Posts

Posted on

Karen Blixen – Out of Africa

Karen Blixen

She lost her fortune, her husband, and the love of her life in Africa—then turned that devastation into one of the most beautiful books ever written.
Denmark, 1913. Karen Dinesen was 28 years old, aristocratic, brilliant, and desperately unhappy. She’d been in love with a man who wouldn’t marry her—Hans Blixen, a Swedish baron and notorious womanizer. When he rejected her, she did something dramatic: she agreed to marry his twin brother instead.
Bror Blixen was charming, adventurous, and completely unreliable. But he offered something Karen wanted more than love: escape.
In January 1914, newlyweds Karen and Bror sailed for British East Africa with a plan to run a dairy farm. When they arrived in what is now Kenya, Bror changed his mind. Coffee plantation, he decided. Karen had invested her entire inheritance—her family’s money—into this venture.
She had no choice but to agree.
They bought 4,500 acres at the foot of the Ngong Hills, six thousand feet above sea level, where the air was thin and clear and the view stretched to Mount Kenya. Karen called it Mbogani—”the house in the woods” in Swahili.
It should have been paradise.
Instead, it became a seventeen-year lesson in loss.
Within months of marriage, Karen discovered Bror had infected her with syphilis—a disease that would cause her chronic pain for the rest of her life. He was flagrantly unfaithful, openly taking mistresses, disappearing for weeks on safari while Karen ran the farm alone.
By 1921, they were separated. By 1925, divorced.
But Karen stayed. Because by then, she’d fallen in love—not with a man, but with Africa itself.
She learned Swahili. She walked the coffee fields at dawn, checking plants with her Kikuyu workers. She settled disputes, treated illnesses, taught children to read. The Kikuyu called her “Msabu”—a term of respect that acknowledged she was both foreign and somehow theirs.
Her coffee farm was doomed from the start. The altitude was too high—coffee wouldn’t thrive there. She fought droughts, disease, pests, falling prices. She poured money into a venture that would never be profitable. But she kept trying because the farm gave her something she’d never had: purpose, autonomy, a place that was entirely hers.
And then she met Denys Finch Hatton.
He was everything Bror wasn’t—educated at Eton and Oxford, a big-game hunter who quoted poetry, a man who loved the wild as much as she did but refused to be tamed by convention. He wouldn’t marry her. He wouldn’t live with her permanently. He came and went on his own schedule, flying his small plane across East Africa, returning to Mbogani when he chose.
It should have been maddening. Instead, it was the great love of her life.
They read poetry aloud on the veranda—Homer, Shelley, Coleridge. They flew over the Serengeti in his yellow Gypsy Moth, watching herds of wildebeest move like shadows across the plains. They talked about everything—philosophy, literature, the nature of freedom and belonging.
Denys gave Karen something no one else ever had: intellectual partnership without possession.
But freedom always has a price.
In May 1931, Denys took off in his plane for a routine flight. Hours later, word reached Mbogani: his plane had crashed shortly after takeoff. He was dead instantly, his body burned beyond recognition.
Karen buried him in the Ngong Hills, overlooking the land he’d loved. She placed a simple marker: “He prayeth well, who loveth well”—a line from Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner.”
Three weeks later, the coffee market collapsed. Karen’s farm—already struggling, kept alive only by loans and determination—finally failed completely. The bank foreclosed. Seventeen years of work, gone.
She was 46 years old, bankrupt, chronically ill, and heartbroken. She’d lost everything in Africa—her fortune, her marriage, the man she loved, the land she’d given her life to.
She returned to Denmark with nothing.
Except the stories.
Back in her mother’s house, sleeping in her childhood bedroom, Karen began to write. She wrote in English—not her native Danish—as if writing in a foreign tongue would let her see it more clearly. She wrote not to explain Africa but to capture it—the light, the silence, the way sunset turned the Ngong Hills purple, the dignity of the Kikuyu people who’d worked beside her.
She wrote about Denys without naming the depth of her grief. She wrote about loss without self-pity. She wrote about colonialism without either defending or condemning it—simply describing what it meant to live between worlds, belonging fully to neither.
The manuscript was rejected by American publishers. Too literary, they said. Too fragmented. No clear plot.
Then in 1937, it was published in Denmark and Britain under the title “Out of Africa,” credited to Isak Dinesen—a pen name Karen had chosen years earlier.
The book became a sensation.
Critics called it poetry disguised as memoir. Readers recognized something rare: complete honesty about what it means to love a place you can never truly possess, to be changed by a land you’ll have to leave.
The famous opening line became one of the most recognized in literature: “I had a farm in Africa, at the foot of the Ngong Hills.”
Past tense. Already lost. The entire book is an elegy for something that ended.
Karen Blixen went on to write more books—gothic tales, philosophical stories, works that cemented her reputation as one of the 20th century’s great stylists.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize multiple times. Ernest Hemingway said if he’d won the Nobel Prize in 1954, it should have gone to “that beautiful writer Isak Dinesen.”
But “Out of Africa” remained her masterpiece—the book that turned personal devastation into universal art.
In 1985, Sydney Pollack directed a film adaptation starring Meryl Streep and Robert Redford. It won seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture.
Millions of people discovered Karen’s story, though the film romanticized what the book had left raw.
Karen Blixen died in 1962 at age 77, never having returned to Kenya. She’d spent the last three decades of her life in Denmark, but anyone who read her work knew: part of her never left Africa.
Because “Out of Africa” isn’t really about Africa at all. It’s about what we lose when we love things we can’t keep. It’s about the price of freedom and the ache of belonging. It’s about how the places that break us also make us who we are.
Karen Blixen went to Africa seeking escape and found herself instead—then lost everything and wrote it into permanence.
She arrived with money and naivete. She left with nothing but memories. And those memories became one of the most beautiful books in the English language.
“I had a farm in Africa.”
Five words. Past tense. Already mourning what came next.
Sometimes the stories that endure aren’t the ones about triumph—they’re the ones about what we loved and lost and somehow survived anyway.
Karen Blixen’s farm failed. Her marriage ended. Her lover died. Her health deteriorated. Africa—the place that had given her life meaning—became a place she could only visit in memory.
But she wrote it down. Every sunset, every conversation, every moment of joy and sorrow. She preserved it in prose so vivid that readers seventy years later can still feel the wind across the Ngong Hills.
She couldn’t keep Africa.
But she made sure we’d never forget it.
Posted on

