Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Join in the discussion of the 2009 film Bright Star.

Moderators: Saturn, Malia

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Credo Buffa » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:22 pm

Raphael wrote:I would encourage anyone new to our dear poet to read his letters and ignore biographies mainly.


Maureen wrote:Although even then one has to think about their own perception.

Biographies, especially of historical figures, are often just as much about conjecture and interpretation as anything else. Certain facts will always remain the same, but we're each given plenty of opportunities to draw our own conclusions about who people really were. The kicker is that we'll never know in most cases what actually IS true and what is inference. Even if we each stick exclusively to Keats' letters, we'll all get something different out of them, just as we will reading his poems.

All literature, be it fiction, nonfiction, verse, or even journalism, lends itself to individual digestion. Personally, I think it's worth it to read a wide variety of biographical takes on a particular person and create your own ideas by sorting through the ideas of others.

Raphael wrote:If one reads the letters it is obvious that he was a really funny, witty young man with a great sense of humour. I think the biographers have over emphasised his *depressions* and *melancholy*. It stuck me upon reading his letters from Winchester that to Fanny B he is telling he is feeling low, yet the letters he writes to George and Georgiana are full of jokes and revelry!

From reading his letters he seems to me more light hearted than the biographers portray him.

Agreed. It's very easy to look at artists as perpetual brooders, but forget that they are people, too. We know Keats was very active and like to be outdoors, so why wouldn't he play football now and again? There is, of course, the classic story of his imitating the bassoon. No reason to believe that something like that would be an isolated incident, of course. Especially for someone who experienced as much tragedy in his life as Keats did, I get the impression that he was a generally positive person.

As for the Scottish dance in the film, though, that was hardly social dancing like that he would have observed at balls or gatherings. We know that he appreciated the folk dancing he observed on his Scottish tour, so the idea that he would be portrayed imitating it for the amusement of others (not at all seriously) doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.

Raphael wrote:I find the syphilis/VD very unlikely- as once one had VD then one had it for life- only antibiotics gets rid of it. iI find it hard to believe that a man of his medical knowledge and interest in hygeine would have gone to bed with a random woman withiout checking or noticing she had a veneral disease!

I don't know. . . I think this might be an overestimation of the medical understanding of the day. Just because a VD may show visible flare-ups doesn't mean it always does. And who knows, it might have been dark. :P Even today, with the prevalence of sex ed and unpleasantly graphic slide shows in schools that SHOULD make us know better, people manage to pick these things up (I've always heard from friends and acquaintances in the medical field that it's kind of amazing how many people have some kind of VD).

Again, of course the theory is entirely conjecture based on a few known facts, but I don't think any of us can safely say that it's true or false either way. As Maureen says, best keep an open mind, even if we don't always like or agree with what we might read. I say that as an avid lover of Mozart who gets a bit irked whenever people talk about him as a perpetually irresponsible boozer (which I don't believe). ;)
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Raphael » Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:09 pm

Biographies, especially of historical figures, are often just as much about conjecture and interpretation as anything else. Certain facts will always remain the same, but we're each given plenty of opportunities to draw our own conclusions about who people really were.


I object to pure conjecture- I dislike that- by writing salacious "facts" they aim to make money out of someone passed- I think it is wrong to speak ill of the *dead* (well those known to be good people like Junkets- I couldn't care less what they write about that fat smelly so and so Henry VIII :lol: ).

The kicker is that we'll never know in most cases what actually IS true and what is inference.


In John's case not so true- he wrote so many letters that really we can know a lot of his life from them.


Even if we each stick exclusively to Keats' letters, we'll all get something different out of them, just as we will reading his poems.



Not to the extent of making up gossip that biographers have done.


All literature, be it fiction, nonfiction, verse, or even journalism, lends itself to individual digestion. Personally, I think it's worth it to read a wide variety of biographical takes on a particular person and create your own ideas by sorting through the ideas of others.



I know what you mean- but with the exception of Guy Murchie's biography, from what I've read so far the usual others have given a false impression of Junkets which contrasts to what he wrote in his letters. Motion even says one of the poems is about "masturbatory fingerings" ( one of the poems on Fame) yet try as I might to see this, there is nothing in the words to indicate that to me. Motion has made this up. He seems to love using salacious "facts" (lies I say) to sell his book and nothing to do with the real John Keats.Now, I'm no prude- if Junkets had written a poem on this topic I would not be offended at all- it would probably amuse me like his other saucy rhymes. I object to Motion making things up to sell his book.



