I agree w/ rrivers. Im highly interested in the topic and am considering reading the book now.
then again, keep the discussion going, and I wont need to read it!
Now Vant...dont you have an actual Brief to be drafting? :nono:
Insight from an attorney on this topic is pretty cool in my opinion, and its not hard to tell what your background is from reading your posts on the subject.
Well hey now...its a Friday, I've got trials next week, so I can afford to slack a bit today!
As for my background, I'm a politically/socially left, former public defender (and still defend parents in child protection cases ) turned prosecutor (because I needed a job). Is that the background you were thinking?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
Well, in all fairness, he's probably got more tools in his box than me on this particular subject, what with him being a trained lawyer and all. And though I still have many reservations about how the Manson case transpired, vant0037 has made some good points. So I'll probably just let this one go.
I agree w/ rrivers. Im highly interested in the topic and am considering reading the book now.
It is a good read. My main reservations are that Bugliosi struck me a pretty dishonest, slippery character who's ambition and need for publicity eclipsed his better nature. And the impression I got from reading both his book, and the book 'Manson in his own words' - an amazing book, as far as I'm concerned - Manson was pretty much stitched up by Bugliosi, among others, and fell victim to a huge media feeding frenzy in which it seems the authorities finally got a chance to stamp down hard on the 60's counter culture.
Not that I think Manson was an angel, but he definitely wasn't the Devil, as many people were led to believe, and as many people still continue to believe.
Norman G. Finkelstein - Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End
Traditionally, American Jews have been broadly liberal in their political outlook; indeed African-Americans are the only ethnic group more likely to vote Democratic in US elections. Over the past half century, however, attitudes on one topic have stood in sharp contrast to this group’s generally progressive stance: support for Israel.
Despite Israel’s record of militarism, illegal settlements and human rights violations, American Jews have, stretching back to the 1960s, remained largely steadfast supporters of the Jewish “homeland.” But, as Norman Finkelstein explains in an elegantly-argued and richly-textured new book, this is now beginning to change.
Reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations, and books by commentators as prominent as President Jimmy Carter and as well-respected in the scholarly community as Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and Peter Beinart, have increasingly pinpointed the fundamental illiberalism of the Israeli state. In the light of these exposes, the support of America Jews for Israel has begun to fray. This erosion has been particularly marked among younger members of the community. A 2010 Brandeis University poll found that only about one quarter of Jews aged under 40 today feel “very much” connected to Israel.
In successive chapters that combine Finkelstein’s customary meticulous research with polemical brio, Knowing Too Much sets the work of defenders of Israel such as Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Oren, Dennis Ross and Benny Morris against the historical record, showing their claims to be increasingly tendentious. As growing numbers of American Jews come to see the speciousness of the arguments behind such apologias and recognize Israel’s record as simply indefensible, Finkelstein points to the opening of new possibilities for political advancement in a region that for decades has been stuck fast in a gridlock of injustice and suffering.
I hope you both do keep discussing this because it is fascinating and I don't care if you do it here. If you do move it, let me know where so I can follow it!
Well, in all fairness, he's probably got more tools in his box than me on this particular subject, what with him being a trained lawyer and all. And though I still have many reservations about how the Manson case transpired, vant0037 has made some good points. So I'll probably just let this one go.
Maybe I'm going soft in my old age :P
I give you both props for having a civil, intelligent discussion (something very rare on the internet). While I would probably lean more towards vant0037's side of things, you definitely made me at least consider the other side.
I agree w/ rrivers. Im highly interested in the topic and am considering reading the book now.
It is a good read. My main reservations are that Bugliosi struck me a pretty dishonest, slippery character who's ambition and need for publicity eclipsed his better nature. And the impression I got from reading both his book, and the book 'Manson in his own words' - an amazing book, as far as I'm concerned - Manson was pretty much stitched up by Bugliosi, among others, and fell victim to a huge media feeding frenzy in which it seems the authorities finally got a chance to stamp down hard on the 60's counter culture.
