I am always amazed that the producers would take the time to interview the
best of the best in regards to any subject, then not check their final work
with them. How much work would it have taken to send a video of the show to
Tom Grasso and ask that he check it over. But this happens all the time. I
have been interviewed a number of times and when the article comes out, I am
left to wonder, "Did I say that?"
I could not get over the fact that they kept showing Letchworth State Park
in regards to the difficult terrain the Erie Canal had to be built through.
And I also was left to wonder why they did not show the five combines.
I am left to wonder just how factual the other "history" shows really are.
Mike Riley
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel H. Weiskotten <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: Erie Canal on Modern Marvels


> I watched the History Channel's "Modern Marvels" segment on the Erie Canal
> and was somewhat disappointed, not by the scholars that they interviewed
> (for they are the best), but for the way it was put together and
presented.
>
> The story of canals in New York State is incredibly complex and I
> understand that such shows are "dumbed down" to meet the needs of the
> audience, rather than scholars who have studied the canal for years, but I
> expected more from the producers of the series.  Time and time again the
> chronology was twisted, reversed, or even ignored, and too many times I
> they teased with interesting statements or scenes only to leave us in the
> lurch in anticipation.  At least Heinz delivers.
>
> Cases in point.
>
> Not one mention was made of the precursor engineering accomplishments on
> which state politicians and "engineers" cut their teeth and made their
> mistakes (and, boy, did they learn their hard lessons and get their
> education!)  I would expect that after more than a decade of research that
> Phil Lord and the Durham Project's research would have had more of an
> impact into the story of the engineering marvels of the canal than to
> appear as a few unidentified clips of the replica bateau and a mention of
a
> barrel of water from the Rome Canal dumped on Clinton's (not Bill) head as
> he passed by the original canal site.  The story of the Western Inland
Lock
> Navigation Company's works would fill more that an entire hour episode, so
> maybe they shied away from it, but why ignore it all together.  The time
> spent talking about canals in Egypt could have been spent discussing the
> history of the early canals in the US.
>
> The obviously had access to the best of the illustrative materials, and
> perhaps due to whatever legal restrictions couldn't show some things, but
> why couldn't they find at least one map that properly showed the line of
> the 19th century Erie Canal??????  Every map of the state illustrating the
> location and extent of the canal showed the modern Barge (now being called
> Erie) Canal running through Oneida Lake and various rivers as it cut
across
> the state - in many cases far from the old Erie's course.  And what was
> with the section of the Champlain Canal that was shown - there are
hundreds
> of incredible maps showing the Erie Canal structures - why not throw them
> in instead of one of the lateral canals.  The photos were pretty good, and
> some of the classics were shown, but there are many that would have done
> better.  Also, what was the point of using such a non-descript David
Vaughn
> drawing to show landscape of New York?  The choice was pretty pointless
> considering the many beautiful and revealing scenes that he did create.
>
> One cannot study the canal and be aware of some sort of chronology.
> Clinton's Ditch, Enlarged Erie, Barge Canal.  Simple.  How many times did
> they talk about the original canal and its wonderful structures and be
> showing a Barge Canal lock?  There was very little chronology presented,
> except perhaps for a few dates here and there.  Each one of these eras
> could be a show of their own, but to slice and dice did none of them
justice.
>
> The locks at Lockport - gee, I guess I was wrong to think that HALF OF
THEM
> STILL EXIST.  As extended description and old plans of the incredible
> series of locks was being discussed we saw the 20th century Barge Canal
> locks and no mention was ever made that the northern side of the early
19th
> century locks were still very much intact and visible.  They did show a
> quick snippet of the old locks near the end of the program but I sat in
> dire anticipation of proper mention and camera work that could have shown
> us what truly is the most amazing part of the whole system.  Some of the
> views of existing old locks they did present were impressive, but they
left
> out many memorable structures such as the Schoharie Aqueduct and other
such
> wonderful "modern marvels".
>
> While they were happy to show us a map of a segment of the Champlain
Canal,
> and a charter or similar of the Genesee Valley Canal, there was nary a
word
> spoken of the vast network of lateral canals that fed the grand Erie and
> brought goods from the farthest reaches of the state.
>
> What seems to have happened with this program is that they found
themselves
> entirely overwhelmed by the subject and under-prepared to carry out the
> task that viewers like me had expected of them.  Granted I may know far
> more about the canal that most people who watched the program, but this
> type of program attracts those that know more than the average joe about
> the subject and the producers know that very well.  It does not seem that
> they even met the requirements for the most novice viewer, and, in fact,
if
> they had piqued anyone's interest in the canal they have jumbled up the
> story and mixed and matched facts and images (not to mention the good raw
> stuff they left out completely), that it  may be that they have given the
> first wrong impression.  Programs such as this should present in a manner
> which would build towards a better understanding and prove true as one
> looks deeper.  What we are left with for the novice is a bunch of
> mis-ordered facts and dates which will only confuse them should they
follow
> through with further study, and a total lack of coherence and down right
> ignorance of particular pertinent subject matter for the educated canal
> buff who should (presumably) find the program itself nothing but fluff and
> fun.
>
> As I have surmised several times, this is a subject that cannot be covered
> in an hour, and would best be tackled over several shows which touch on
the
> many varied chronological and technological aspects of the canal story in
> New York State.  I expected more from the show, based on other programs in
> the series that I have seen, and I understand the need to address a lay
> audience, but I felt that it would not have met the best needs and
> interests of the layperson, and it surely did not meet my needs.  I was
> left throughout the program with a sense of frustration because they
called
> me to dinner and then left the meat and potatoes out of the stew.  And
like
> any Erie Canal buff, I was starving for food for thought.  Pass the Pepto,
> please.
>
>         Dan Weiskotten
>
>                 http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyccazen/
>                 http://users.erols.com/weiskotten/
>                 http://users.erols.com/weiskotten/clcbm.html
>                 http://users.erols.com/weiskotten/drydocks.html
>                 http://users.erols.com/weiskotten/drydockstats.html
>                 http://users.erols.com/weiskotten/links.html#Erie Canal
>