|To: JohnM who wrote (9075)||8/22/2019 10:52:03 AM|
|I nevcr get tired of Bosch. the next one is due out in Oct. I am hooked on the Amazon series also:|
digitalspy.com Bosch season 6 airdate, plot, cast, trailer and everything you need to know
Okay, okay, we know – sometimes we get a bit ahead of ourselves but there’s a reason we’ve decided to speculate about what Bosch season 6 could entail. Yes, season five hasn’t even aired yet, but still. This is Amazon’s longest-running one-hour series, so it’s a bit special.
"As Prime Video's longest-running one-hour series, Bosch has long been a cornerstone of our scripted programming, and Prime members consistently clamour for more," said Amazon Studios' Head of Scripted Series, Sharon Tal Yguado.
And, as it’s based firmly on Michael Connelly's best-selling novels, we can fairly solidly predict what season six will be about.
"I could not be prouder of the series we are making," Connelly said. "Bosch is entertaining and relevant to our world today. On top of that we have a fantastic writing staff and the cast and crew are the best. We feel we are just hitting our stride.
"Series four is based on Angels Flight and I don't think we could have chosen a more timely story to tell."
But if season four was based on Angels Flight, what could season six be about? We’ve grabbed our badge and gun to investigate.
Bosch season 6 air date: When will it be on?
Amazon Prime Instant Video
We’re going to confidently state that you’ll be watching Bosch season six in April of 2020. Amazon keeps the show on a fairly fixed schedule.
They land yearly and arrive between February, March and April. With the last three seasons dropping at the tail-end of that window, in April, we’re confident the team have found their groove and will stick to that target. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if we’re wrong, feel free to arrest us.
Bosch season 6 plot: What will it be about?
Bosch follows the misadventures of homicide detective Harry Bosch, driven partly by the unsolved death of his prostitute mother. Starring Titus Welliver – a fantastic actor who's mostly played supporting roles on quality series like Sons of Anarchy and Deadwood, as well as being Lost's Smoke Monster – it’s a compelling show, based on brilliant books.
Don’t expect season six of Bosch to focus on just one book – season one adapted THREE of Connelly’s 14 (at that stage) novels.
"At that point, the first season was gonna be two books; City of Bones (2002) and The Concrete Blonde (1994) – ultimately there's only a small bit of The Concrete Blonde in there and it's really City of Bones and Echo Park (2006) in the first season, " Connelly says.
Those three books were selected, Connelly reveals, because they each provide a personal insight into Harry Bosch: "Concrete Blonde has Harry in a courtroom with an attorney asking whatever she wants.
"So that became a device, where we could bring out a lot of stuff that Harry would never talk about – like his mother being a prostitute. It's a grudgingly difficult drawing out of his backstory.
"City of Bones is another book that was very personal for Harry because it's about the death of a young boy who seems to have been abandoned by society, and Harry connects. So it was with a lot of thought that we picked the stories."
You also shouldn’t expect Bosch to be in chronological order. Unlike, say, Game Of Thrones, which adapts one book at a time until it runs out of books to adapt, Bosch jumps all over the place.
Season two focused on The Last Coyote (Book 4) and Trunk Music (Book 5), season three was based on The Black Echo (Book 1), A Darkness More Than Night (Book 7), and The Drop (Book 15), and season 4 was based on Angels Flight (Book 6).
That means we still have books 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 to cover. There’s a major twist in book 17 (The Burning Room) that we think would restrict the show too much, and will probably be saved for one of the final seasons, along with everything after it.
Book 14 (Nine Dragons) would require too big of a budget. Book two (The Black Ice) has probably been skipped for a reason (it’s nuts) and Bosch is retired in books nine (Lost Light) and ten (The Narrows).
This is all a long-way-around method of deducting via a process of elimination that season six will almost certainly be based on book 11 (The Closers), unless season five gets there first.
That’s mainly because the story features a white supremacist villain, and is sadly even more relevant today than it was when it was published in 2005, thanks to a resurgence of Neo-Nazi groups. We won’t spoil any more than that, but if it doesn’t form the basis of at least one of the two series after season four, we’ll be shocked. Our money’s on season six.
Bosch season 6 cast: Who’ll be in it?
