John Adams HBO series WAS: Re: Carol's questions for New Steve 9 sort of LONG)

[dumbledore11214]

> Potioncat:
> I didn't read the McCullough book, but Tom did. I'd say the 
> historical parts were accurate. Some of the personal parts were 
> tweaked a bit. Not enough to really matter in the scheme of things. 
> There were two situations that made John look like a real hard-ass, 
> which I guess in a way he was. There was a rift between him and his 
> son Charles and between him and his son-in-law. But the book I read 
> put more of the blame on the younger men than on John. I should ask 
> Tom if the TV version was true to McCullough's book in that sense.
> 
> In spite of little differences, we enjoyed the series very much. I 
> have to say, the White House had changed a lot since then! (Not 
that 
> I'm a frequent visitor, you understand.)
> 
> The part that most surprised me, was when Adams was talking to the 
> artist. The man had a huge painting of the signing of the 
Declaration 
> of Independence. Adams is complaining that it's inaccurate (oh, 
that 
> sounds familiar) and that posterity will get the wrong impression. 
> Then it dawned on me, I've always pictured all the delagates 
standing 
> in the Hall waiting to sign the paper; even though I should have 
> known it hadn't been like that.
>


Alla:

The series were fun for sure - excellent casting, etc. I had some 
issues with characterization, but the movie was good. Although due to 
me having some issues with the characterization, as I posted 
elsewhere I am glad that I rented them first instead of buying as I 
originally planned.

The subject of founding fathers fascinates me for quite some time 
now. As I probably mentioned here one of my lawyer colleagues used to 
be history teacher in school for fifteen years I believe before he 
went to law school. I mean, I read up the basics on the founding 
fathers as an immigrant who wanted to know as much as possible about 
the history of the country that became my own, but for quite some 
time now I cannot help but wonder how fascinating it is, that in one 
country so many genious minds were together in one generation and 
what they did. 

So, anyways, as I also mentioned elsewhere I had been reading for 
quite some time now the complete correspondence between Adams, 
Jefferson and Abigail. I had not remember ever having a patience to 
read the book THAT slowly. Usually two three days is the time I 
finish a book. This - I do not want to finish, I am reading couple 
letters a day and then switch to another book. I mean, it is so so 
fascinating to hear the voices of these people.

Oh yeah, sorry where was I? The series. I read Mcgulough's book long 
time ago and do not remember the details, but I am pretty sure he did 
not devote much time to Adams' relationship with Charles.

I have no idea if he renounced his son in reality or whether it was a 
creative license that filmmakers took, but if he did, sorry, I would 
call him words that are much harsher than hard ass. 

Because if we go by the account in the series, to me it seemed pretty 
clear that John bears a lot of blame IMO for what happened to 
Charles. It seemed to me that kod craved his father's attention all 
the time and instead father went on a long trips because his duty 
called him.

And that is fine, really, I understand that patriotic duty came 
before his family for him and this is the choice that I can respect, 
I suppose. But when he acted high and mighty in renouncing his 
alcoholic son, I wanted to slap him.

Yes, it is all great that his other kids learned that Adams duty came 
before anything else, learned so well that John Quincy became 
president himself. I command Abigal for bringing them up so well, 
really. I just do not think that the fact that she could not do so 
with Charles is something that should be condemned. I pity Charles 
very much.

But again, I believe that it is true that he was an alcoholic and 
that he died young, I just do not know if Adams renounced him in real 
life.

Alla