Not that I think Manson was an angel, but he definitely wasn't the Devil, as many people were led to believe, and as many people still continue to believe.
See, I knew I couldn't let it go.
Specifics to his trial aside, I think its a disservice to those organizers and politicos of the 1960s to imply that Manson was representative of the legit 1960s counter culture.
The problem I have with any insinuation that Manson was set up or not guilty and that he was simply being made an example of in an attempt to "stamp down hard" on the 60's counter culture is that such a notion flies in the face of logic and what we know the police capable of doing. For instance, in the 1960s, when the cops wanted to break up the Black Panther power base, they introduced drugs into their neighborhoods. They arrested them for non-violent offenses and they occasionally planted evidence at crime scenes. If the cops wanted to clamp down on hippie culture, why would they choose a complex and sensational murder case that was admittedly difficult to investigate and prove for the State in which to do it? Why would they spend so much time proving a difficult case, much of it circumstantial, when we know that the LAPD (at the time) was not above planting evidence? Think of this way: if they really wanted to pin this on Manson, guilty or not, why wouldn't they have planted something more direct - a bloody shirt, a knife, a gun - on his person or in his rooms at the Spahn Ranch? Instead they chose the difficult route of pinning him with this by investigating the crime for almost 3 years? :?
As someone who's very left and has a deep appreciation for the intentions of the 1960s social vanguard, I'm insulted for that group when there's an implication that Charles Manson - a racist and paranoid wannabe-guru who used sex and violence to control and coerce people (and I'm saying this of his activities independent of the murders, mind you) - was somehow a representative of that culture.
On top of that, the evidence in Manson's trial was what it was. There was testimony, there was physical evidence, there were statements, there were circumstantial pieces of evidence that linked Manson directly or indirectly. I came into reading the book knowing only who Charles Manson was, but not sure of any of the specifics of what he was charged/convicted with, other than I knew he was a cult leader and was convicted of murder. Almost finished with the book, I can say that the evidence that was presented against made a strong case that he was the guy. I'm not surprised that Manson's own book might dispute that, but again, the old joke about people is prison is that they're all innocent. (for the record, I am extremely supportive of Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project - look it up if you don't know what I'm referring to).
Bugliosi probably comes off as "slippery" because he personifies the active prosecutor - many prosecutors do not take such an active role in the investigation piece. He probably fit that preconceived idea that people have of lawyers - that we're aggressive, that we're not above deception, that we'll dupe people etc. I don't doubt that he's a bit of an egomaniac (I'm drawing this conclusion from another book of his I've read), but thus far, I haven't read anything that causes me to think he's unethical or not doing precisely what a prosecutor should be doing.
Anyway, good discussion.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Just finished Lawrence Block's Time for Murder and Create... This is my 2nd book I read of his Matthew Scudder series and I'm starting to like his style, pretty matter of fact, curious to see how the series evolves.
I started Chuck Hogan's The Killing Moon... just getting into the meat of the book, hoping it turns out as good as his other works.
Looking forward to getting my shipment of Ken Bruen books... as you go through his Jack Taylor series you feel like you have been punched in the gut followed by a rabbit punch to the kidneys... very quick reads but jam packed stories.
Specifics to his trial aside, I think its a disservice to those organizers and politicos of the 1960s to imply that Manson was representative of the legit 1960s counter culture.
I don't think he was particularly representative either, but it seemed they chose to portray him as such.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Great book. Though I think a lot depends on the translation. I always liked the Penguin edition translated by David Magarshack, as a lot of the narrative is hilarious:
p.129: 'Plyushkin had been standing for several minutes without uttering a word, while Chichikov, distracted both by the appearance of the master of the house and by all the things in his room, could not bring himself to start the conversation. For a long time he could not think of words in which to explain the reason for his visit. He was about to express himself something in this vein, that having heard of his great virtues and the rare qualities of his heart and mind, he had recollected himself, feeling that that would be going a little too far,. Casting another sidelong glance at all the things in the room, he felt that the words 'virtues' and 'rare qualities of heart and mind' could very well be replaced by the words 'economy' and 'good order'; and therefore, changing his speech accordingly, he said that having heard of his economy and his rare ability in managing his estate, he had deemed it his duty to make his acquaintance and pay his respects in person. He could, of course, have given another and better reason, but he could think of nothing else at the moment.