Amazon Prime Instant Video
Yeah, Titus Welliver will be back as Harry Bosch, that’s not even guesswork. Jamie Hector will return as Detective Jerry Edgar, Harry's partner. Amy Aquino will be back as Lieutenant Grace Billets, as will Lance Reddick as Deputy Chief Irvin Irving, and Madison Lintz as Maddie Bosch. Sarah Clarke as Eleanor Wish will probably also pop up in season six.
Bosch season 6 trailer: When will we see it?
Like the series themselves, the trailers also land with startling regularity. So we again feel happy to promise that season six’s trailer will land in February or March of next year. Again, it’s not a crime to be optimistic, is it?
But if you want more solid facts on this particular case, bookmark this page for future reference – we’ll be updating it as soon as any new intel comes in.
Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Tom Clarke||8/23/2019 11:45:57 AM|
|The Novelist Whose Conservatism Robbed Him of Fame|
John O'Hara was a prolific and recognized author—until his support for Barry Goldwater changed everything.
By LEONORA CRAVOTTA • August 21, 2019
John O’Hara published 374 short stories, 14 novels (seven of them bestsellers), and five plays in his four-decade writing career. It was, according to his biographer Matthew J. Bruccoli, “a body of work unsurpassed in American literature in scope and fidelity to American Life.” A master social writer, O’Hara influenced the writing of his contemporaries, including F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and William Faulkner, as well as future authors like John Updike, Tom Wolfe, and J.D. Salinger. He advanced the development of the American short story, and had an extensive career as a reporter and screenplay writer. Five of his novels were adapted into major motion pictures headlined by stars.
At the apex of his popularity in the mid-’60s, his books had sold 15 million copies and been translated into 20 languages. Yet today, he is largely unknown outside of academic circles. How did such a talented, prolific writer fall off our radar? And did his 1964 conversion to political conservatism have anything to do with it?
Scholars note that O’Hara hasn’t been widely studied at the university level for half a century now. They fault O’Hara himself, who refused to have his work anthologized, believing it would cannibalize the sales of his novels. They also postulate that his focus on his characters’ sexuality coupled with his prosaic descriptions kept him from achieving the respect of the literary community that he so desperately craved. As Benjamin Schwarz wrote in 2000 for The Atlantic,“O’Hara was fascinated by the pattern of a necktie, the make of a car, the brand of Scotch, the choice of collar pin, the misuse of a pronoun, the club joined, the college attended, and how these define—in fact, determine—character.” Yet it was this “fascination with these details that led him to falter as a writer.”
I first discovered O’Hara in the Denison University library, where the jacket of The Lockwood Concern caught my eye. I was so taken by the complex inhabitants of O’Hara’s “Pennsylvania Protectorate” that I gobbled up that 400+ page book in about two days. The Protectorate, also known as the Anthracite coal mining region, includes the author’s hometown of Pottsville, which, under the fictional name Gibbsville, is the setting for his two most critically successful novels, his debut chef d’oeuvre Appointment in Samarra and Ten North Frederick, as well as his “Gibbsville” stories.
While O’Hara was a prolific novelist, he received the lion’s share of his acclaim for his short stories, which were predominantly set in Gibbsville, New York, and Hollywood. As many of the stories were first published in The New Yorker, he became so associated with the magazine that many believe him to be the creator of its short stories. Charles McGrath, former associate editor for The New Yorker, described O’Hara in a 2016 interview with the Library of America as having rescued the short story from “the straitjacket of beginning, middle, and end, and often a trick or surprise end at that. In an O’Hara story what happens is most often an internal event—a change in mood or feeling—revealed subtly, sometimes just by implication.”
O’Hara had an unmatched ability to create meticulously descriptive period pieces inhabited by universally relatable characters who transcend their timestamps. He was also a master of dialogue and the use of conversation to reveal character. As Daniel Fuchs wrote in The Chicago Tribune “O’Hara’s people have been around. They’re knowing and on the cynical side, but there is a dignity in them and sometimes, now and then, a nobility.” O’Hara was especially adept at creating authentic female characters from all walks of life.
