tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6638292761241716183.post8755468179717131809..comments2023-10-16T01:08:13.590-07:00Comments on Surviving Amelia: what would irritate Amelia Earhart more?roseduncanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146205623848645811noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6638292761241716183.post-48588595302053935632010-03-29T16:03:12.559-07:002010-03-29T16:03:12.559-07:00She does seem very interested in his appeal. She m...She does seem very interested in his appeal. She might be the only one who found him attractive . . . except I suppose Amelia. At least at first, though I think of him as a means to an end. I think of her as pretty much in control. She seems like that to me, one tough woman.rose duncanhttp://roseduncan.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6638292761241716183.post-54497253443714966532010-03-29T15:06:41.084-07:002010-03-29T15:06:41.084-07:00I too found Lovell's bio annoying. It places ...I too found Lovell's bio annoying. It places too much emphasis on GP's role as PR manager, as though he could single-handedly create an outsized media image and get all the newspapers in the U.S. to focus on her. And the book should have been billed as a dual biography. I suppose Lovell researched GP because she found him interesting and attractive; in fact I think I remember her referring to him as a handsome hunk of a man in the introduction.mkendrick24https://www.blogger.com/profile/14649000520068080665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6638292761241716183.post-34035411123544232382010-03-29T12:53:46.267-07:002010-03-29T12:53:46.267-07:00Well you know you can always write fiction. That s...Well you know you can always write fiction. That seems to be what I'm doing . . . did you find that book as irritating as I did? I just don't get the need to go on and on about G.P. Putnam as if his life was on a par with hers. And there's so much misinformation because each biographer depends on whoever their source is, it makes you realize that so much of history is personal interpretation and really sometimes I think it might as well all be fiction. What is the difference? Yet it can't stop you. I suppose you have to write honestly and clinically and dispassionately. I don't think there's anything wrong with scrutinizing a person's life, especially one as public as hers, what I'm kind of amazed by is how well she managed to hide her private life from view, I think that and of course the way she died, leads to endless speculation. It might take David McCullough, then again it could be you, who would have thought John Adams would end up being such a page turner?rose duncanhttp://roseduncan.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6638292761241716183.post-43832231795102238882010-03-29T09:20:28.263-07:002010-03-29T09:20:28.263-07:00I share your sense of the intrusiveness of so much...I share your sense of the intrusiveness of so much that's written about AE. It makes for a dilemma as a historian: from time to time I've thought of writing about her, but to answer some of what I consider to be misconceptions about her, I'd have to be just as detailed in my scrutiny as the other nosy judgemental writers. Any thoughts about how one solves that dilemma?mkendrick24https://www.blogger.com/profile/14649000520068080665noreply@blogger.com