US English 5/3/19

Write 500 words on this: “Quiz Show did not tell the truth about key historical figures. Did this break the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’?”

During the mid-to-late 1950’s, television quiz shows were popular, but in 1957, their popularity ended in a wave of scandals. The movie Quiz Show (1994) is about the most famous of these scandals which took place on the show Twenty One. Quiz Show tells the true story of how the game was rigged, from the initial deception to eventual confession.

At the beginning of the movie, contestant Herb Stempel was on a winning streak. Stempel appeared to be an odd, bumbling, nervous nerd, who sweat profusely and mumbled through the show. After a six week run, one of the producers, Dan Enright, told Stempel that his ratings were dropping, and that it was time for him to “take a dive.” Enright then instructed Stempel that when the host, Jack Barry, asked him “Who won the academy award for best picture in 1955?” he was to answer “On the Waterfront” instead of the correct answer, “Marty.” This was particularly humiliating for Stempel, reflecting on the event, Stempel said “I knew that the answer was Marty, but Dan Enright specifically wanted me to miss that question. This hurt me very deeply because this was one of my favorite pictures of all times and I could never forget this.” Stempel begged Enright to at least let him lose on a question he genuinely didn’t know, but Enright wouldn’t budge. 

Stempel had signed a contract, so he had to follow through with Enright’s wishes. The new victor was a pedigreed, clean-cut,  intellectual from a literary family, and English instructor at Columbia University, Charles Van Doren. Van Doren was persuaded by Enright to cheat by an appeal that his appearance on the show would help glamorize information and intellectualism. Convinced, Van Doren was clandestinely given the questions and answers in advance of each episode, which resulted in a nine week reign and earning him hundreds of thousands of dollars. His charming persona and popularity on the show landed him on the cover of TIME magazine in February, 1957, and after he was defeated in March 1957, he was signed a three-year contract with NBC and a slot on The Today Show.

Stempel was outraged with the situation. Enright had promised him a job in television, but never followed through, and here was Charles Van Doren getting exactly what he had been guaranteed. Stempel decided to expose the fraud, and an investigation ensued that eventually lead to the confession of Enright and Van Doren.

It’s important to note that Quiz Show crammed all of these events into one year, but the real story actually took place over the course of three years. If one watches closely, certain details like car models, dates of referenced historical events and songs playing on the radio don’t match up date-wise. An important question to ask oneself is if these inconsistencies are all that important. The director of the movie, Robert Redford, said that “dramatic license” was taken in the making of the film, and made no apologies for those liberties. He further stated that he had tried “to elevate something so that people can see it … otherwise, you might as well have a documentary.”

I happen to agree with Redford’s defense of the way he portrayed the quiz show scandals. Technically, it may have broken the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’?” but I don’t believe that the arc of the story, or its overall message of the importance of honestly integrity were compromised by the changing of some dates.

US English 4/26/19

Writing assignment. 500 words on this: “In what ways are Tender Mercies and Driving Miss Daisy movies about grace: gifts unearned by the recipient?”

The 1983 movie Tender Mercies begins with the main character, Mac Sledge, drunk on the floor of a West Texas motel room. When he emerged from his drunken state, he inquired of the motel owner, Rosa Lee, how long he had been there, to which she replied, “two days.” Mac needed a way to pay for his stay, so he asked for a job at the motel. Rosa Lee said yes, with the only condition being that he couldn’t drink on the job. Mac achieved sobriety, and as they worked alongside each other, he and Rosa Lee fell in love and got married. Mac attended church with Rosa Lee and her ten year old boy, Sonny.

As the story unfolds, we learn more about Mac’s past. Years earlier, he had been a successful country singer. He had also been married twice before, both ending in divorce. His second wife, Dixie, was a famous country music star as well, and the two shared a daughter, Sue Anne, whom Mac hadn’t seen for ten years.

All this time, Mac hadn’t stopped writing songs. He tried to pass one on to Dixie, but was told it wasn’t any good. This criticism sent him into a downward spiral, and he drove away without telling Rosa Lee. When he finally came home in the middle of the night, he admitted to Rosa Lee that he had bought a bottle of whisky, but poured it all out. The next scene shows Mac committing his life to Christ through baptism.

