Edward G Pettit

The other day I had a typical reading day.  In the morning and afternoon I read some of a Dickens biography. I also received word that I’ll be reviewing a Library of America edition of David Goodis novels for the Philadelphia Inquirer.  At night I took notes on Pride and Prejudice to teach it the following day.  Then I read some Dickens.  Then read I began reading Anne Rice’s new novel, The Wolf Gift, because I’m interviewing her onstage for her event at the Free Library of Phila on Valentine’s Day.  That is an awesome reading life (and maybe one day it will be enough to pay the bills).  A day jam packed with book adventures and adventures to come. 

But the best part of this reading day was taking my seven year old daughter, Lulu, to the dentist.   As soon as we got in the car for the drive, she asked, “Can I read my book to you?”  She read a page or so then told me that she just wanted to read to herself.  When we arrived at the dentist’s office, she got out of the car, walked across the parking lot, down the steps and into the waiting room, all while continuing to read her book.  All of my satisfying reading endeavours of the day (Dickens, book reviews, novels, author interviews) melt away when I remember that one image of my seven year old daughter unable to put a book down as she walked into the dentist's office.  If I never make another dollar reading/reviewing/writing, I’ll at least know I’ve helped make another reader in this world. 

One of Brian Demeter's gorgeous book sculturesThe short answer to that question is yes.  In America, at least half of adults still read novels (or claim to), but readers have greatly decreased in the last few decades.  Times change.  Cultures change.  And I acknowledge that novels aren't the most important things to most people anymore.  But I wanted to check with my new students (a small sampling, only 11 this semester) to see if they knew what I thought were some basic literary trivia questions, the kinds of things that I think used to be common cultural knowledge, meaning if you participated in popular culture, you probably knew the answers to these questions.  Here's the questionnaire I had them complete:

Literary Literacy Quiz

Shakespeare lived during

A) the Medieval era (600-1450)

B) the Early Modern era (1450-1650)

C) the Age of Enlightenment (1650-1800)

D) the 19^th Century (1800s)

Shakespeare wrote (check all that apply)

___ poems

___ plays

___ novels

___ short stories

___ political manifestos

___ religious tracts

Who was Robinson Crusoe? 

Who was Rip Van Winkle? 

Name three short stories by Edgar Allan Poe. 

Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe is

A) An anti-slavery novel set in the American South in the mid 19^th Century

B) A pro-slavery novel set in England during the 18^th Century

C) A non-fiction study about the effects of the Civil War 

What is the first line of Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick?

A) “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

B)  “Call me Ishmael.”

C) “To be or not to be, that is the question.”

D) “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

 E) “It was a dark and stormy night.”

Name three Charles Dickens novels. 

Who is Holden Caulfield? 

Ulysses by James Joyce is

A) an medieval romance.

B) a modernist novel of the 20^th century.

C) a melodramatic play of the 19^th century.

Who wrote the Iliad?

A) Shakespeare

B) Milton

C) Homer

D) Chaucer

Who wrote the Canterbury Tales?

A) Shakespeare

B) Chaucer

C) King James

D) Mark Twain

Fictional characters or real people (in space write fic or real)

________ Robinson Crusoe

________ Sherlock Holmes

________ Tarzan

________ Edgar Allan Poe

________ James Bond

________ Ebenezer Scrooge

________ Mark Twain

________ Tom Sawyer

________ Casanova

________ Don Quixote

________ Hamlet

________ Romeo Montague

________ Victor Frankenstein

________ Oliver Twist

________ Vito Corleone

________ Lawrence of Arabia

How often do you consult a dictionary (online or paper)

A) Every day

B) Every week

C) Every month

D) Every year

E) Never

In 2011 how many of each did you read?

____ novel

____ play

____ collection of short stories

____ collection of poems

____ biography

____ other non-fiction

If yes to reading any of above, how many of each were NOT required (i.e. assigned by school or work)

_____ novel

_____ play

_____ collection of short stories

_____ collection of poems

_____ biography

_____ other non-fiction

Do you have a favorite book? If yes, name it. 

Do you have a favorite novel? If yes, name it. 

Did you ever read a book that changed the way you thought about yourself, life, the universe, etc?  If yes, name it.

This review will contain spoilers, so if you still want to see the movie and don’t want to know what happens, then read this after you’ve it.  