Prostate Cancer Has An Achilles Heel – And It Has Been Found!

Prostate Cancer Achilles Heel

Scientists have identified a single enzyme that acts as the “Achilles’ heel” of prostate cancer — and developed a way to shut it down without harming healthy tissue.

The enzyme, known as PI5P4Ka, fuels tumor cell growth and resistance to chemotherapy. By blocking it, researchers found that cancer cells rapidly self-destruct due to energy starvation, while normal cells remain untouched.

This targeted approach is a major leap beyond radiation or chemo, which damage healthy tissue and cause severe side effects. The treatment uses precision inhibitors, tiny molecules that lock onto the enzyme’s active site, effectively turning off the tumor’s power supply.

Posted on

Rosina Bulwer-Lytton

Rosina Bulwer-Lytton

She married into power and believed, for a time, that intelligence and loyalty would protect her.
It did not.
Rosina Bulwer-Lytton was not a quiet woman. She was sharp, articulate, politically aware, and deeply principled. In Victorian England, those qualities were tolerable in private and dangerous in public. They became unforgivable once she attached them to a powerful man.
Her husband, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, was one of the most influential figures of his age. A celebrated novelist. A member of Parliament. A man whose reputation was carefully cultivated and fiercely defended. To the public, he was brilliant and respectable. To Rosina, he was controlling, dismissive, and increasingly hostile to her independence.
Their marriage was troubled almost from the start. Rosina spoke her mind. She challenged his politics. She criticized his hypocrisy. And when their relationship collapsed, she refused to disappear quietly.
That refusal sealed her fate.
In Victorian Britain, a husband did not need evidence to destroy a wife. He needed only authority and the right language. Edward Bulwer-Lytton used both. He declared Rosina “hysterical,” invoked the prevailing medical myths about women’s instability, and had her forcibly committed to a private asylum.
There was no trial. No medical examination she could contest. No crime she had to commit.
Her offense was public defiance.
Inside the asylum, Rosina discovered the truth she would later risk everything to expose. She was not surrounded by madness. She was surrounded by women like herself. Women who spoke too freely. Women who embarrassed men of influence. Women who resisted marriages, questioned religion, demanded autonomy, or simply refused obedience.
They were restrained, isolated, drugged, silenced. Not because they were ill, but because they were inconvenient.
Rosina endured confinement and survived it. And when she was released, she committed what Victorian society considered the ultimate betrayal.
She spoke.
She wrote about the asylum in detail. She described sane women treated as lunatics. She documented how psychiatry was used not as healing, but as discipline. She named her husband and made his actions public, exposing how easily the label of insanity could be weaponized against wives who challenged male authority.
The backlash was swift. Her reputation was shredded. Her credibility questioned. She was portrayed as bitter, unstable, vindictive. That, too, was part of the system. A woman who told the truth about power had to be discredited, or her words might force change.
Rosina did not retreat.
She aligned herself with reformers, with early suffragists, with those fighting for women’s legal and bodily autonomy. She turned her personal punishment into political testimony. She made it clear that what happened to her was not an anomaly. It was policy disguised as medicine. Control masquerading as care.
She understood something essential. Silence was the real sentence. The asylum was only the method.
By refusing to stay quiet, Rosina Bulwer-Lytton transformed a private act of cruelty into a public warning. She showed how easily women’s anger, intellect, and dissent could be reframed as pathology. How quickly a husband’s discomfort could become a diagnosis. How dangerous it was to live in a society where obedience was defined as sanity.
Her story does not belong to the past.
It echoes wherever women are told they are “too emotional” instead of being listened to. Wherever power responds to criticism by questioning mental fitness. Wherever dissent is medicalized rather than addressed.
Rosina Bulwer-Lytton paid dearly for telling the truth.
But because she told it, the machinery behind her confinement was exposed. And once exposed, it could never again pretend to be benign.
Posted on

