In a message dated 12/2/99 2:47:24 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< n fact, his choices of virtually everything I saw seemed suspiciously
self-serving. I don't know how New Yorkers view their history, but Burns'
choice of F. Scott Fitzgerald as some sort of literary spotted owl completely
confused me. There's a legion of writers better qualified to represent the
state and the city. I felt that choice was made because Fitzgerald's prose
contained a pithy thing or two the filmmaker could use to romanticize--and
perhaps mythologize--New York. I seem to recall that Burns closed the series
with a Fitzgerald passage--yes? >>

I felt the same way about Burns' choice of Walt Whitman, in the first and
second increment, to be the tale bearer of NY history.  It just dragged on
too long, and seemed to be a testimony to Whitman instead.  On the whole,  I
was disappointed and felt that more NYC history could have been portrayed
within 10 hours.of air time.... I didn't care to hear "Thud".."Thud "
everytime a body fell from the shirtwaist factory, which seemed endless along
with the draft riots.

Too dramatic and not enough history , in my opinion .....but that is only my
opinion.

Eileen in NY