Anonymous is a terrible historical drama, meaning it is so wrongheaded about the historical time period it wishes to portray that the film can not be taken seriously.  Like Emmerich’s other costume drama, The Patriot, we get such a perverse reading of historical events that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or be angry.  And Emmerich has been strangely silent on The Patriot, as well.  There have been many stories in the press about how Anonymousis such a departure from Emmerich’s usual sci-fi/action/disaster fare, yet there is very little talk about how Emmerich has already made a historical drama.  But just as The Patriot whitewashes the American Revolution, especially regarding slavery (and demonizes the British military), Anonymous seems to take the opposite approach by muddying the waters, by taking known historical facts and situations and deliberately twisting them to convince the audience that there is an actual authorship controversy.  

Besides the major change to history made by Anonymous (that Shakespeare wrote his works), the movie is riddled with the kind of historical errors that made me question whether or not the screenwriter, John Orloff, had ever read or researched anything on the Elizabethan age.  Some of the inaccuracies: 

• Christopher Marlowe was killed in 1593, but the movie has him alive for years afterwards.  The movie also makes a mishmash of chronology in general, so it’s a little hard to figure out in what year things are occurring. 
• Marlowe is murdered by Shakespeare, but was actually murdered by Ingram Frazer on May 30, 1593.
• Shakespeare’s theatre is deliberately burned to the ground by soldiers, although the movie doesn’t seem to state which theatre this is.  The Globe did burn to the ground, but not until 1613 (and this may be the very reason why we have no manuscripts of Shakesplays).  Neither of the other two theatre’s used by Shakespeare’s troupe, The Theatre and The Curtain, ever burned down.
• Richard the Third is performed when Essex tries to lead his rebellion, but it was Richard the Second performed by Shakespeare’s troupe.  The film is also wrong about the performance of nearly every Shakesplay featured.  Midsummer Night’s Dream could not possibly have been written in the 1560s (?).  Julius Caesar comes too late.  Henry V too early.  And Shakes’ narrative poem, Venus and Adonis, is published near the end of Elizabeth’s life, when it was published much earlier.
• The Earl of Oxford's aversion to the theatre.  Lots of aristocrats went to the theatre. 

But maybe you think this is all nitpicking.  What matters getting dates and details wrong if you get the main narrative story correct?  Normally it wouldn’t matter.  But when the director has stated that one purpose of the movie is to correct history, to educate people about what really happened, then Anonymous’ historical inaccuracies are more than just ironic, they undermine the film’s position.  We get the kind of message that history matters, unless I want to make a point, then I’ll rearrange the places, people and events to suit my own purpose.  This is precisely the problem of all the Shakespeare conspiracists: not accepting the historical record and changing it to fit their own agenda. 

Next post: why Anonymous is a terrible film about Shakespearean literature 

Earlier this month, while I was in Roswell, New Mexico lecturing about Edgar Allan Poe, I received a call from a publisher, The History Press, asking if I'd like to write a book about Poe and the time he spent in Philadelphia.  So I submitted a proposal and, yes there will be a book.  A preview:

Edgar Allan Poe lived in Philadelphia from 1838-44.  While there, he wrote the stories that still chill us: The Tell-Tale Heart.  The Fall of the House of Usher.  The Black Cat.  The Pit and the Pendulum.  The Gold Bug.  The Murders in the Rue Morgue.  While there are many biographies of Poe, none go into any detail about how 19th century Philadelphia influenced these works.  Poe’s Philadelphia wasn’t the charming cobblestoned city of  patriots ringing in a new age of democracy on the Liberty Bell.  It was a city of disease and crime.  Cholera rampaged.  Race riots broke out regularly.  Striking workers battled in the streets.  There was no real police force and firemen were more likely to start fires than put them out.  Edgar Allan Poe witnessed all of this and, in turn, produced stories of chaos, destruction and death.  Traces of his Philadelphia run rampant throughout his works. Philadelphia Gothic was the crucible for Poe’s imaginative genius. This biography of Edgar Allan Poe’s in Philadelphia will document Poe’s involvement in the events of the time—the real crime stories he saw in the streets and read in the penny newspapers—and use his mystery and horror stories as a lens to view this history.  This will be a book just as much about Poe as it is about a tumultuous 19th century urban environment. 

Release is scheduled for September 2012, just in time for all the Poe events of the Halloween season.  The Philly Poe Gospel finally comes to print.  Now, to write!

Imagine the director of the movies Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 made athe very offensive poster movie about Shakespeare. Yeah, that was exactly what Anonymous was like.  Anonymous is a terrible film as a drama, as a historical film and as a Shakespearean film.  Emmerich hasn't made a disaster movie, but rather a disastrous one. 