Thomas Garrett

Thomas Garrett

The judge bankrupted him for helping enslaved people escape. He stood up in court and told everyone: send me more.
Wilmington, Delaware, 1848. Thomas Garrett stood before a federal court, facing financial ruin. Two Maryland slaveholders had sued him for helping an enslaved family escape to freedom. The evidence was clear—he’d hidden them, fed them, and sent them north on the Underground Railroad.
The verdict: guilty. The fine: $5,400—roughly $200,000 in today’s money.
It destroyed him financially. Everything he’d built as a successful iron merchant—gone. His business—crippled. At 59 years old, Thomas Garrett was bankrupt.
The judge, believing he’d broken this stubborn Quaker, said with satisfaction: “Thomas, I hope you will never be caught at this business again.”
Thomas Garrett stood up. And instead of showing contrition or defeat, he looked at the judge and said:
“Judge, thou hast left me not a dollar, but I wish to say to thee and to all in this courtroom that if anyone knows a fugitive who wants a shelter and a friend, send him to Thomas Garrett and he will befriend him.”
The courtroom went silent. The judge had just bankrupted him, and Thomas was publicly declaring—in a federal courthouse, in front of the very people who’d prosecuted him—that he would continue breaking the law.
Not quietly. Not secretly. Openly. Defiantly.
And he did.
For the next 23 years, until his death in 1871, Thomas Garrett continued operating one of the most important stations on the Underground Railroad. His home in Wilmington sat right on the dividing line between slave state (Maryland) and free state (Pennsylvania). It was the last stop before freedom for thousands of people fleeing enslavement.
Thomas Garrett wasn’t just helping people in secret. He was brazen about it. He kept detailed records of everyone he helped—something most Underground Railroad conductors never did because it was evidence of their “crimes.” He documented names, families, where they came from, where they went.
He helped approximately 2,500 people escape to freedom.
His most famous partnership was with Harriet Tubman. She would lead people north from Maryland, and Wilmington was often their first safe stop. Thomas would be waiting—with food, clothing, money, and a safe place to rest before the final push to Philadelphia and beyond.
Harriet Tubman trusted him completely. In a network where secrecy meant survival and one betrayal could mean death or re-enslavement, that trust meant everything.
“I never met with any loss,” Tubman said, reflecting on her 19 trips south. And that was partly because people like Thomas Garrett were absolutely reliable.
But here’s what’s remarkable about Thomas Garrett’s story: he didn’t start as a radical abolitionist. He started with one moment of witnessing injustice.
In 1813, when Thomas was 24, a free Black woman who worked for his family was kidnapped by slave catchers who planned to sell her south. Thomas tracked them down, confronted them, and secured her release.
That moment changed him. He saw firsthand how the system of slavery didn’t just oppress enslaved people—it endangered even free Black people. How the entire apparatus of law and commerce was designed to turn human beings into property.
From that day forward, he devoted his life to fighting slavery.
He rebuilt his business after the 1848 bankruptcy—with help from abolitionist supporters who were outraged at his treatment. He used his rebuilt fortune to fund Underground Railroad operations. His iron shop became a cover for resistance work.
When the Civil War came, Thomas was already in his 70s. He’d been fighting slavery for nearly 50 years by then. And when the war ended, when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, Thomas didn’t stop working.
He continued advocating for Black civil rights through Reconstruction. He supported Black education. He worked for the passage of the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed Black men the right to vote.
Only after the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, when Thomas was 81 years old, did he finally retire.
He died in 1871. Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass both attended his funeral. These titans of the abolition movement came to honor the white Quaker merchant who’d spent his entire adult life—nearly 60 years—fighting alongside them.
Frederick Douglass said of him: “I can say what few men can say in this world, that I never felt myself in the presence of a stronger religious influence than while in this man’s house.”
Thomas Garrett’s story matters because it shows what resistance looks like when you refuse to stop.
He could have apologized after the 1848 trial. He could have paid the fine and quit. He could have said, “I tried, but the system is too powerful.”
Instead, he stood in that courtroom and announced he’d continue.
And he did. For 23 more years. Through bankruptcy, through the increasing dangers of the 1850s (when the Fugitive Slave Act made helping escapees even more dangerous), through the Civil War, through Reconstruction.
He never stopped.
That’s not just courage. That’s a lifetime commitment to justice even when justice seems impossible.
Today, Thomas Garrett’s house in Wilmington still stands. There’s a historical marker. Students learn about him in Delaware schools. But nationally, he’s largely forgotten—one of thousands of Underground Railroad operators whose names faded from history.
But Harriet Tubman didn’t forget. Frederick Douglass didn’t forget. And the 2,500 people who passed through his station—and their descendants—didn’t forget.
The judge in 1848 thought he could break Thomas Garrett with a fine. Instead, he created a moment that would define a life of resistance.
“If anyone knows a fugitive who wants a shelter and a friend, send him to Thomas Garrett.”
He meant it. For 23 years after that trial, he proved he meant it.
How many of us, facing total financial ruin for our principles, would stand up and publicly declare we’d do it again?
Thomas Garrett did. And then he actually did it again. And again. And again.
For 2,500 people, that defiance meant freedom.
Posted on

SARS-CoV-2 Infection, the Spike Protein and GzmA: Yet Another Carcinogenic Mechanism

There is a serine protease that is actively secreted by cytotoxic immune cells like Natural Killer (NK) cells and T cells called GzmA. Levels of this protein are implicated in the development of cancer…

…If we look at SARS-CoV-2 infection, we discover that this protease is markedly elevated compared to healthy controls…

…So, what we have seen is yet another mechanism which shows that SARS-CoV-2 is almost certainly an oncogenic virus. One observation I have made over the years is how the virus and its Spike Protein can tip the balance of so many different biological processes. It seems to always find a way to push the “bad” lever when it affects a process that can be either beneficial or pathological in the body.