To this Plyushkin muttered something between his lips, for he had no teeth, but what it was is not certain. The gist of it probably was: 'To hell with you and your respects!' But as hospitality is so popular with us that even a miser cannot bring himself to transgress it's laws, he added a little more distinctly: 'Won't you take a seat, Sir?'
P.143: 'But on with our journey! On with the journey! Away with the wrinkles that have furrowed our brow and the gloomy shadow that has fallen over our face! Let us plunge all at once into life with all it's muffled rattle and jingling bells, and let us see what Chichikov is doing...'
There's also a scene in the book where he describes the thoughts and motivations of a couple of flies on a windowsill, that I remember being really funny.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
While reading the HST book, I'll also be reading the new Bill Clinton book that came out last year.
Change of plans; will be reading "The Great Gatsby" for the first time before the Bill Clinton book.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Anyone like James Joyce? I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in my second year of college and absolutely loved it and became very interested in him.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Anyone like James Joyce? I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in my second year of college and absolutely loved it and became very interested in him.
I remember reading that in high school and loved it so I read Dubliners and later Ulysses. Long time ago. I wonder what it would be like to reread them now.
1Q84 by Haruki Murakami
About halfway through (of a long 925pp) and getting the feeling that I may be in for a letdown. :?
Although there are some enjoyable parts to be found, I find that some ideas are way out there, even for Murakami. Definitely not one of his best or even better writings. For that, I suggest The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle...
I gave up on it when I got to book 3 (actually, my digital library loan expired). I've put The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle in my queue, thanks for the suggestion. I'll go back to 1Q84 when it's available again.
Right now, reading Cutting for Stone, by Abraham Verghese. Really enjoying it.
“I worked really hard on this set. I just told you we’re gonna have a great night, so I don’t need any fuckin’ help from anybody.” EV, 7/2/09
There's also a scene in the book where he describes the thoughts and motivations of a couple of flies on a windowsill, that I remember being really funny.
This does sound damn promising!
"...bring it back someway bring it back, back, back... to the clean form, to the pure form..."
"Life" by Keith Richards
Just finished "playing with fire" by Theo fluery.
Both excellent reads
I read Theo's book when it first came out,and just caught the doc on HBO.....He's a very inspiring guy...and I've always thought he should be in the Hall of Fame....maybe just the Canadian in me...Anyone esle see the doc? Thoughts?
I will walk w/my hands bound
I will walk w/my face blood
I will walk w/my shadow flag
Memories back when she was smooth and strong
and waiting for the world to come along...
Anyone like James Joyce? I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in my second year of college and absolutely loved it and became very interested in him.
I remember reading that in high school and loved it so I read Dubliners and later Ulysses. Long time ago. I wonder what it would be like to reread them now.
i tried reading ulysses TWICE. it hurt my head. ill get back to it one day.. but it only gets one more chance.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Anyone like James Joyce? I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in my second year of college and absolutely loved it and became very interested in him.
I remember reading that in high school and loved it so I read Dubliners and later Ulysses. Long time ago. I wonder what it would be like to reread them now.
i tried reading ulysses TWICE. it hurt my head. ill get back to it one day.. but it only gets one more chance.
Safe to say that I wasn't ready for Ulysses when I read it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pick it up again.
I liked Dubliners a lot. It doesn't seem to get as much attention as his other books.
Comments
As I recall from the end of the book, even Manson told Bugliosi that he'd received a fair trial.
_____________________________
It makes much more sense, to live
In the present tense
Why do you keep suggesting that I may be thinking of a different book? I read the Bugliosi book. I also read the book 'Manson in his own words'.
Perhaps you need to finish the book before making such pronounced judgements on it's merits?
From what I understand, Manson didn't even set foot in either of the houses where the murders took place.