From reading his letters he seems to me more light hearted than the biographers portray him.
Agreed. It's very easy to look at artists as perpetual brooders, but forget that they are people, too. We know Keats was very active and like to be outdoors, so why wouldn't he play football now and again? There is, of course, the classic story of his imitating the bassoon. No reason to believe that something like that would be an isolated incident, of course. Especially for someone who experienced as much tragedy in his life as Keats did, I get the impression that he was a generally positive person.



You make great points there Credo- his letters show him to have been fairly positive despite his tragedies- and anyway one would expect him to feel down at times after all had happened to him. yet Motion makes him out to be some severe kind of depressive, constantly sexually fustrated and almost unbalanced in his mind. I think this is wrong to write such things and disrespectful.He just wants to sell his book and doesn't care about John at all.


As for the Scottish dance in the film, though, that was hardly social dancing like that he would have observed at balls or gatherings. We know that he appreciated the folk dancing he observed on his Scottish tour, so the idea that he would be portrayed imitating it for the amusement of others (not at all seriously) doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.



Yes he found the folk dances interesting- but he wrote he didn't like dancing himself so that's why I though he probably wouldn't have shown the Brawnes the dance.


Raphael wrote:I find the syphilis/VD very unlikely- as once one had VD then one had it for life- only antibiotics gets rid of it. iI find it hard to believe that a man of his medical knowledge and interest in hygeine would have gone to bed with a random woman withiout checking or noticing she had a veneral disease!

I don't know. . . I think this might be an overestimation of the medical understanding of the day. Just because a VD may show visible flare-ups doesn't mean it always does. And who knows, it might have been dark. :P Even today, with the prevalence of sex ed and unpleasantly graphic slide shows in schools that SHOULD make us know better, people manage to pick these things up (I've always heard from friends and acquaintances in the medical field that it's kind of amazing how many people have some kind of VD).



Points taken, but syphilis does show up- its very visible- sores, rashes etc so one would see the person had it when one got intimate with them.I agree some people are idiots with their sexual health today despite all the education.

Again, of course the theory is entirely conjecture based on a few known facts, but I don't think any of us can safely say that it's true or false either way.



I am sure actually that John did not have it- there is no evidence.


I say that as an avid lover of Mozart who gets a bit irked whenever people talk about him as a perpetually irresponsible boozer (which I don't believe). ;)


Do they indeed? How rude and disrespectful.
John....you did not live to see-
who we are because of what you left,
what it is we are in what we make of you.

Peter Sanson, 1995.
User avatar
Raphael
Milton
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: wandering Keats' poetry

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Malia » Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:04 pm

The kicker is that we'll never know in most cases what actually IS true and what is inference.


In John's case not so true- he wrote so many letters that really we can know a lot of his life from them.


But not *everything*--Keats tended to stay silent (or very nearly so--writing in a cryptic way) regarding issues that deeply troubled him or caused him great pain (his mother, for example; and Tom after his death--who he didn't write or talk much about at all and when he did, it was to express his outrage or anguish). If Keats had any kind of VD--and it may have been something other than syphilis--he would probably have been somewhat embarrassed about it and not talked openly. At the same time, he probably would have brushed it off as "no big deal," at least publicly. He certainly had no trouble with the open and free ways of middle class men of his time; he made jokes about Severn's going to the "life school" (i.e. brothel).


All literature, be it fiction, nonfiction, verse, or even journalism, lends itself to individual digestion. Personally, I think it's worth it to read a wide variety of biographical takes on a particular person and create your own ideas by sorting through the ideas of others.



I know what you mean- but with the exception of Guy Murchie's biography, from what I've read so far the usual others have given a false impression of Junkets which contrasts to what he wrote in his letters. Motion even says one of the poems is about "masturbatory fingerings" ( one of the poems on Fame) yet try as I might to see this, there is nothing in the words to indicate that to me. Motion has made this up. He seems to love using salacious "facts" (lies I say) to sell his book and nothing to do with the real John Keats.Now, I'm no prude- if Junkets had written a poem on this topic I would not be offended at all- it would probably amuse me like his other saucy rhymes. I object to Motion making things up to sell his book.


I don't remember Motion's biography containing "lies". Regarding the masturbation issue, I recall Motion saying that *people in that time* connected TB with frustrated love and masturbation, which would have aided in frustrating Keats (who wants to be seen as a frustrated masturbator?) and further sent him to the "edges" of society (Motion focuses a lot in his bio about how Keats is on the edges of things politically and socially--this just fits in with his theme). Keats, himself (judging from his notations in the Anatomy of Melancholy and his feelings about Tom's own "frustrated" love with the imaginary Amena) began to believe that unfulfilled sexual satisfaction might have been *one* of the causes behind his TB.