Life seemed to be going upward for Mac. It turned out that people actually liked his new song, and he started performing again. This newfound happiness was abruptly ended when he got a call that Sue Ann, his eighteen year old daughter who he had only just reunited with, had been killed in a car accident. Probably the most important line in the movie came during this period when Mac was mourning the loss. While out working in the garden, Mac said to Rosa Lee, “I don’t know why I wandered out to this part of Texas drunk, and you took me in and pitied me and helped me to straighten out, marry me. Why? Why did that happen? Is there a reason that happened? And Sonny’s daddy died in the war, my daughter killed in an automobile accident. Why? See, I don’t trust happiness. I never did; I never will.” What Mac had trouble grasping was the grace Rosa Lee showed him by loving him despite his tumultuous past, and the grace God showed to him by giving him the gift of new life and a fresh start through baptism. 

Another movie of the same time period that has the theme of grace running through it is Driving Miss Daisy (1989). The movie was set in 1948 and the opens with the main character, 72 year old Daisy, causing a car accident. Her son Boolie insisted that she surrender her drivers license and accept the help of an African-American man named Hoke. Daisy was adamant about maintaining her independence, and this stubbornness made her impolite towards Hoke in the early years of their relationship. Hoke persevered through her behavior, and treated her with kindness and grace. The movie covered 25 years, and the experiences that Hoke and Daisy went through together during that span lead 97 year old Daisy to call Hoke her best friend at the end of the film.

These two movies, although different in plot, share the same major theme of grace. In Driving Miss Daisy, Hoke showed grace to Daisy by persevering through her unkindness and serving her for all those years, and in Tender Mercies, grace was shown both by Rosa Lee and by God to Mac.

 

US History 4/5/19

“What would you miss the most if you had to go back to 1955? What would you miss the least?”

In 1955, Dwight D Eisenhower was President, Elvis was a sensation, and the proliferation of television was changing the nation. There are certainly many difference between the modern age of 2019 and the year 1955, some for the better and others for the worse.

If I had to live in 1955, I would miss modern technology most of all. The internet provides a wealth of information and entertainment at my fingertips, and it’s an incredible resource that I wouldn’t want to live without.

On the other hand, there are some things I would not miss about 2019. As I stated earlier, I think the internet is an amazing thing, but I dislike the sort of addiction it has caused for many. I can hardly hold a conversation with someone my age without them pulling out their smart phone to check a text of refresh an app. Even though phones are made for communication, it feels like face to face communication is suffering as a result of smart phones. Back in 1955, I’m sure people felt like land lines and television was creating the same problem, but at least it wasn’t a distraction they could carry around with them everywhere in their pockets.

 

US Literature 4/5/19

Write 500 words on this topic: “Compare and contrast the attitude of the movies High Noon and Shane regarding guns.” 

In nearly real time, the Western High Noon tells the story of a town marshal forced to face a gang of killers by himself. The opening scene of the movie was the marshal, Will Kane, marrying a Quaker woman, Amy.  Right as they were about to ride off on their honeymoon, Will got news that Frank Miller, a vicious outlaw whom Kane sent to jail, has been released and would arrive on the noon train. Will decided to ride out of town quickly with Amy to avoid a confrontation with Frank.

To Amy, a devout Quaker and pacifist, the solution seemed simple: leave town before Miller arrives. But Will felt a sense of duty to finish his business with Frank and protect the town. Will spent the next hour attempted to gather supporters, but nobody would join him. When Frank arrived in town, Will was left to face him and his three companions all by himself.

In anger, Amy had said that she was leaving town without Will, but she was too worried about him, and ran off the train as it was about to depart. She hid by a window in a building and watched as her husband fought for his life. Choosing her husband’s life over her religious beliefs, she picked up the handgun hanging inside Kane’s office and shot one of Frank’s friends from behind.

The movie Shane, made a year after High Noon, tells the story of Shane, a quiet but skilled gunfighter with a mysterious past. He rode into an isolated valley in the sparsely settled Wyoming Territory and was hired as a farm hand by local rancher Joe Starrett who lived as a homesteader with his family. Starrett told Shane about the war of intimidation that was being waged on the valley’s settlers. Though they have claimed their land legally under the Homestead Acts, a ruthless cattle baron, Rufus Ryker, has hired various rogues and henchmen, including Jack Wilson (a notoriously skilled gunfighter) to harass them and force them out of the valley.