I went into the screening at the Philadelphia Film Festival (opens widely, or not so widely, on October 28) with the preconception that I would probably enjoy the film because I love historical dramas, as well as this particular time period.  Hey, I might be pissed about the whole “Shakespeare was a fraud” thing, but I want to see a political conspiracy movie set in the Elizabethan Age.  Oh how wrong I was.  Turns out I did not want to see a historical conspiracy thriller if it was made by Roland Emmerich.  

Over the next few days, I’ll post about how Anonymous fails in three big ways.  Today, why Anonymous is a terrible drama.  

A film with a script this poorly written would be difficult to redeem (the silly, needlessly convoluted plot with spoilers).  The dialogue was ham-handed, the performances over the top.  Way over.  Even Vanessa Redgraveas Queen Elizabeth plays her part as if a graduate of the Nicholas Cage School of Acting.  Oddly enough, Rhys Ifans as the older Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower gets to play the hammy, yet sexy version of the younger Oxford), gives an understated performance, very interior, although he stillcan’t redeem a script that has him givePassionate (with a capital P) dialogue about “Words” (yes, Words with a capital W) and “voices in my head” that he must write or else go mad.  Mad, I tell you!  

I wasn’t the only one in the audience to see the silliness in this movie.  Several times the audience laughed at the ridiculous situations and dialogue.  In one scene, Oxford’s wife angrily confronts the Earl after discovering he has been acting upon his most secret desires: “Edward, you’ve been writing again?!”  The audience erupted into laughter.  Yes, that's the big shameful vice of Oxford.  He's a (make the scrunched up face of distaste) writer.  Emmerich beats the audience over the head with this theme throughout the movie.  And it's this kind of hyperbole that makes the proceedings so silly.  Emmerichalso comes off as a real novice filmmaker when he begins the film with amateurish expository introductions when characters at an Elizabethan theatre have this kind of exchange: “Oh, look, Thomas Dekker, isn’t that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford?” “Why yes, Christopher Marlowe, and that’s the Earl of Southampton with him?”  Really?  Why didn't you just freeze frame and superimpose each character's name as a subtitle? 

And oh, the sneering villains.  Had Snidely Whiplash showed up, no one would have blinked.  Edward Hogg, as the hunchbacked Robert Cecil, seems to be channelling Christopher Guest’s evil, six-fingered Count Rugen from The Princess Bride.  Christopher Marlowe is played as a villain, perpetually envious and sneering at every line uttered by the actors in the playhouse.  Several times, I honestly thought maybe Emmerich was having us on, that he understood this material was silly and was covertly making a film that undermined the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories.  Then I remembered his other films and realized Emmerich can only paint in broad, overly simplistic strokes. 

Anonymous is Godzilla set in the 16^th Century (actually, I'd love to see that literally with an actual monster destroying an Elizabethan city).  We even get explosions in the first ten minutes of the film when a theatre is deliberately burned down, setting off fireworks stowed under the stage.  Later, we get canons firing into a crowd, as well as lots of musketry fire.  The bodies pile up.  Normally, I’d enjoy that kind of mayhem in a film.  And it could be refreshing in an historical film.  But not in a movie that takes itself so seriously.  The only light moments in this film are scenes showing Shakespeare as a goofy bumpkin.  Otherwise, we get characters imploring, growling, weeping, shouting, sneering, bellowing, pleading.  The only thing Anonymous was missing was Nic Cage.  That would at least have made it enjoyable. 

Part 2 Anonymous as a terrible historical film

Part 3 Anonymous as a terrible Shakespearean film. 

Last week, I spent a few days at Eastern New Mexico University in Roswell, NM talking about Edgar Allan Poe.  Taught two classes and then gave a lecture open to any and all.  The students were very responsive in both classes and 25-30 people turned out for the talk, always an encouraging sign.  I never get tired of learning how many people out there still read and enjoy Poe’s works.  Even the professors at ENMU were a little surprised by the Poethusiasm.  

Thanks so much to Professor Daniel Wolkow who invited me and the students and teachers who attended. 