From reading his letters he seems to me more light hearted than the biographers portray him.
Agreed. It's very easy to look at artists as perpetual brooders, but forget that they are people, too. We know Keats was very active and like to be outdoors, so why wouldn't he play football now and again? There is, of course, the classic story of his imitating the bassoon. No reason to believe that something like that would be an isolated incident, of course. Especially for someone who experienced as much tragedy in his life as Keats did, I get the impression that he was a generally positive person.



You make great points there Credo- his letters show him to have been fairly positive despite his tragedies- and anyway one would expect him to feel down at times after all had happened to him. yet Motion makes him out to be some severe kind of depressive, constantly sexually fustrated and almost unbalanced in his mind. I think this is wrong to write such things and disrespectful.He just wants to sell his book and doesn't care about John at all.


Again, I don't think that's what Motion set out to do at all. Can you point to any direct quotes from the Bio that support your claim?

Keats had a great sense of humor, absolutely--but he did suffer from bouts of depression (pretty severe bouts, at times) and they dogged him his whole life.


As for the Scottish dance in the film, though, that was hardly social dancing like that he would have observed at balls or gatherings. We know that he appreciated the folk dancing he observed on his Scottish tour, so the idea that he would be portrayed imitating it for the amusement of others (not at all seriously) doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.



Yes he found the folk dances interesting- but he wrote he didn't like dancing himself so that's why I though he probably wouldn't have shown the Brawnes the dance.


I think Keats in the movie meant the dance to be a parody, not a serious effort :)
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Credo Buffa » Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:05 pm

Raphael wrote:I dislike that- by writing salacious "facts" they aim to make money out of someone passed- I think it is wrong to speak ill of the *dead*

It's only salacious if you go into it thinking that what you're getting is absolute fact. It's like getting your fortune read: you can go into it seriously thinking that your tea leaves can predict the future and then feel duped when the predictions turn out false, or you can enjoy the novelty and move on. Buyer beware, as they say. Of course, many people don't know the difference, but it's the same thing you see anywhere: neighborhood tittle-tattle, politics, claims about the fiber content on your cereal box. . . You just have to be smart enough to know what is what. Doesn't mean I have to enjoy Lucky Charms any less just because I know that the "made with whole grain" crap on the front of the box is a blatant marketing ploy. And I have no such reason to feel "sold" by Motion or any other biographer as I might by General Mills. :P

I think the simple fact that so many of us here manage to have such differing opinions of who Keats was, what his motivations might have been, what he's saying in his poems, etc, despite all having read the same biographies and letters and accounts is a clear enough example that individual interpretation is simply a part of examining the life of an historical figure.

Malia wrote:I think Keats in the movie meant the dance to be a parody, not a serious effort

My thoughts exactly.
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Maureen » Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:13 pm

Again, really interesting to read differing views and opinions. The problem here is that we are discussing a human being, and humans are complex. Add to that the particular human we're talking about lived a couple of hundred years ago, so we can't (much as I'd love to) have a chat with him and ask him what was going on in his head at a certain moment - or even watch him being interviewed on TV! Add also that he was a highly intelligent and emotional person whose life was crammed with events and people who influenced him, and it's no wonder we interpret things differently.

Even in his letters he was capable of sounding reserved, sad and almost despairing one minute and then bright and cheerful the next. He also gave different people different information - such as when at Teignmouth he told Dilke only that he was worried about Tom and trying to write to get some other image into his head; he told Reynolds that @the shape of a woman has haunted me these two days' without being any more specific, and wrote to George indicating it was Jane Cox he was interested in, but denying he was in love with her. Some might use this as evidence that he was a man 'of fits and starts' but I tend to to see the above example more as tailoring each letter for its recipient, as we all do. So even when writing letters Keats would shape or omit information according to who he was writing to.

I agree that "the kicker is we'll never know" - but the more biographies and writings about him we read, the more variety of other people's viewpoints we get - as we do on here.
Maureen
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Raphael » Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:42 pm

If Keats had any kind of VD--and it may have been something other than syphilis--he would probably have been somewhat embarrassed about it and not talked openly.