There’s actually more physical evidence pointing towards Charles Watson being the ringleader.
And did Manson tie up the LaBiancas? Charles Watson confessed to doing that in his 1978 book 'Will You Die For Me?'
“Self-preservation won out in court and I admitted only what I felt I had to, what the prosecution already knew. I admitted shooting or stabbing everyone at the Tate house except Sharon. I denied killing her since Bugliosi and a previous jury were convinced Susan Atkins had done it. I claimed that Linda had driven to 10050 Cielo Drive, and tried to lay all the evidence of premeditation on Charlie or one of the girls. Also, since all the other witnesses to the events outside the LaBianca house had said that Charlie went in alone to tie up the victims, I went along with that story, figuring it made me look that much less responsible.”
— Charles “Tex” Watson, from “Will You Die For Me?” 1978
According to Manson, he stayed outside in the car.
None of the statements you've mentioned above are reliable. And most of the 'confessions' were later retracted. I.e, 'Originally, a deal had been made with Atkins in which the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty against her in exchange for her grand jury testimony on which the indictments were secured; once Atkins repudiated that testimony, the deal was withdrawn.'
And as for Manson's previous criminal history: none of that had anything to do with his guilt or innocence in relation to the murders.
No, he didn't say that.
Firstly, Manson was denied his right to defend himself in court. Also, when he was finally permitted to make a statement, the jury was removed from the courtroom.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#Trial
On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions, the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness. Shouting their disapproval, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten demanded their right to testify.
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved. By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this.
And another thing; during the trial the Los Angeles Times published a front page whose headline was "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares." Could this possibly have prejudiced the jury?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... big-cases/
In the Manson case, Nixon’s words were used to seek a mistrial. While Manson was on trial in California on charges of conspiracy in the murder of Sharon Tate and others, Nixon was talking to reporters in Denver, and complained of a media tendency to “glorify and to make heroes” out of people like Manson. He noted that the trial was getting daily coverage in the newspapers and on the network evening news, then added, “Here was a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.”
According to an account in Time magazine, reporters dashed to the press rooms and filed bulletins that swept the country. Within half an hour, Ron Ziegler, Nixon’s press secretary, issued a correction, saying, according to The Associated Press, that the president had simply failed to use the word “allege” and had not intended to prejudge the case.
In court the next day, Manson was able to grab a copy of The Los Angeles Times and flash its front page (“Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares”) to the jury. The judge denied the defense’s motion for a mistrial, though he did sentence the person who had left the newspaper within Manson’s reach to three nights in jail.
Also:
http://voices.yahoo.com/was-charles-man ... 76993.html
'Tex Watson, who in a tactical sense was the true ringleader of the murders, had skipped off to Texas, and was tried separately due to the exigencies of extraditing him from Texas -- or so the L.A. Prosecutor's office said. Instead of waiting for the Lone Star State to send back this fine example of a Native Son to sunny California, the Prosecutor's Office decided to go ahead with the trial of Atkins, Manson, Krenwinkel and Van Houten, with Linda Kasabian as their star witness, and damn the expense of having to try Tex Watson separately. For you see, if Tex Watson had been tried along with Charles Manson, Charlie's public defender Irving Kanarek might have been able to shift the blame to the Native Son, the man who actually captained both crews of murderers.
...When Linda Kasabian, who had skipped out from the "Family" after the LaBianca killings, surrendered in Concord, New Hampshire and was extradited back to California, her attorney tried to make a deal with Bugliosi. He turned her down. He had Susan Atkins, a.k.a. Sadie Mae Glutz in the prosecutorial fold, she having turned state's witness and testifying before the Grand Jury that handed down the murder indictments. When Atkins balked and withdrew her Grand Jury testimony, Bugliosi then went to Kasabian's lawyer and cut the deal. In his summation at the trial, Bugliosi -- who originally had wanted nothing to do with her when he had Sadie Mae as his prize witness -- praised her.