Shane bonded with the Starrett family, and young Joe’s son, Joey, especially admired him. Throughout the movie, Joey played with an unloaded rifle and pretended to shoot things. He asked Shane and his father on different occasions to teach him to shoot, and one day Shane demonstrated to Joey his impressive skills. Joey’s mother. Marion, was leery about Joey’s fondness of guns.

All the while, Ryker and Jack Wilson encroached more and more on the lives of the local homesteaders. One evening, Joe Starrett decided to end things once and for all. Shane and Joe argued over who would go into town to face Wilson. The two fought, which ended with Shane knocking Starrett unconscious by knocking him in the head with his pistol. Shane rode into town and entered the saloon, he turned out to be the better gunfighter and killed Ryker and Jack Wilson.

Guns played a central role in both films. In High Noon, there were the contrasting views between Will, whose job necessitated the use of firearms, and Amy, whose religion was against it. Amy ended up choosing to defend her husband instead of cling to her pacifist stance, and as a result she and Will finally got to ride away on their honeymoon. In Shane, guns were being used by Ryker and his band of henchmen to intimidate innocent homesteaders, and thanks to Shane’s skilled use of a gun, he saved the Starrett family from their oppressors.

The attitude toward guns in both films boiled down to their ability to be used for good or for evil. If Amy hadn’t intervened, her husband would have been killed, and if Shane hadn’t killed Wilson and Ryker, the homesteaders would have been forced to leave or even worse, some may have been killed. Guns are not inherently good or bad, but they must be in the hands of the right people for justice to be served.

 

US Literature 3/29/19

Write 500 words on this topic: “Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers? Why or why not?”

Authors of movies and authors of books have similar jobs. They both must tell stories in coherent, and better yet, captivating, ways. A successful movie will have the same effect as a successful book on its audience. The viewer or reader will relate with the characters in the story and feel strong emotional connections throughout the movie or book. Even though movies and books accomplish that same purpose, due to the different format, the results have distinctions.

Book authors have a hefty task. All they have to work with is words, and by weaving together those carefully selected words, they tell their story. Descriptions of each setting and every character, from their face to their voice and mannerisms, must be provided for the book to be effective and enjoyable. In a sense, there is nothing to hide behind when writing a story. Sure, a biased author may try to promote their personal point of view, but even still, a thoughtful and critical reader can see through that and make up their own mind.

Movie makers have much more to work with than authors of books. Without saying a word, landscapes and sets can easily convey so much about the story in a movie. Movies also rely hugely on actors to convey the emotion of the story by their facial expressions, body language, and small, unspoken nuances which communicate far more than a written script ever could. Skilled camera work and innovative filming techniques can make or break a movie as well. Lastly, the addition of music to certain scenes can build suspense, intensity, or just about any feeling to a movie. Good movies often have great, memorable soundtracks. It is clear to see that there are many enhancements that can be applied in movie-making which authors of books have to create all by writing.

After looking into the similarities and differences of writing books and movies, the question arises, it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers? My conclusion is that it is easier for movies to manipulate the audience than books. There are so many moving parts that go into making a film and writers of movies have much more to work with than just dialogue. Perfect sets with nice lighting, filled with beautiful actors in beautiful clothing, set to the sound of catchy music, all filmed by brilliant cameramen and cut together with smooth transitions, makes movie viewing such a pleasant, easygoing experience for the consumer. Not to mention, movies are generally under two hours long, so a much shorter attention span is necessary in comparison to a long novel which gives the reader the chance to form their opinion over days, if not weeks.

I don’t think manipulation is always the goal of movie makers, but it certainly is for some. For example, movies made during World War II, such as Casablanca, have very obvious propaganda sprinkled throughout. With the use of the enhancements I  mentioned in the previous paragraph, movies seem to be the easier medium for manipulation.

 

US Literature 3/15/19

500 words, “Do you see any characteristic features of Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne in these films that rocketed them to permanent stardom? If not, why did this happen?”

In 1939, two movies were made that rocketed the leading actors to stardom. One was  Mr Smith Goes to Washington which tells the story of a young, newly appointed United States Senator, who fights against a corrupt political system. It was successful in the box office, and was nominated for eleven Academy Awards, winning for Best Original Story.