For the full story: https://open.substack.com/pub/wmcresearch/p/sars-cov-2-infection-the-spike-protein

Posted on

The Brains Ha A Lymphatic Network

The Brains Ha A Lymphatic Network

The discovery of a true lymphatic network surrounding the brain has been called one of the most significant breakthroughs in modern neuroscience, challenging the long-held belief that the brain was an “immune privileged” organ completely isolated from the body’s immune and waste-clearing systems. In 2015, researchers independently identified a network of meningeal lymphatic vessels nestled within the dura mater, the outermost membrane covering the brain.

This “missing link” fundamentally changed the understanding of neuro-immune interactions. The lymphatic system, traditionally known for collecting excess fluid, filtering waste, and transporting immune cells throughout the body, was proven to have a direct channel out of the central nervous system. These meningeal vessels work in conjunction with the glymphatic system, a network that flushes cerebrospinal fluid through the brain tissue to clear neurotoxins, including proteins associated with neurodegenerative disorders.

The discovery has vast implications for the study and treatment of major neurological diseases. Researchers are now intensely investigating how damage or reduced function in this drainage system may contribute to the development and progression of diseases like Alzheimer’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease. Understanding how to reinforce this natural cleaning system opens entirely new avenues for therapeutic interventions.

Posted on

NEW STUDY: Resveratrol and Copper Trigger System-Level Collapse of Human Glioblastoma Aggressiveness in Just 12 Days

In one of the deadliest human cancers, cheap nutraceuticals produced coordinated suppression of tumor proliferation, cancer hallmarks, immune checkpoints, stemness, and activated intrinsic apoptosis.

Glioblastoma (GBM) remains one of the most aggressive and lethal human cancers, with a median survival of roughly 15 months despite surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In a newly published paper in BJC Reports titled, Attenuation of malignant phenotype of glioblastoma following a short course of the pro-oxidant combination of Resveratrol and Copper, researchers found a short, non-toxic oral intervention that simultaneously suppresses tumor proliferation, cancer hallmarks, immune checkpoints, and stemness — while activating intrinsic tumor cell death.

In a small but carefully controlled pre-surgical “window” study, human glioblastoma patients received resveratrol (5.6 mg) plus copper (560 ng) four times daily for an average of just ~12 days before tumor resection. Tumor tissue was then compared with untreated controls.

The results reveal a system-level attenuation of malignant phenotype: near-eradication of tumor-promoting cell-free chromatin particles (cfChPs)—accompanied by a ~31% reduction in tumor proliferation (Ki-67), suppression of nine cancer hallmarks and cancer stemness, simultaneous down-regulation of six immune checkpoints, and activation of intrinsic apoptosis, all within ~12 days.

This was not a marginal signal. It was a coordinated, system‑level biological shift in one of the deadliest cancers known…

CONCLUSION

After ~12 days of a non-toxic oral intervention (resveratrol plus copper), glioblastoma tumors demonstrated:

  • Near-elimination of tumor-promoting chromatin debris (cfChPs)
  • A marked reduction in tumor cell proliferation (Ki-67)
  • Suppression of nine core hallmarks of cancer
  • Simultaneous down-regulation of six immune checkpoints
  • Significant loss of cancer stem cell markers
  • Large-scale reprogramming of tumor gene expression
  • Activation of organized, intrinsic tumor cell death with efficient cleanup

Together, these findings indicate that a short, non-toxic intervention can biologically “de-escalate” one of the most aggressive human cancers across multiple independent axes of malignancy.

