Dear List:
Unknown command - "DEAR". Try HELP.

> Ric Burn's epic PBS series, "New York: A Documentary Film" has come and gone.  While it was being shown, I heard many comments about the program. Professional historians of  my acquaintance, with few exceptions, didn't much care for it,  while my non-historian friends generally were much more enthusiastic.  For myself, I found this long-awaited series rather disappointing.  The level of accuracy was often quite poor. The treatment of  the Dutch consisted for the most part  of  a skein of the half-truths and legends, and "New York" opened with the eminent colonial historian Brendan Gill saying something like the Dutch were only here for the money, and that's the way its always been in this town, commencing on a glib and boosterish tone the series never lost. Among the many errors let me just mention two that for personal reasons annoyed me the most, from among a  bounty of  historical inaccuracies: the use of  the notorious and thoroughly discredited NYHS portrait of Lord Cor!
nbury, and the perpetuation of  the myth that the New York Stock Exchange was founded beneath a buttonwood tree in 1792.
Unknown command - "RIC". Try HELP.

> But leave us not to pick nits. A more important issue is how well Ric Burns narrated the story of  the city through his choice of episodes and unfolding of  grand themes. There were a number of  segments of  the series I rather liked, such as  the treatment of the draft riot, and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.  (Contrary to the vile column in the New York Times by John Tierney, who in defending the occupational safety practices of  garment sweatshops c.1910, managed to attack one of  the things "New York" almost certainly got right.)   On the other hand, many major aspects of  the city's history were either missing or treated scantily. On the whole I felt the series tended to belabor the obvious, and often was tiresomely celebratory, sprinkling superlatives on  everything it discussed;  the biggest, the largest, the first, or the newest. (Even the draft riot was a cause for civic pride; only really important cities have the honor of  hosting really important acts of mob viole!
nce, one talking head opined.)  For  all  the complaints in recent years about the supposed political correctness of PSB documentaries, as in John Tierney's aforementioned screed,  it seemed to me that "New York"  was rather traditional in its choice of  topics--heavy on the architecture, rather light on women, social conflict and the pet themes of  the new social history.  Ultimately the main theme of  "New York" was the possibility of  triumph over adversity. A friend of  mine commented that the series, which time and again showed New York City remaking itself, rising from the ashes of  past disasters to ever greater  glory, spoke to a personal mythology of  endless personal refashioning that is the dominant  quasi-religion of  our time.  Perhaps this is why the series resonated so strongly with the average viewers.
Unknown command - "BUT". Try HELP.

> That's my two cents.  I hope I don't sound too angry.  It's not easy pulling one of  these mega-series off, and tough choices abound at every turn, especially in the choice of  material. Still, as I said above, my dominant reaction was one of disappointment. I would be interested in hearing other responses to "New York."  What people liked about and didn't like about it, and what you would have done differently? Why was the show so popular, and what does that tell us about the gap between serious scholarship and middlebrow documentaries?   What purpose does a series such as "New York serve? And what lessons do the achievements and shortcomings of   "New York"  hold for  those who write upon or teach the history of  New York City and New York State?