Jimmy Stewart played the leading man, Jefferson Smith. Smith was a wholesome and honest man without a political background, and this naïveté was immediately taken advantage of by seasoned politicians when he arrived in Washington. Smith, who loved American history and greatly admired historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, was disillusioned by Washington D.C when he realized the malicious and corrupt motives of his new peers. Smith refused to be used by the corrupt senators he was surrounded by, and defended the American ideals of freedom.

Jimmy Stewart did an excellent job portraying Smith as earnest and altruistic, and the viewer can’t help but root for him. For this role, Jimmy Stewart received the first of five Academy Award nominations for Best Actor. This was just the beginning of Jimmy Stewart’s very successful career in film. 

The same year Mr Smith Goes to Washington made Jimmy Stewart a star, another actor, John Wayne, was having his breakthrough. Throughout the 1930’s, Wayne appeared in countless movies playing bit parts, but it wasn’t until Stagecoach, directed by John Ford, that his acting career really took off. Stagecoach was about a group of strangers journeying across the desert through dangerous Apache territory. Along the way, the Stagecoach finds Ringo Kid (John Wayne) stranded after his horse has gone lame. Ringo was wanted for murder, so he was arrested and forced the travel on the cramped stagecoach until he could be imprisoned. Along the way, Ringo fall in love with a woman named Dallas, who was on the stagecoach because of being kicked out of her town for prostitution. Near the end of their journey, the group is ambushed by Indians and after an epic chase scene, they escape. Once at their destination, Ringo and Dallas are assisted in escaping from the law, and ride off to Ringo’s ranch, presumably “happily ever after.”

Stagecoach turned John Wayne into a star in the same was that Mr Smith Goes to Washington made Jimmy Stewart a star. Although one was a Western and the other a political comedy-drama, the actors shared a couple characteristic features which I believe contributed to their permanent stardom.

Firstly, Both of the characters they played were easy to root for because of their likable and good-natured personas. Jefferson Smith was clearly a man of integrity, and this was portrayed perfectly by Jimmy Stewart. As for John Wayne’s characters, even though he was a wanted murderer, the way he protected Dallas from the judgmental Stagecoach occupants draws you to his character. Secondly and finally, both Mr Smith Goes to Washington and Stagecoach are redemption stories. Jefferson Smith had to redeem his character after being slandered by crooked politicians, and Ringo the Kid redeemed Dallas from her life of prostitution by loving her despite her past. People love redemption stories, and Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne did such incredible jobs in their roles that they became permanent stars.  

 

 

 

 

 

US Literature 3/8/19

Writing assignment. 500 words on this topic: “Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? Why?”

Going to the movies has been a favorite pastime of mine for as long as I can remember. The first movie I ever saw on the big screen was Chicken Little in 2005 when I was four years old. Ever since, I’ve been hooked on the entire moviegoing experience. In 2014, my family moved across the country to a much bigger town with a much better movie theater that has reclining chairs and a bigger screen. These amenities have only fueled my love for going to see movies all the more.

I love most everything about the entire routine of going to see a movie. On the way in, I always tuck away the little ticket stub and save it for my collection. Next, choosing the perfect seat is very important for full enjoyment. As the lights dim and the trailers start rolling, it comes time to hunker down and eat copious amounts of salty popcorn with a humungous cup of Coke Zero to wash it all down. The whole thing is such a treat, and it’s one of my favorite weekend activities.

To me, movies provide an escape from whatever is going on in everyday life. It’s like taking a vacation from reality, or as my mom puts it, “Seeing a matinee is like playing hooky from life.”

Nowadays, going to the theater to see a film isn’t necessary, as you can access just about any movie at the tip of your fingers online. I think that the ability to view a movie online is incredible, because you can only see current movies in the theater, and it would be so limiting if that was the only option. Most of my favorite movies came out before I was even born, and without the ability to watch them somewhere other than the theater I never would have seen them, and that is a sad thought.

I am very grateful to DVD’s and online streaming services for providing just about any movie I could ever want to see. That being said, online viewing isn’t my preferred way to watch a film. I love how in a theater you become completely engrossed in the movie, to a point in which you almost feel like you’re a part of it. Going to see a movie in a theater is an experience, and my computer screen just doesn’t do that for me.

Ultimately, I just appreciate how movies have the power to start conversations, form bonds, and unite people. Movies are stories, and it just makes me happy that people tune into them and connect with them, whether that be on the big screen, a TV at home, a tablet, or even in the car! To me, being in a theater with a popcorn and soda in hand adds to the fun, and I think it’s the best way to take in a movie.