Therefore then, he would not have made a reference in his letter to Bailey to Mercury and Poison if they were indeed syphilis references.Bailey would not have allowed this part of the letter to be published either if this was what they referred to.

At the same time, he probably would have brushed it off as "no big deal," at least publicly. He certainly had no trouble with the open and free ways of middle class men of his time; he made jokes about Severn's going to the "life school" (i.e. brothel).


I don't think if he had had syphilis he would brush it off as "no big deal"- you did not recover from it in the days before antibiotics- one had to take large doses of Mercury- ( not "a little" as he said he did) usually breathing in the vapours for the rest of your life.



I don't remember Motion's biography containing "lies". Regarding the masturbation issue, I recall Motion saying that *people in that time* connected TB with frustrated love and masturbation, which would have aided in frustrating Keats (who wants to be seen as a frustrated masturbator?) and further sent him to the "edges" of society


Yes he does- the VD and brothels are lies. And in addition to the masturbation topic how disrespectful to his memory- do you seriously believe John would like to see such things written about him? Would you like to be written about in such a way? Motion came to this "conclusion" by inventing his view of Fame as being about masturbation. Stephen Coote in his bio written in the 1990s also wrote John was having "humiliating masturbations"- again with no evidence so maybe that is where Motion got it from.


(Motion focuses a lot in his bio about how Keats is on the edges of things politically and socially--this just fits in with his theme).



Masturbation is a normal healthy pastime for young men- nothing on the edge there- but the way he obsesses about it in his biography is disrespectful- it humiliates John Keats.


Keats, himself (judging from his notations in the Anatomy of Melancholy and his feelings about Tom's own "frustrated" love with the imaginary Amena) began to believe that unfulfilled sexual satisfaction might have been *one* of the causes behind his TB.



I know that- but the extent of this preoccupation is greatly exaggerated by both Coote and Motion to sell their book- to "sex up" to sell their books.Any anyway what about Fanny Brawne's unfulfilled sexual satisfaction? Nobody goes on about that do they? She must equally have wanted John as much as he wanted her- she might have been an innocent virgin, but she had feelings.


You make great points there Credo- his letters show him to have been fairly positive despite his tragedies- and anyway one would expect him to feel down at times after all had happened to him. yet Motion makes him out to be some severe kind of depressive, constantly sexually fustrated and almost unbalanced in his mind. I think this is wrong to write such things and disrespectful.He just wants to sell his book and doesn't care about John at all.

Again, I don't think that's what Motion set out to do at all. Can you point to any direct quotes from the Bio that support your claim?



I cannot number pages for you as I borrowed the book from the library and gave it back. The pages about brothels, VD, masturbation etc show he wants to sell his book on salacious gossip/issues rather than having respect for a *dead* man.



Keats had a great sense of humor, absolutely--but he did suffer from bouts of depression (pretty severe bouts, at times) and they dogged him his whole life.



I sympathise with him on this- he had some very difficult times and that is only normal- he was reacting to his situations rather than being depressed for no reason- he wasn't mentally ill.


I think Keats in the movie meant the dance to be a parody, not a serious effort :)


Yes- I know- I still doubt he would have demonstrated it tho!
John....you did not live to see-
who we are because of what you left,
what it is we are in what we make of you.

Peter Sanson, 1995.
User avatar
Raphael
Milton
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: wandering Keats' poetry

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Saturn » Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:19 pm

Might I point out this is all completely off the topic of Bright Star, and would you please, if you feel this strongly, start a new thread to continue this topic in the 'Life and letters' section.

Thank you.
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Raphael » Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:29 pm

I know- funny how threads meander!
John....you did not live to see-
who we are because of what you left,
what it is we are in what we make of you.

Peter Sanson, 1995.
User avatar
Raphael
Milton
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: wandering Keats' poetry

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Credo Buffa » Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:25 pm

Saturn wrote:Might I point out this is all completely off the topic of Bright Star, and would you please, if you feel this strongly, start a new thread to continue this topic in the 'Life and letters' section.

Thank you.

I don't think we're necessarily that far off topic. We may not be directly talking about the film, but the issue of truth in biography is certainly relevant to a biographical film.

The VD discussion is, I grant you, deviating quite a bit, though. :P

That being said. . .

Raphael wrote:And in addition to the masturbation topic how disrespectful to his memory- do you seriously believe John would like to see such things written about him? Would you like to be written about in such a way?

Of course no one would want to have negative things written about them. At the same time, though, we don't want to fall back into the Victorian image of Keats as the poor angelic waif killed by bad reviews. Just because things jump out at us that don't jive with our own perfect image of who someone was doesn't mean we should ignore the possibilities.