...In theory, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. By keeping Tex Watson out of the trial, didn't Bugliosi engineer it so as to minimize the doubts that the defendants' attorneys could raise in the minds of the jurors?'
And Linda Kasabian stated that it was Manson, not Watson. Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins both stated that Charles tied up the Labianca's. Does that fact change because Susan Atkins and Tex Watson, both of whom also believe Manson was Jesus Christ, changed their stories later? Does that fact change because Tex Watson wrote a book later and took the fall for tying up the Labiancas well after it mattered? :? Pretty tough to speculate that Watson would've taken the fall for this because he wrote a book saying as much 10 years later. If anything, you have a stronger case for thinking that Watson wouldn't have taken responsibility for this, simply because he was fighting extradition so hard.
According to Manson, he was also Jesus Christ and there was an impending race war. According to Manson, he and his followers would live in a bottomless pit to avoid the race war. So...I guess he wouldn't be my most credible source.
Why aren't they reliable? Because they speakers later changed their stories? Welcome to the world of criminal law my friend. Its not for me to decide who's credible, its for the jury to decide. Linda Kasabian testified and the jury found her credible. Period. That's our system. How that is Bugliosi's fault? How does that make Manson any less culpable? As for Atkins, what do you make of the fact that Atkins recanted her GJ testimony only after she spoke with Manson in jail? Remember, she thought he was Jesus Christ. If her personal JC (as he liked to be called) met her and told her not to testify, is there any doubt she would comply?
You're exactly right. And while substantive evidence of Manson's criminal record is not permissible under the rules of evidence (except in limited circumstances or impeachment situations), that doesn't mean its not persuasive for us in the court of public opinion, in the aftermath. The fact Manson has a violent and lengthy criminal record makes it easier to believe that he could have been involved in this type of activity.
Maybe. But the only evidence we have is that Watson fought extradition and that Manson demanded a trial date. Right to a trial and a speedy one at that, is a constitutional right. If the State had waited to try Manson and Watson together, then people would be complaining that Manson was denied his right to a speedy trial. The State had a choice: try Manson alone (while Watson fought extradition) and comply with Manson's request for a speedy trial (OR) wait to try Manson/Watson together but deny Manson his right to a speedy trial. And why couldn't Manson still point to Tex Watson as the perpetrator, without being tried together? What prevented Manson from making that argument?
As far as Linda Kasabian goes, she was "praised" by the prosecution because plenty of physical evidence corroborated her story/testimony. When Susan Atkins recanted, they went with their best witness available. So...I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
No. Tex Watson's attorneys probably "engineered" it so that Watson would be tried separately...that's called good lawyering. It was Watson, not Bugliosi, who fought extradition. It was Manson, not Bugliosi, who demanded that a trial date be set before Watson could be extradited.
I'm not trying to have a knock-down argument here, but as a prosecutor myself, I find it astonishing that there's still any doubt that Manson was guilty or that he somehow was denied a fair trial. Any of the procedural "irregularities" that might have existed in the trial, were of Manson's own doing. I keep asking if you're thinking of the same book, because so far, Bugliosi hasn't spent a word on saying he didn't think Manson was guilty, but that "he just wanted a conviction." (remember, he was a practicing lawyer when this was written, so an admission like that would cost him his law license). So I find it extremely hard to believe that he'll change tune in the last 150 pages and say "oh by the way, Manson wasn't actually guilty." :roll:
If we want to keep discussing this though, let's start a new thread. I don't want to derail thread integrity here. Let's talk about books!
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Haha...I just hate when threads get derailed though.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I agree w/ rrivers. Im highly interested in the topic and am considering reading the book now.
then again, keep the discussion going, and I wont need to read it!
Now Vant...dont you have an actual Brief to be drafting? :nono:
Insight from an attorney on this topic is pretty cool in my opinion, and its not hard to tell what your background is from reading your posts on the subject.
Well hey now...its a Friday, I've got trials next week, so I can afford to slack a bit today!