 

 

US Literature 2/28/19

Writing assignment: 500 words on this topic. “Why was The Birth of a Nation the first blockbuster?”

D.W Griffiths was the man behind the first blockbuster, The Birth of a Nation made in 1915. The movie opened with a scene portraying the introduction of Africans to America. A title card said, “The bringing of the African planted the first seed of disunion.” From the outset, it is blatantly obvious that the film is racist. After that disturbing opening scene, the movie turned it’s focus on two families, the Stoneman family in the North, and the Cameron family in the South. The children in the families had a close friendship, and two romances developed between the sons and daughters of the households.

After the northern family returned home from their visit, the Civil War broke out and the familial relationships of the Stonemans and Camerons were disrupted. Between the two families, three sons were killed in the war. At the end of the war portion of the movie, a subtitle that said “War’s peace” appeared on the screen, followed by film of many dead bodies piled on top of each other. Scenes like this conveyed D.W Griffiths hatred of war.

In the reconstruction portion of the movie, black and mulatto people were presented as villains, violent rapists and threats to the social order, while the murders and raids conducted by the KKK were seen as just and heroic. The conclusion of the movie was the triumph of the KKK over the blacks.

From the beginning to the end, The Birth of a Nation is explicitly racist. The depiction of blacks as lawless, brutal and terrorizing appealed to the audience of  white Americans who subscribed to the mythic, romantic view of the Old Plantation South, but this limited audience does not account for all of the film’s phenomenal and unprecedented.

So what made The Birth of a Nation a blockbuster? One reason was that each ticket was exorbitantly priced for the time. In 1915, most movie tickets cost only a dime, but tickets to The Birth of a Nation were two dollars each! People were willing to pay this much because there was a lot of curiosity surrounding the movie. This curiosity was stemmed by riots in several cities, which lead to the movie being banned in some places. All of the hubbub was great publicity for the movie, and only helped to fuel the film’s box-office appeal.

Apart from the controversial subject matter, The Birth of a Nation was also successful thanks to the groundbreaking film techniques used by its director, D.W Griffiths. At the time, the film industry was just beginning and D.W Griffiths emerged as a prominent figure, some refer to him as the father of cinema. Under the guidance of Griffiths, the movie making became an art form. Writer for TIME magazine, James Agee, summed up D.W Griffith’s contributions to film saying, “Before he walked on the set, motion pictures had been, in actuality, static. At a respectful distance, the camera snapped a series of whole scenes, clustered in the groupings of the stage play. Griffith broke up the pose. He rammed his camera into the middle of the action. He took closeups, crosscuts, angle shots and dissolves. His camera was alive, picking off shots; then he built the shots into sequences, the sequences into tense, swift narrative. For the first time the movies had a man who realized that, while a theater audience listened, a movie audience watched. ‘Above all … I am trying to make you see,’ Griffith said.”

The different layers of the plot was also quite enthralling. The bonds of family, nation, race and love were put to the test, but in the end, the love of the Stoneman and Cameron siblings which crossed the Mason-Dixon line conquered the issues of the time. The captivating and controversial plot, along with the directive genius of D.W Griffiths all combined to make The Birth of a Nation the first blockbuster.

 

US Literature 2/21/19

Write 500 words on this topic: “Is the novel Philip Dru: Administrator a defense of liberty?”

The book Philip Dru: Administrator was anonymously published by Edward M. House in 1912. Edward M. House was an advisor to Woodrow Wilson during the majority of his presidency and he used his inside experience and knowledge to formulate the story in a way that would hopefully sway political opinion. At its core, the book was a social reform novel, written with the hope of effecting peoples political and economic opinions in a progressive direction.

The main character, Philip Dru was a West Point graduate but didn’t have a strong interest in the military. When partially blinded on his first deployment, he decided to retire from the army and pursue journalism, specifically writing about social theory and the gap between rich and poor (a favorite theme of progressives).