The authors explicitly note that longer trials are urgently needed to determine whether prolonged treatment could push tumors toward a more benign phenotype or improve clinical outcomes.

https://open.substack.com/pub/petermcculloughmd/p/new-study-resveratrol-and-copper

Posted on

J.R.R. Tolkien On Fairy Tales

J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien’s hostility toward Disney was not the reflex of an aging scholar suspicious of cartoons or new technology. It was not jealousy, nor a cranky dislike of popular taste. It was a deeply reasoned rejection rooted in a clash of worldviews about what stories are, what they are meant to do, and what is lost when they are reshaped for mass consumption.
The conflict began with a striking convergence in 1937.
That year, Tolkien published *The Hobbit*. On the surface it appeared to be a children’s adventure, but beneath that simplicity lay a carefully engineered mythology. Tolkien was not merely telling a story. He was building a world shaped by ancient languages, medieval literature, and a belief that stories carry moral and spiritual weight. Every place name, every song, every creature belonged to a history that extended far beyond the page. The book was playful, but it was not casual.
Just months later, on December 21, 1937, Disney released *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs*. It was the first full-length animated feature film, a technical triumph and a financial gamble that paid off spectacularly. When it reached Britain in early 1938, it was impossible to ignore. It dazzled audiences and redefined what popular entertainment could be.
Two visions of fairy tales had arrived almost simultaneously.
Tolkien and his close friend C.S. Lewis went to see *Snow White* together. Both were medievalists. Both believed fairy tales mattered. Neither viewed them as light amusement or childish diversion. They watched carefully.
They left unimpressed.
Lewis wrote in his diary that he found the film cloying. Tolkien’s reaction ran deeper and lasted far longer. What disturbed him was not the animation, which he openly admired, nor Disney’s skill, which he never denied. What unsettled him was what Disney believed fairy tales were for.
Tolkien’s view of fairy tales was precise and serious. In his essay *On Fairy-Stories*, he argued that they were not decorative fantasies for children but ancient instruments for confronting reality. True fairy tales, he believed, acknowledged fear, loss, danger, and moral consequence. They dealt in peril, not comfort. Their power came from the fact that disaster was genuinely possible.
Central to this belief was what Tolkien called “eucatastrophe,” the sudden turn toward joy that feels miraculous only because the darkness beforehand is real. The happy ending matters because it was never guaranteed. Remove the danger and the joy becomes sentimental. The story loses its truth.
Disney’s *Snow White*, as Tolkien saw it, did exactly that. The symbols were still there. The wicked queen. The forest. The dwarfs. But they had been reshaped into something safer, softer, and easier to digest. Evil was obvious and contained. The dwarfs became comic personalities. Fear was present but carefully managed. Everything moved toward reassurance.
To Tolkien, this was not reinterpretation. It was dilution.
He believed Disney had taken stories that once functioned as myth and turned them into spectacle. The transformation kept the outward form while hollowing out the inner purpose. It was like translating poetry into plain prose. The meaning might survive, but the force that made it poetry was gone.
Years later, in a 1964 letter to a film producer, Tolkien put his feelings plainly. He wrote of a “heartfelt loathing” for Disney’s work, not because of incompetence, but because he believed Disney’s undeniable talent had been “hopelessly corrupted.” Anything Disney touched, Tolkien feared, would be flattened into something visually rich but morally shallow.
This was not personal animosity. Tolkien never met Walt Disney. He did not concern himself with Disney the man. His objection was philosophical. It was about intent.
