I've never understood this line:
"I set out to become an egghead, and at this moment I'm in full flower of eggheadedness. I hope to shed pollen wherever I go."
It's obviously intended to be funny, but I don't get the joke.
Okay. An 'egghead' is an intellectual, an academic, a smart guy. Like 'nerd' or 'geek' before computers. They're trying to tease him, he's taking it as a positive. He's saying that he didn't just happen to be an egghead, he set out to do so, ie, study, learn, work at it.
And, now, having achieved eggheadedness, he wants to spread it around, like a flower spreads pollen, to make more eggheads, to spread knowledge and learning.
The joke is that he isn't embarrassed or shy about his 'eggheadedness', that he's turned their mockery around.
I guess what I should have asked is, is this attempt at humor as lame as it appears to be or is there some connection between eggs and pollen that I am unaware of? Otherwise it seems like the humorous equivalent of a mixed metaphor. A bit strained. What the comics call "laying an egg". Perhaps that's intentional. Leffingwell is not supposed to be a funny guy.
shareI have to agree with you, I never understood this line either. I know what an egghead is, I know what pollen is, and mixing the two together in that wisecrack makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I just think it's a very badly written and frankly stupid and pointless line.
But I don't agree that Leffingwell "is not supposed to be a funny guy." I think he comes across as basically a regular human being. Yes, he's not a "funny guy" in the sense of being an un-serious, joking type of individual, but there's nothing to indicate he's not supposed to have a sense of humor, as most people have...though his humor is undoubtedly a lot more elevated than the average person's.
I do not get the "pollen" reference either.
I always assumed that the "egghead" reference was to equate Leffingwell with Adlai Stevenson. I know the communist charge makes him sound like Alger Hiss and Gelman was, obviously, Whitaker Chambers, but I think Drury is, once again, mixing things up a bit.
It would not be the only time Henry Fonda played a Stevenson-like politician. His character in The Best Man is pretty Stevenson-like, too.
Sam Tomaino
Yes, Drury took pains not to draw any character that could be said to be a direct imitation of a real person. Leffingwell in the book was probably more Hiss than Stevenson, but in the film he's portrayed much more benignly. Drury's conservatism led him to make liberals the villains (not that all conservatives emerged well, but none that badly), but the movie evened that up a little.
Gore Vidal clearly based William Russell in The Best Man on Stevenson, mainly in his inability to make up his mind. Vidal's characters in that play (and later film) were probably more readily identifiable with real people than were Drury's in Advise & Consent.
Another interesting change the film made from the book was that in the latter the Vice President had been Governor of Michigan, while in the movie he'd been Governor of Delaware. I think they made that change to point up the supposed "insignificance" of the VP for purposes of the film's narrative ("little state" vs. "big state"), but it's kind of fun to see that today the Vice President really is from Delaware, albeit a former Senator, not Governor.
I attended the University of Delaware from 1970-1974, when Biden was the "young kid" who beat a long-standing Republican.
We showed Advise and Consent on the campus and one of my native Delawarean friends like it because "someone from Delaware got to be President."
I found it amusing during the 2008 campaign that they emphasized Biden being born in Pennsylvania which has a lot more electoral votes (and was a "swing state") more than Delaware.
The Best Man is a highly entertaining film. Both it & A&C show how things were run back then. Years ago, I read a great novel "Convention" by Charles Bailey and Fletcher Knebel (of "Seven Days in May" fame). I don't rememeber it being as political as Advise and Consent, but it was a great look at how conventions were run back then.
Sam Tomaino
I was at Georgetown the same period -- 1970-1974. (I'd heard Washington was a good spot for politics!)
I remember reading a story on the front page of The Washington Post around the beginning of October, 1972. The paper had been spotlighting close Senate races and suddenly there was a story on the Delaware race, which hadn't even been on anyone's radar a couple of months earlier. I recalled seeing a small article in The New York Times that summer, where the state Democratic convention had endorsed this 29-year-old New Castle County councilman named Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to run against the two-term incumbent, J. Caleb Boggs. I wondered then whether the Times had made a typo in Biden's age, since 30 is the minimum age for a senator under the Constitution. Anyway, since Boggs had held statewide office for 26 years, as Congressman, Governor and Senator, I (and apparently everyone else) assumed he was a shoo-in in a Republican-leaning state.
So the Post story caught me completely off-guard. In it Biden's campaign manager told the reporter that they had it all planned: that Biden had come this far already, that they planned to increase his poll numbers every week, and that on election day he'd win 51-49. For some naïve reason, after reading that article I just assumed that that's what would happen -- and damned if it didn't, just exactly.
But you're right, emphasizing Biden's Scranton roots in 2008 was calculated to help in Pennsylvania...which these days always appears to be more of a "swing state" than it actually is. Delaware, meanwhile, has shifted to being heavily Democratic.