As for my background, I'm a politically/socially left, former public defender (and still defend parents in child protection cases
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Well, in all fairness, he's probably got more tools in his box than me on this particular subject, what with him being a trained lawyer and all. And though I still have many reservations about how the Manson case transpired, vant0037 has made some good points. So I'll probably just let this one go.
Maybe I'm going soft in my old age :P
It is a good read. My main reservations are that Bugliosi struck me a pretty dishonest, slippery character who's ambition and need for publicity eclipsed his better nature. And the impression I got from reading both his book, and the book 'Manson in his own words' - an amazing book, as far as I'm concerned - Manson was pretty much stitched up by Bugliosi, among others, and fell victim to a huge media feeding frenzy in which it seems the authorities finally got a chance to stamp down hard on the 60's counter culture.
Not that I think Manson was an angel, but he definitely wasn't the Devil, as many people were led to believe, and as many people still continue to believe.
See, I knew I couldn't let it go.
Traditionally, American Jews have been broadly liberal in their political outlook; indeed African-Americans are the only ethnic group more likely to vote Democratic in US elections. Over the past half century, however, attitudes on one topic have stood in sharp contrast to this group’s generally progressive stance: support for Israel.
Despite Israel’s record of militarism, illegal settlements and human rights violations, American Jews have, stretching back to the 1960s, remained largely steadfast supporters of the Jewish “homeland.” But, as Norman Finkelstein explains in an elegantly-argued and richly-textured new book, this is now beginning to change.
Reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations, and books by commentators as prominent as President Jimmy Carter and as well-respected in the scholarly community as Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and Peter Beinart, have increasingly pinpointed the fundamental illiberalism of the Israeli state. In the light of these exposes, the support of America Jews for Israel has begun to fray. This erosion has been particularly marked among younger members of the community. A 2010 Brandeis University poll found that only about one quarter of Jews aged under 40 today feel “very much” connected to Israel.
In successive chapters that combine Finkelstein’s customary meticulous research with polemical brio, Knowing Too Much sets the work of defenders of Israel such as Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Oren, Dennis Ross and Benny Morris against the historical record, showing their claims to be increasingly tendentious. As growing numbers of American Jews come to see the speciousness of the arguments behind such apologias and recognize Israel’s record as simply indefensible, Finkelstein points to the opening of new possibilities for political advancement in a region that for decades has been stuck fast in a gridlock of injustice and suffering.
I give you both props for having a civil, intelligent discussion (something very rare on the internet). While I would probably lean more towards vant0037's side of things, you definitely made me at least consider the other side.
Specifics to his trial aside, I think its a disservice to those organizers and politicos of the 1960s to imply that Manson was representative of the legit 1960s counter culture.
The problem I have with any insinuation that Manson was set up or not guilty and that he was simply being made an example of in an attempt to "stamp down hard" on the 60's counter culture is that such a notion flies in the face of logic and what we know the police capable of doing. For instance, in the 1960s, when the cops wanted to break up the Black Panther power base, they introduced drugs into their neighborhoods. They arrested them for non-violent offenses and they occasionally planted evidence at crime scenes. If the cops wanted to clamp down on hippie culture, why would they choose a complex and sensational murder case that was admittedly difficult to investigate and prove for the State in which to do it? Why would they spend so much time proving a difficult case, much of it circumstantial, when we know that the LAPD (at the time) was not above planting evidence? Think of this way: if they really wanted to pin this on Manson, guilty or not, why wouldn't they have planted something more direct - a bloody shirt, a knife, a gun - on his person or in his rooms at the Spahn Ranch? Instead they chose the difficult route of pinning him with this by investigating the crime for almost 3 years? :?
As someone who's very left and has a deep appreciation for the intentions of the 1960s social vanguard, I'm insulted for that group when there's an implication that Charles Manson - a racist and paranoid wannabe-guru who used sex and violence to control and coerce people (and I'm saying this of his activities independent of the murders, mind you) - was somehow a representative of that culture.