Disney believed stories reached their fullest purpose when they were simplified and clarified. Moral ambiguity became good versus evil. Characters were sorted cleanly into heroes and villains. Darkness was made approachable. Endings were unambiguously happy. This, Disney believed, allowed stories to reach millions.
Tolkien believed the opposite. He believed stories gained power by resisting simplification. Moral ambiguity was not a flaw but a reflection of reality. Characters could be brave and weak at the same time. Evil was rarely simple. Fear mattered because it was earned. Stories were not meant to comfort first. They were meant to tell the truth.
This belief shaped Tolkien’s fierce resistance to adaptation. Throughout his life, filmmakers approached him about adapting *The Lord of the Rings*. He resisted nearly all of them. He feared that Hollywood would do to his work what Disney had done to fairy tales.
He imagined Sam Gamgee turned into comic relief. Gollum reduced to a straightforward villain. Boromir stripped of his moral struggle. Mordor softened to suit family audiences. The darkness replaced by spectacle. The joy manufactured rather than earned.
These fears were not hypothetical. They were based on what Tolkien had already seen happen to traditional stories. He had watched the Grimm brothers transformed into merchandise. He had no reason to trust that his own work would be spared.
In his letters, Tolkien made his position clear. He would rather his stories never be filmed than be altered in ways that destroyed their integrity. Reaching fewer people mattered less to him than preserving what made the stories true.
To Tolkien, mythology was not raw material for improvement. It was something to be guarded. Stories changed naturally over time, he understood that. But there was a difference between organic evolution and alteration driven by commercial necessity. Disney’s changes belonged to the latter.
Critics accused Tolkien of elitism. They argued that Disney introduced fairy tales to children who would never read medieval texts or folktales. They said accessibility mattered.
Tolkien’s answer would have been simple. What, exactly, were those children being introduced to?
If danger is removed, if moral struggle is simplified, if fear becomes harmless, then the story may entertain, but it no longer performs the function of a fairy tale. It becomes something else.
This did not mean Disney’s films lacked value. Tolkien never claimed they were poorly made. His claim was that they were doing a different job. They delighted. They reassured. They did not confront.
To Tolkien, when stories lose their darkness, they lose their mythic power. They can still charm and teach basic lessons, but they can no longer grapple with evil, choice, and consequence in a way that prepares the human mind for reality.
The irony is unavoidable. Tolkien’s own work was eventually adapted to film and achieved enormous commercial success. Peter Jackson’s *Lord of the Rings* trilogy reached a global audience and earned billions. Tolkien did not live to see it.
Whether he would have approved is impossible to say. The films changed many things. But they preserved darkness, loss, and moral struggle in ways Disney adaptations typically did not. They did not fully sand the edges away.
The question Tolkien raised remains unsettled.
When stories are adapted for the widest possible audience, what is lost? When clarity replaces complexity, when safety replaces danger, when comfort replaces truth, do we still have the same story?
Disney proved that transformation brings reach. Tolkien argued that it also brings loss.
One believed stories should be reshaped so everyone could enjoy them. The other believed some stories lose their soul when reshaped that way.
Neither position is trivial. Neither is easily dismissed.
But Tolkien’s opposition to Disney was not stubbornness or nostalgia. It was the considered judgment of a man who devoted his life to understanding how stories work, why they matter, and what happens when their purpose is changed.
It began with *Snow White*. It ended as a warning.
That not all success is harmless.
That not all change is improvement.
And that sometimes, in making stories available to everyone, we quietly remove the very things that once made them worth telling.
Posted on