So how did O’Hara fall out of fashion? Politics and timing. O’Hara, a lifelong Democrat, became a Republican when he cast his vote for Dwight Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election. This gave the liberal literati a reason to despise him. But it was his full-throated support in 1964 of Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid that exposed his relationship with conservatism as more than just a flirtation. O’Hara, who had once described himself as “to the left of Fitzgerald,” found himself at loggerheads with the elite gatekeepers, including family foundations, magazine and book publishers, universities, and Hollywood, at just the time when he should have been currying favor with them. By contrast, academia’s and Hollywood’s posthumous affection for Fitzgerald, who died in 1940, and Hemingway, who committed suicide in 1961, has persisted to the present day, and both authors’ indirect romance with socialism was no doubt a contributing factor.
O’Hara also lost the support of some of his fiction fans with the October 1964 launch of his daily, Guggenheim Family-funded Newsday column, in which he took jabs at President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, even John F. Kennedy (a very unpopular choice of target so soon after his assassination). Not surprisingly, the appropriately titled column, “ My Turn,” lasted exactly one year. When it began “turning off” readers, the syndicates started dropping it, which made it too expensive a venture for Newsday. As O’Hara put it in his final column, “My experience does raise some doubt about the future of a column that so unequivocally supports the conservative side.” He also claimed that once his conservative views became known, reviewers started treating his works as political propaganda instead of literature.
O’Hara, the recipient of several major literary honors, including the National Book Award, was never recognized by a university with an honorary degree, least of all the one he most coveted, Yale. The son of a physician, O’Hara had set his sights on attending Yale, only to have his dreams dashed by the untimely passing of his father, who died intestate. This tragedy, which transformed O’Hara’s middle-class life into one of near-poverty, launched his early career as a newspaper writer and seeded both his ambition and his perception of himself as an Irish Catholic outsider in a WASP world. After he became a bestselling author, O’Hara so aggressively campaigned for an honorary degree from Yale that Kingman Brewster, the university’s president from 1963 to 1977, when asked why he never acquiesced to O’Hara, replied, “Because he asked for it.”
Most scholars interpret Brewster’s brushoff as O’Hara’s comeuppance for being a conspicuous recognition seeker with a frequently alcohol-infused temper. What is not emphasized is Brewster’s role as one of the most influential university presidents of the 20th century. In his 2004 book The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment, Geoffrey Kabaservice depicts Brewster and his circle of Yale and Harvard friends—which included future political operatives McGeorge Bundy, Elliott Richardson, and Cyrus Vance—as the team that bridged the transition from establishment old-guard conservatism to a new generation of liberal elitism. By moving right at the same time, O’Hara all but assured that he would forever be an outsider peering through the window of an ivy-decorated tower.
O’Hara also faced regime change in Hollywood. The author who had worked on and off in Tinseltown as a screenplay writer witnessed the adaptation of four of his novels for the silver screen: Pal Joey, a musical starring Frank Sinatra; Ten North Frederick, with Gary Cooper; From The Terrace, starring Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward; and BUTterfield8, for which Elizabeth Taylor received a best actress Oscar. By the time A Rage to Live was released in 1965, the previously conservative studio leadership had also shifted left, largely as a reaction against the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings and associated blacklistings.
The death of a prominent writer usually generates renewed interest in his life’s work, yet that didn’t happen in O’Hara’s case. Apart from Gibbsville, a seven-episode series in 1976, there has been no substantive programming based on his work since he passed. Next year will mark 50 years since his death, and there would be no better time for O’Hara to be rediscovered. His passionate depiction of the struggle between elites and the self-made is tailored to our current political climate. Moreover, the moral boundaries that existed during O’Hara’s lifetime have been eliminated, enabling today’s readers to fully appreciate his richly nuanced characters without being shocked by their sexuality. His vast canon of work, which hasn’t been translated to film since the Johnson administration, would keep Netflix streaming for the next five years.
However, the most compelling reason to revisit Pottsville’s native son is his authentic storytelling. As his self-prepared tombstone reads: “Better than anyone else, he told the truth about his time. He was a professional. He wrote honestly and well.” While some might take umbrage at O’Hara’s hubris, his candor is refreshing.
Leonora Cravotta is the director of operations for The American Conservative.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|From: Glenn Petersen||9/6/2019 2:55:47 PM|
|Quantifying My Cognitive Decline |
by James Wallace Harris, Thursday, September 5, 2019
I subscribe to a service called Grammarly which checks my spelling and grammar as I write. Grammarly sends me a weekly report on how I’m doing. Two years ago it would tell me I was more accurate than 65-70% of their users, referring to grammar and spelling. I doubt even when I was young it would have been much higher. In recent months that number has fallen to 35-40%. And I can feel it. I have to proof my posts countless times and I still find errors after I’ve published. I’m appalled by how bad my writing has become. If I published my first drafts readers would think they were following Charlie Gordon into his descent phase from the book Flowers for Algernon.
