Peter Eisenstadt's invites comments on Ric Burns' "New York," and therefore
presumably on his own criticism of the documentary series. He observes that
apparently non-historians liked it better than professional historians, at
least among his acquaintances. The problem with relying on the professionals'
evaluation is they generally know the history and are focused on its
presentation, whereas the non-historians may know less of the history and so
are looking at the history being presented. Therefore, they would seem likely
to enjoy it more, the more they learn from it things they didn't know before.

I agree with Peter that the narration too often used superlatives about New
York City that even I, a life-long resident, found irritating after awhile. I
can imagine how that must have annoyed non-residents more so. Indeed, much of
the narration came across as double and triple underlining of what historians
Jackson, Wallace and others had already said in the presentation, and said
better.

Also Peter makes a good point about the documentary adopting and preaching
this mythic image of New York as a perpetual Phoenix rising. If the narration
would have merely presented that as a popular viewpoint held by many, the
presentation would have seemed less like boosterism. But we need remember
that the project was undertaken with every encouragement from New York City
looking to its centennial as a five-borough municipality.

This viewer found that, on balance, the documentary's strengths outnumber and
outweigh its flaws, and that it deserves being listed as an educational tool,
provided that list also includes -- and at higher pacement on the list --
such masterworks as the Encyclopedia of NYC, Gotham, and in due course
Peter's own major opus.

Thomas McCarthy
general secretary
New York Correction History Society
http://www.correctionhistory.org
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]