I remember but never read "Convention" -- something else you may inspire me to do! I've read "Seven Days in May" as well as seen the movie, but while I liked much of the political and military detail in the novel I found the writing terrible -- clunky and stilted. I've heard that President Kennedy, who read the book and recommended it to aides, also thought the dialogue and prose in general were pretty poor and unrealistic but still thought the concept was good. Was "Convention" better written? I love the way the "old politics" -- basically pre-1968 -- was conducted, for better and worse. The history of real conventions and the campaigns leading up to them is fascinating to me.
Never actually read "Seven Days in May" but I read "Night at Camp David" & "Dark Horse." Don't really remember much about the writing style but I can remember a fair amount of the plot of both which, I guess, says something.
Boggs wasn't the only venerable senator who lost in 1972. Margaret Chase Smith also lost. In Delaware, the incumbent GOP governor also lost. There was much grumbling about Nixon not having any coattails.
Sam Tomaino
"Seven Days in May" is worth reading because regardless of its prose the story is good and of course there's always a lot of interesting detail that never made it into the movie. SPOILERS ahead, I guess:
The book takes place in 1975. Jordan Lyman, a Democrat (the book specifies party affiliations), had been elected President in 1972 over an incumbent Republican who had presided over a war in Iran which had resulted in the country being split into two countries, a Communist North Iran and pro-West South Iran. Lyman vowed never to allow one more inch of the Free World to be ceded to the Reds, and won a big victory with the support of the military, including General James Scott, who had been a big hero in the Iranian War. But they turned on him when he signed the disarmament treaty with the Soviets and began plotting the coup. Meanwhile Scott was considered the favorite for the Republican nomination for 1976. The book also has a coda where Lyman, after getting Scott's and other conspirators' resignations, appoints several of the lesser military and diplomatic characters to these and other vacant posts. These men had also opposed the treaty but had no hand in the plot. (One I remember was Air Force Gen. Barney Rutkowski, who in the film makes a brief appearance over the TV-phone screen telling Lyman that transport planes were set to fly out of some secret base near El Paso, which Lyman orders him to have stand down. In the book he's a more prominent character.) I can definitely recommend the book for its plot and detail.
Yes, Margaret Chase Smith lost out of overconfidence to Rep. William D. Hathaway. I was so glad to see her finally knocked off -- she'd become so self-righteous and haughty. I gather she was quite angry at her defeat; earlier in the campaign she told Ed Muskie she would not allow him to escort her to the well of the Senate when she was sworn in for her fifth term because Muskie had endorsed his fellow Democrat Hathaway. Of course, that turned out to be a moot point.
Nixon did campaign for some Republicans who won, such as Jesse Helms and Pete Domenici, but he refused to fly to Colorado to help Sen. Gordon Allott, who thought he was in trouble for a fourth term. Apparently no one in Nixon's campaign thought Allot had any problems (the last Denver Post poll had him 15 points up) and didn't want to waste Nixon's precious time. Allott lost by under 10,000 votes, a by-product of the state's referendum against allowing the state to host the 1976 Winter Olympics. You're right, Nixon didn't have much in the way of coattails. There were also a lot of "penance" Democrats, who voted for Nixon over the unacceptable McGovern but switched back down-ballot. That's mainly why the Republican candidates for governor and senator in Rhode Island unexpectedly lost, among other instances.
In Delaware it was Sherman W. Tribbett who ousted Gov. Russell W. Petersen, whom Nixon later appointed head of the EPA. Petersen would ultimately switch parties (in 1994) out of frustration with the GOP's rightward drift.
No comment on my part, re: Biden! But I'd note the film changed Harley Hudson's state. In the novels he's from Michigan like Senator Munson.
Actually, when the book came out many people picked up on the parallels to real-life figures. The President was meant to be FDR, the giveaway being the description of the President's "happy lilt" and the "Toss of the head" (book reviewers noted this at the time).
Leffingwell is indeed softened in the film but Preminger creates a plot hole when we have Leffingwell go to the President and ask to be withdrawn when he confesses that he lied. We *never* see a scene explaining why the President won't do this or why Leffingwell has been talked into not withdrawing (since his only other scene after this is when Anderson confronts him and he's suddenly now decided to let the President decide for him). In the book, the President played a more direct role in the ultimate discrediting and blackmailing of Anderson leading to his suicide (not in direct cahoots with Van Ackerman but his hands were dirty). When he dies, no one of the principles is mourning him privately.
The stage play version of "Advise And Consent" interestingly changed Leffingwell's name to "William Huntington" I think because they decided there shouldn't be two characters named "Bob". The film gets around that by never referring to Leffingwell as "Bob" (I love how Cooley rolls off the name "Robert.....A......Leffingwell) and having Munson called "Bobby" which he isn't in the book.
Yes, I noted a post or two back that the film changed Harley Hudson's state from Michigan to Delaware, and my theory as to why this was done. Hence the stuff about Biden.
You mean you missed it, Eric?!
Yes, it's well known the President parallels FDR, even in the film. While you're right that we never see the President telling Leffingwell not to withdraw, it's very clear that he wants him as SOS and won't withdraw him. This is made plain by his questioning of Leffingwell in the Oval Office as to whether Hardiman Fletcher will talk after the Gelman testimony, and later when in his meeting with Anderson and Munson when he angrily tells Anderson he still wants him and won't withdraw him. Leffingwell later tells Anderson he's waiting on the President to tell him his decision, which by then we know will be a withdrawal. I think it's pretty clear that the President wants Leffingwell because he knows he's dying and honestly believes he's the right man to guide foreign policy. (Of course, this overlooks the fact that even if he were confirmed, President Hudson could always fire him later on anyway...which come to think might have made for a better plot point.)
However, if you want to credit Drury with non-existent dejà vu and great insight (as on another thread here), then in that sense this issue is reminiscent of the real-life panic among the press corps and congressional leaders in 1974 when Gerald Ford was about to assume the presidency. The number one question they kept harping on was whether he would keep the indispensable and omniscient Henry Kissinger as SOS. Ford had to several times tell them he would. Thus was the nation assured that the country's foreign policy would remain in the safe hands that had brought peace, prosperity, harmony and the total absence of mass murder to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, India, Africa and elsewhere, not to mention détente with the Soviet Union and the recognition of such legitimate democracies as East Germany.
Another well-known character note, but it bears repeating: in the book the Chief executive is referred to only as "the President". No name. But in the film there's that one intriguing moment on the presidential yacht when Munson, taking leave of him for the last time, calls him "Russ".
No comment on my part, re: Biden!
Better that than having to comment on the mush of ignorance, demagoguery and laziness that is NANCY PELOSI!
That's more like it.
While Drury added characters after A&C, his stage was still set in the 50s when the Democrats had that vast contrast of liberals and Southern Democrats. He was somewhat stuck with it.
One thing he was stuck with was that Harley Hudson could not appoint a Vice-President in the follow-up novel as that amendment had not passed. He was forced to give a lame excuse that Harley had just not chosen to appoint a succsssor, something that would have been impossible politically.
I think there is an Alaskan senator mentioned. The one database I linked to has one. IIRC.
Another thing is that, even though the novels were written over almost 2 decades, they actually take place over only 2-3 years. When those years were kind of shifts but Drury remains vague on details. So there is only one national election for President and the Congress held and that's in the two alternate outcome last volumes.
By the way, his opinion on Eisenhower is referred to when someone is thinking about "General Don't Tell Me Your Troubles."
Your question about whose wife gets iced is answered by "It Depends." In the two outcomes, it's the wife of the guy who doesn't get killed. So when Orrin survives, it's Beth that dies. When Ted Jason survives, his wife dies. Sucks for them.
Sam Tomaino
Now, it's interesting that this entire series takes place over just a couple of years. Obviously given the fact that apparently half the cast of the original book gets their shot [sic] at being President these events couldn't take place over two or three decades, but an awful lot seems to happen in those 2-3 years, up to and including the Soviet conquest of America. Given everything that's happened in the previous couple of years that might almost come as a relief. At least it would being stability to the government!
It sounds like Drury was getting pretty far-fetched as time went on, though the books may still be entertaining. One of the things I like about the original is that it's reasonably grounded in reality. The further afield he goes the less appeal it might have to me. Still, I may look for the books and read up on our alternate history sometime. I'm intrigued, anyway.
Because Harley doesn't appoint a successor VP, that means when he gets killed the unnamed Speaker of the House in "Advise And Consent" known only as "Bill" becomes the President (and finally gets a last name, William Abbott). He refuses to run for a full term which means the party must choose again between Knox and Ted Jason, the weak peacenik Governor of California. Knox wins, picks Jason as running mate and then Preserve And Protect ends with the assassination that gives us two alternate futures of one dying, the other becoming President. Both times though they beat Warren Strickland in the election!
Jason picks a lapdog supporter, the ex-governor of Oregon as his running mate, while Knox picks a black Congressman from California Cullee Hamilton, who is introduced in the second novel "A Shade Of Difference" and becomes an important character in the series.
Oh and BTW, Seab Cooley dies at the end of the second novel.
My God, Allen Drury really had a hell of time in store for the US in the coming decades! From what you've told me and other things I've heard, the actual 60s were a model of sanity and calm compared to the future Drury postulated for us.
Full flower leads to pollen.
share"Pollen" refers, not to "egghead", but to a double entendre usage of "flower" as a verb.
share