 Even Roswell, NM has a Poe Street

2012 marks the Bicentenary of Charles Dickens’ birth.  There will be celebrations and events all around the world.  And the Philly Poe Guy is turning to Dickens, as well.  I will attempt to read all of Charles Dickens’ works over the next year.  Starting on September 15, I will read all the novels, all the published stories, all the journalism (at least, all that’s been identified as written by Dickens) and a good chunk of the letters (approximately 15,000 letters survive).  I will also read biographies, adaptations, literary criticism and history.  I’ll watch at least one film/TV adaptation for every novel.  I’ll even listen to radio dramatizations of the novels.  For the next 365 days, I will eat, work, sleep and dream Charles Dickens. 

My set looks like thisI’ll be reading Dickens in more than one format, too.  Most of it will be my 21 volume Oxford Illustrated Dickens set, but I’ll also read one novel on an eBook device (probably Kindle) and most fun of all, I’ll be reading one novel in it’s original serial papers.  The Free Library of Philadelphia is allowing me to read their first serial edition of Little Dorrit, so for a couple weeks, I’ll be visiting their Rare Book room every day to do my reading.  First serial edition of Little Dorrit

And of course, I’ll be writing about this reading experience.  I’ve only read a few of Dickens’ novels (but watched many TV and film adaptations) and have always wanted to just take a summer and read several of his books.  Now along comes the Dickens Bicentenary and I thought, why not just read them all.  And pack it all into one giant year of nothing but Dickens.  

I’m still working on the website (there’s just a teaser page here) and hope to have it up and running on September 15, when I begin my Dickens Odyssey.  I’ll also post updates on the Reading Dickens Facebook (Like me!) and Twitter (Follow me! ) accounts. 

This won’t be so hard, right?  If I read 100-200 pages a day, I should be able to finish the entire canon in no time.  Well, that would be okay if I didn’t still have a life to live (and money to make).  I’m still teaching a college lit course this semester, not to mention I have several Poe and Shakespeare events lined up. (And children to care for and dinner to cook, etc.)  On top of it all, I’ll be writing about my reading experience almost every day for not only my own website, but also for the Free Library of Philadelphia’s site.  

The Free Library of Philadelphia will be mounting two exhibitions of their Charles Dickens collection inWhat I'll look like for the next year. 2012 and all summer long I’ve been working with their Rare Book Department developing a program of events for their celebration of the Dickens Bicentenary.  Come back tomorrow and I’ll tell you all about what we’re cooking up.  

I can’t wait to start reading Dickens. 

Recently, the Baltimore Poe House and Museum revealed that the City of Baltimore cut all of their funding in July 2010.  They have some dollars to keep running a bit longer, maybe until June 2012, but nothing is certain except the city has no plans to continue funding the site.  The city has told the Poe House they must develop a plan for becoming a self-sufficient institution.  Those of you familiar with my longstanding battle with Baltimore over the literary legacy of Edgar Allan Poe may think that this is the moment when I raise my arms and shout “I win!”  But I’m not.  The Baltimore Poe House needs to remain open and the way in which it is funded needs to continue.  

Sign the petition, but just as importantly, pass the word about it.  Email your friends.  Post it on Facebook.  Post it on Twitter.  The budget for Baltimore has not yet passed, so if we raise enough ruckus, perhaps they will change their minds and keep funding the House.  

Of course, it would be good for Baltimore Poe House to develop alternate sources of funding.  But what do you think they’ve been doing for the past thirty years.  All those birthday events and “Cask of Amontillado” wine tasting events and October shindigs have helped keep the Baltimore Poe House afloat.  The bare bones budget for the House, currently funded by the City of Baltimore, just to pay one person and keep the doors open is $85,000.  In a city budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, $85K is a drop in the bucket.  That kind of outlay has zero effect on any other city services.  Not to mention the work that has been accomplished by Jeff Jerome over the years that have brought tourist dollars into Maryland and Baltimore.   Last year, according to Jerome, “The Poe House and Visit Baltimore received an award from the State of Maryland for bringing in print media advertising the equivalent of $1.9 million through the highly successful Nevermore 2009 publicity campaign.”  Hmm, $1.9 mil.  $85K  budget.  I think the $85K was pretty well spent.  If the City of Baltimore was spending millions of dollars on operating their Poe House, I could understand them wanting to make some budget cuts.  But when they’re only giving them enough to just survive AND they say they’re going to just cut all of it, I am flabbergasted.  In what economic world does any of this make sense?  