Raphael wrote:I sympathise with him on this- he had some very difficult times and that is only normal- he was reacting to his situations rather than being depressed for no reason- he wasn't mentally ill.

I don't know about this. Mental illness is an extremely complex thing. . . and depression isn't something that happens for no reason. Keats had PLENTY of experiences that could very well trigger a serious depression: losing his parents at a young age, watching family members die, being distanced from his brother and sister, expecting the illness pending on his own horizon, feeling that his life's work would come to nothing. I see plenty of instances in his writings--not to mention the fact that he was suicidal in the end--that speak to my own experiences with depression. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he was stricken with it on a clinical level at some time in his life, especially in the end.
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Raphael » Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:36 pm

This is going off topic Credo-= can you post this in another thread please? I'll answer it there!
John....you did not live to see-
who we are because of what you left,
what it is we are in what we make of you.

Peter Sanson, 1995.
User avatar
Raphael
Milton
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: wandering Keats' poetry

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Malia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:08 am

My mom finally got the chance to watch the movie when I brought my DVD down to her house when I was there over Easter break. She enjoyed it--and even broke down in tears more than once. But she confessed to me afterward that she couldn't follow a lot of the dialogue partly because of the Regency style of sentence structure and in larger part because she couldn't understand them for their accents. She said the only one she could fully understand was Brown, which made me laugh. I told her with a little smile, "I know why you only understood Brown." She--without knowing anything about the actors ahead of time--said, "It's because he's an American, isn't he?" Yes, even despite his put-on accent, my mom could only understand the American! It was pretty hilarious.
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Saturn » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:42 am

Weird :shock:
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Raphael » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:44 pm

I am rather surprised as I had to look at the subtitles to understand some of that Scottish accent. All the English accents are clear and easy to understand!
John....you did not live to see-
who we are because of what you left,
what it is we are in what we make of you.

Peter Sanson, 1995.
User avatar
Raphael
Milton
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: wandering Keats' poetry

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Cybele » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:52 am

Raphael wrote:I am rather surprised as I had to look at the subtitles to understand some of that Scottish accent. All the English accents are clear and easy to understand!


OK, Folks. I find this quite hilarious. :lol: My husband and I recently rented the UK version of the TV series, "Life on Mars." We had to turn on subtitles because we were missing so much of the dialog. To make this even sillier, his family's from Glasgow.

(BTW, Schneider *did* sound to me like an American trying to sound like a Scot, but I had no trouble understanding him.)

And yes. This is waaaaay off-topic. My apologies.
"The philosopher proves that the philosopher exists. The poet merely enjoys existence."
Wallace Stevens
User avatar
Cybele
Calidore
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Bright Star reviews, ratings etc. *SPOILERS*

Postby Malia » Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:08 am

Surfing the web tonight, I came across an interesting panel discussion about Bright Star--the panel being comprised of some pretty "high up there" Keatsians. Names elude me (as usual) but one was the writer of Keats and Embarrassment, another was a member of the Keats-Shelley Association . . . all were Keatsians to some degree or another.

At any rate, their discussion was uploaded to the Romantic Circles Blog, and I've attached a link to the page below. Just scroll a little way down the page and you'll see a link to the mp3 file of the panel discussion.

After listening to it, I will say I got a great laugh out of some of the things these great minds thought were *wrong* about the movie--I mean, their concerns were so ivory tower esoteric as to make me literally laugh! But, then, I work day in and out with ivory tower esoteric people at the University, so my eye rolling was probably to be expected.

I had to grit my teeth in parts, as one of the panelists (the only woman on the panel) got some of her facts--I mean *basic* facts--about Keats and his circle wrong. One that stands out is that she says Brown wanted to write a biography about Keats (true), but was unable to do so because he was so distraught over having failed Keats when Keats needed him most (pretty true, I think). Then she says, he was so distraught that he shot himself in the head! Uh. . .no. Brown died, I believe, of a stroke. It was *Haydon* who shot himself, and I don't think it was because of his feelings of failure over Keats.

Anyway, I'll hold my peace now and let you all have a listen! :)

Here's the Blog itself . . .
http://www.rc.umd.edu/blog_rc/?cat=13

Here's the MP3 link. You might be able to open and listen to it directly here . . .
http://www.rc.umd.edu/audio/BrightStar.mp3
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

PreviousNext

Return to BRIGHT STAR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest