I went with Bill Scadlock (of guest post fame) yesterday to see Elizabeth : The Golden Age. My vote was for The Kite Runner, but since that meant waiting an extra three hours, we decided to check out Elizabeth instead. The plan appeared jinxed from the beginning. Bill forgot to bring his wallet. Then, my first credit card failed to work. Finally, we made our way to the T only to be stuck in the subway for an incredible 45 minutes. We had to run the last fifty yards to the theater.
But in the end, it was not for naught. I got a welcome break from preparing for exams. Two comments : (the movie sucks) first, it is almost anachronistic to expect to see a historical movie which aims towards historical authenticity (the movie sucks); second, and I might as well say it plainly, the movie was not only non-historical (the movie sucks), but also at times non-logical. In a word, it was awful.
While at the theater, I reminded him that he needs to fulfill his promise to oblige our readers with a guest post, something he said would be possible only after he was back "from the land of the Austragonians" (Bill was recently in Sydney). Here is a speedy guest post by Bill. Written as only Bill can.
=================================================
Choultry points to some comments by Martin and to Wikipedia's "List of Indian Monarchs". Wikipedia just got back from its celebration of the 750th anniversary of American Independence, folks, and may be a little the worse for drink,, so please bear with W.Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday.
Folks, There are two separate things on that new and improved Wiki page, one, a list of historical kings and another, a list of kings from mythological sources. both the lists have been merged into one. beeeeautiful. One list was arrived at after careful study by students of history while the other was arrived at by people who had little historical training writing before they could spell B-L-O-G. Perhaps there is a real cause for concern here in merging these two lists.
it is not just that these are very different kinds of lists. the point of contention is that this is really a matter of Enlightenment values. the question is - should we be accepting facts on the basis of faith alone? and if we do, on the basis of which faith? and how, then, do you resolve all the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise? to be sure, There may be historical elements that may be gleaned from the Puranas, etc.. And this is not intended to say that there is no element of truth in the religious texts. In fact, IIRC, the connection between Chandragupta and Sandrakottos came via the Puranas. But, the Puranas are not history. There is really no point in pretending otherwise.
***