I consider this good quantitative data on my cognitive decline. Grammarly does give me some good news. I’m generally more productive than 98-99% of their users, and my vocabulary is larger than 98-99% of their users. The first is explained by being retired and writing for two blogs. The second reflects long term memory. I can tell it’s my short term memory that’s failing.
I still don’t see this as an early sign of dementia, but I might be deluding myself. I think it’s just an aspect of normal aging. We’re used to seeing our bodies getting old because of all the visible physical changes. We’re not used to mental changes because they are less observable to ourselves and the people around us. Unless we talk or act differently, other people don’t see the changes. And we don’t feel the changes unless we try to do something and fail.
I have been noticing the number of times people ask me why I’m not talking. I tell them I’m just listening to them. Or say I’m thinking. But I believe it’s because it takes more effort to put thoughts into words, and when I do talk I can’t remember words, or I verbally trip when saying sentences. My cognitive problems are the most obvious when writing. If I’m just playing with the cats, watching television, or listening to music I feel fine. I believe we ignore our mental aging by doing less and saying less. Of course, many people also ignore signs of physical aging — that’s why so many foolish oldsters fall off ladders.
The real question is: Can we exercise the mind like we exercise the body? It appears we can slow physical decline by being more active. Is that also true for mental activity? My first reaction when I realized I was making more spelling and grammar errors was to quit writing. But I quickly decided that was the wrong approach. I believe writing exercises the mind. Instead of quitting I should work harder. However, I might need crutches. I thought about pilots who use preflight checklists, or how surgeons now use checklists to avoid making surgical mistakes.
I already pay Grammarly to keep an eye on me, but it’s far from perfect. In fact, when I see errors after I published it means Grammarly and I both missed them. I usually proofread my posts four or five times before I hit the published button. Often the most glaring mistakes are last-minute rephrasing where I don’t proof the whole sentence, or whole paragraph again. But other mistakes come from reading too fast and assuming I’m seeing what I read.
I believe my essays give the illusion that my mind is working just fine. Y’all don’t see how many broke things I fix. I use the internet to cheat. It really is my auxiliary memory. And I have unlimited do-overs. Most importantly, I can take all the time I need to say what I want.
I’ve always been a good typist. It’s been the most useful skill I learned in high school. What I typed used to be what I thought. Thoughts came out of my fingers. That’s no longer true. Now my fingers give me sound-alike words, leave out words, type words twice, and even throw in extra words. Quite often I end up typing just the opposite of what I was thinking. While typing this paragraph I created 8-10 alternate words to what I was thinking. Just that could explain the halving of my accuracy score in Grammarly.
[When proofing the above paragraph I had a new insight. What if my typing is as accurate as ever, and I’m merely typing jumbled thoughts when I once transcribed clear ones?]
Writing isn’t the only way I’m seeing increased cognitive problems. The other day I wrote “ Untying a Knotted Plot” about my difficulty of understanding a short story. I had to read it four times. Admittedly, it is a complicated story. The author even wrote a couple of comments to help me. That essay was extremely difficult to compose. I struggled with trying to comprehend the story and write about it clearly. Every time I typed the author’s name I looked at the magazine to verify the spelling. I still got it wrong three out of eight times. I proofed the hell out of that piece because errors seem to be popping like popcorn. I felt like I was playing a very desperate game of Whack-a-Mole.
There’s another reason to keep writing. I want to document my own decline. Like the researchers in Flowers for Algernon, they tell Charlie to keep a journal. I’m going to be my own researcher and subject. I think it’s useful to be aware of my diminishing abilities. Aging is natural, and I accept it. I’m willing to work to squeeze all I can from my dwindling resources. What’s vital is being aware of what’s happening. The real problem to fear is becoming unconscious to who we are. Like Dirty Harry said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
The reason why Flowers for Algernon was such a magnificent story is that we’re all Charlie Gordon. We all start out dumb, get smart, and then get dumb again. Charlie just did it very fast, and that felt tragic. We do it slowly and try to ignore it’s happening. That’s also tragic.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|