Sign the petition 

Now, Jeff Jerome and I have had our little battles over the years about literary history, but that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the kind of work he does is valuable to Poe’s continuing public reception.  Jeff Jerome, misguided though he may be about the literary legacy of Poe (Hey Jeff, Poe’s a Philadelphia writer!), has nonetheless done an outstanding job for the past thirty years as caretaker of Poe’s Legacy in Baltimore.  My fear would be that any NEW system of funding the Poe House would leave Jerome out in the cold.  The Poe House in Baltimore needs to stay open and it needs to have Jeff Jerome continue in his position.  If only because for thirty years this way has worked.  

So why can’t the Poe House just find ways of making up that $85K?  They are in a unique position.  Plans that have allowed other sites, such as the Mark Twain House in Connecticut, would be extraordinarily difficult (read: impossible) in Baltimore.  The Poe House is tiny, cramped and surrounded by a neglected neighborhood.  It doesn’t get tens of thousands of visitors through its doors every year.  It doesn’t have enough space for an adequate gift shop.  It can’t host programs and events.  It has survived because many years ago, the City of Baltimore decided it was worth spending a very small amount of money to keep it afloat.  It’s worth even more now.  Hopefully, some fat cats might be made aware of this situation and start some kind of endowment (don’t bet on it).  But even then, that money needs to be replenished year after year.  That’s why it makes sense for the city to cover the bare bones budget and then let the House do all it can to raise more money.  If the House has to raise their own operating costs, they’ll be closing their doors in no time.  For the Poe House to even think about making enough to cover their own costs, they’d have to double their size and hire more staff.  They can’t do anything about their space and more staff just costs more and more money.  We’re not talking about a business here.  We’re talking about a literary historical landmark.  How many readers do you think are left in this country who actually give a shit about our literary history?  Answer: not enough to support a literary house in a bad neighborhood. 

Sign the petition 

Shutter the Poe House now and in a few years, the talk will be, “Why even have it at all?  Just tear the building down.  We already have the grave at Westminster.  Why do we need the house?”  I can talk and write about literary history all I want.  I can give talks to halls packed to the doors.  But that’s all just talk.  I grew up in a city, Philadelphia, where we have been nurtured by the idea that the actual, physical places of history matter.  Why do we need Independence Hall or the Liberty Bell?  As long as we have the ideas they represent, why do we need their physical presence?  Because if you can walk on the same streets and the same floors that our founders did, if you can touch a bell that represents our struggle, then you are in some way better connected to the legacy of your past.  I feel the same way about our literary legacy.  The Poe Houses in Philadelphia and Baltimore and NewYork and Richmond need to be preserved, so we can walk the same floors of a great American author, so maybe the blood, sweat and tears of his creative labors may be transferred to us. 

 So, it seems to me that the best scenario would be for Baltimore to continue giving the Poe House the pittance it already does.  That’s why there is a petition.  To convince the mayor that enough people care about the Poe House that it would create too much ill will to stop funding it.  The more people who are outraged over this, the better chance the city of Baltimore will change their mind, continue funding and hope no notices it was a stupid idea to stop funding in the first place.  

Sign the petition 

Of course, if Baltimore’s willing to concede, we can always dismantle the house and move it to Philly.  Throw in the body and we definitely have a deal.  But if you’re not willing to give up Poe, then keep the House open.  I need Jeff Jerome.  Who else can I fight without Jeff running the Poe House?

For updates check here, but also check out the Poe Bicentennial site.  And here's what the Poe Society of Baltimore thinks about the issue, as well.

The Phila Daily News reporter Molly Eichel also shot this little video piece on Goodis and included a lot of my comments.  (And yes, I know it's romans noir, not roman noirs.  Cut me a break; I had already been drinking for hours):

Molly Eichel has a piece in the Philadephia Daily News about our David Goodis commemoration.  We met at the gravesite this year, but it was so cold, we moved inside the mausoleum to do our readings.  Then we caravaned through Goodis sites in the city (birth hospital, school, homes).  Then we all met up at Greg Gillespie's great Port Richmond bookstore and capped off the day at Atlantis The Lost Bar (featuring Philadelphia Brewing Co on tap). 

It was great having new people join us on this excursion, like Andy Junkin, Newby Ely and especially the New York contingent (Jeff Wong, Margery Budoff, Cullen Gallagher, Eric Rice) Check out photos by the fantastic Elizabeth Amber-Love Delaney on facebook.  And Lou Boxer, our Goodis guru, has posted a bunch at the Noircon blog. 

Here's Duane Swierczynski and I toasting the Philadelphia Prince of Noir at the location of his boyhood home (Jameson in my flask and Johnny Walker Black in Swierczy's).  Until next year!