As Philip became further involved in journalism and his progressive agenda, several powerful political figures are were caught in an incriminating situation. In response, the American people cried out for a revolution to overthrow the corrupt government. At a mass meeting in NYC, somehow Philip made his way to the stage and delivered a speech which convinced the audience to elect him as their leader in the revolution. A war civil was fought in which Philip Dru and his supported were pitted against the United States government. “The contestants, on the face of things, seemed not unevenly matched, but, as a matter of fact, the conscience of the great mass of the people, East and West, was on Dru’s side, for it was known that he was contending for those things which would permit the Nation to become again a land of freedom in its truest and highest sense, a land where the rule of law prevailed, a land of equal opportunity, a land where justice would be meted out alike to the high and low with a steady and impartial hand.”

Dru’s side won the war, and he was given total power as dictator. Dru “explained that such a radical step was necessary, in order to quickly purge the Government of those abuses that had arisen, and give to it the form and purpose for which they had fought.” In this new position of dictator, Dru began to establish administrative law, an especially regulatory form of government, which is a great threat to liberty. Dru also insulted a fundamental aspect of liberty called negative government. Having a negative government means that the function of the government is limited to punishing evil doers and lawbreakers for the purpose of protecting individual liberties. Dru opposed this limited system of governing, and wished for easy intervention so he could implement any reforms he saw fit. The constitution was designed by the framers to be complex, not simple, because complexity slows down radical political change. The complexity of the United States constitution had been deliberate, but Dru favored a “responsive” government, one that is easier to change, so he spent the rest of his political career and the rest of the book dismantling and restructuring state constitutions, to create a progressive and interventional government.

It is clear to see that the novel  Philip Dru: Administrator is in no way a defense of liberty. The book was just a means by which Edward M. House’s promoted his and president Woodrow Wilson’s progressive agenda.

US Literature 2/13/19

Write 500 words on this topic: “Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in this book?”

The book Philip Dru: Administrator was anonymously published by Edward M. House in 1912. Edward M. House was an advisor to Woodrow Wilson during the majority of his presidency and he used his inside experience and knowledge to formulate the story in a way that would hopefully sway political opinion. At its core, the book was a social reform novel, written with the hope of effecting peoples political and economic opinions.

It is important to know what was really going on in America the year Philip Dru: Administrator was published. First of all, it was an election year and all three Presidential candidates were progressives. Secondly, two constitutional amendment were up for ratification, the sixteenth amendment hoped to create an income tax, and the seventeenth amendment would effect the way senators were elected. Thirdly and finally, in 1912 plans for the creation of the federal reserve were in the works. As these Progressive changes were rapidly taking place, Philip Dru: Administrator served as a progressive manifesto and an example of what the new world of progressive politics would mean for the American people.

Set in the 1920’s, apparently wealth had grown strong, yet “The laborer in the cities, the producer on the farm, the merchant, the professional man and all save organized capital and its satellites, saw a gloomy and hopeless future.” The book begins with the protagonist, Philip Dru, graduating from the military academy, West Point.  Philip “saw the Army which he had sworn to serve faithfully becoming prostituted by this same power, and used at times for purposes of intimidation and petty conquests where the interests of wealth were at stake. He saw the great city where luxury, dominant and defiant, existed largely by grace of exploitation–exploitation of men, women and children.”

Philip’s first deployment was in Texas. While there, he got lost in the desert and was partially blinded, and he decided to retire from the army. While he was recovering, the author used Philip’s downtime as an opportunity for him to preach about social theory to his companion Gloria. Many more opportunities to lecture about progressivism came in the following pages. For example, after having observed poverty firsthand in New York City, Philip dreamed about the future of Progressive America, saying  “The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice. And the man or woman who fails to do his duty, not as he sees it, but as society at large sees it, will be held up to the contempt of mankind.”

In the next few chapters, a series of events start unrolling which are nothing short of improbable. By winning some sort of war strategy game conducted by the War Department, Philip was offered the position of army Major by the The President of the United States, but Philip turned it down and decided to become a journalist. Apparently all the while, Philip was garnering national attention, especially for his writing on social theory and the gap between rich and poor (a favorite theme of progressives).

As I just mentioned, the sixteenth amendment purposed the creation of an income tax. By writing Philip Dru: Administrator, Edward M. House clearly hoped to convince the readers of the necessity of an income tax to achieve “equality”. If I had read Philip Dru: Administrator back when it was published, I would not have voted for the income tax based on the arguments in the book. The story is so choppy and contrived, and the countless monologues delivered by Philip are so long and boring, I question whether I would have even finished the book, let alone have if it would influence my politics.