On top of that, the evidence in Manson's trial was what it was. There was testimony, there was physical evidence, there were statements, there were circumstantial pieces of evidence that linked Manson directly or indirectly. I came into reading the book knowing only who Charles Manson was, but not sure of any of the specifics of what he was charged/convicted with, other than I knew he was a cult leader and was convicted of murder. Almost finished with the book, I can say that the evidence that was presented against made a strong case that he was the guy. I'm not surprised that Manson's own book might dispute that, but again, the old joke about people is prison is that they're all innocent.
Bugliosi probably comes off as "slippery" because he personifies the active prosecutor - many prosecutors do not take such an active role in the investigation piece. He probably fit that preconceived idea that people have of lawyers - that we're aggressive, that we're not above deception, that we'll dupe people etc. I don't doubt that he's a bit of an egomaniac (I'm drawing this conclusion from another book of his I've read), but thus far, I haven't read anything that causes me to think he's unethical or not doing precisely what a prosecutor should be doing.
Anyway, good discussion.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I started Chuck Hogan's The Killing Moon... just getting into the meat of the book, hoping it turns out as good as his other works.
Looking forward to getting my shipment of Ken Bruen books... as you go through his Jack Taylor series you feel like you have been punched in the gut followed by a rabbit punch to the kidneys... very quick reads but jam packed stories.
I don't think he was particularly representative either, but it seemed they chose to portray him as such.
Or you can come to terms and realize
You're the only one who can't forgive yourself
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Great book. Though I think a lot depends on the translation. I always liked the Penguin edition translated by David Magarshack, as a lot of the narrative is hilarious:
p.129: 'Plyushkin had been standing for several minutes without uttering a word, while Chichikov, distracted both by the appearance of the master of the house and by all the things in his room, could not bring himself to start the conversation. For a long time he could not think of words in which to explain the reason for his visit. He was about to express himself something in this vein, that having heard of his great virtues and the rare qualities of his heart and mind, he had recollected himself, feeling that that would be going a little too far,. Casting another sidelong glance at all the things in the room, he felt that the words 'virtues' and 'rare qualities of heart and mind' could very well be replaced by the words 'economy' and 'good order'; and therefore, changing his speech accordingly, he said that having heard of his economy and his rare ability in managing his estate, he had deemed it his duty to make his acquaintance and pay his respects in person. He could, of course, have given another and better reason, but he could think of nothing else at the moment.
To this Plyushkin muttered something between his lips, for he had no teeth, but what it was is not certain. The gist of it probably was: 'To hell with you and your respects!' But as hospitality is so popular with us that even a miser cannot bring himself to transgress it's laws, he added a little more distinctly: 'Won't you take a seat, Sir?'
P.143: 'But on with our journey! On with the journey! Away with the wrinkles that have furrowed our brow and the gloomy shadow that has fallen over our face! Let us plunge all at once into life with all it's muffled rattle and jingling bells, and let us see what Chichikov is doing...'
There's also a scene in the book where he describes the thoughts and motivations of a couple of flies on a windowsill, that I remember being really funny.
I think I need to read this book again.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Change of plans; will be reading "The Great Gatsby" for the first time before the Bill Clinton book.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
I gave up on it when I got to book 3 (actually, my digital library loan expired). I've put The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle in my queue, thanks for the suggestion. I'll go back to 1Q84 when it's available again.
Right now, reading Cutting for Stone, by Abraham Verghese. Really enjoying it.
This does sound damn promising!
My Fugazi Live Series ramblings and blog: anothersievefistedfind.tumblr.com
I read Theo's book when it first came out,and just caught the doc on HBO.....He's a very inspiring guy...and I've always thought he should be in the Hall of Fame....maybe just the Canadian in me...Anyone esle see the doc? Thoughts?
I will walk w/my face blood
I will walk w/my shadow flag
Memories back when she was smooth and strong
and waiting for the world to come along...
Eddie solo Vegas Oct 31,Nov 1 2012
i tried reading ulysses TWICE. it hurt my head. ill get back to it one day.. but it only gets one more chance.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I liked Dubliners a lot. It doesn't seem to get as much attention as his other books.
The only two classics I could never really get into were Ulysses and Moby Dick.