Anna Mary Moses

Anna Mary Moses

Anna Mary Robertson woke up every morning at four o’clock. She did it for seventy-eight straight years, long before anyone ever imagined her name would hang on gallery walls.

The alarm was never a clock. It was habit. Darkness still pressed against the windows when she swung her legs out of bed and pulled on her boots. Cows waited to be milked. Chickens needed feeding. The stove had to be lit. Breakfast had to be cooked for whoever happened to be hungry that morning. After that came the garden, the laundry, the mending, the endless small repairs that kept a farm from falling apart.

This was life in rural New York in the late nineteenth century, and Anna Mary knew no other way to exist.

She was born in 1860, the third of ten children, into a world where survival depended on hands that never rested. Schooling was brief. Childhood was shorter. By the age of twelve, she was sent away to work as a hired girl for wealthier families. Twenty-seven cents a week bought the right to scrub floors, wash clothes, cook meals, and raise children who belonged to someone else.

There was no room for wanting. No space for imagining a different life. Whatever dreams she carried were pushed down until they were nearly forgotten.

Still, something in her noticed beauty. As a child, she crushed berries and mixed the juice with chalk, painting rough colors onto scraps of wood when no one was watching. It was a quiet pleasure, fleeting and impractical. It did not help with rent or bread or winter coats. So she let it go.

At twenty-seven, she married Thomas Moses. Together they farmed land in Virginia, then returned north to New York. Life followed the same rhythm it always had. Work. Weather. Birth. Loss.

Ten children were born. Five survived.

Each death hollowed her a little, but she did not stop. She cooked. She cleaned. She sewed quilts by lamplight after everyone else had gone to bed. She patched clothes until fabric turned thin as paper. She learned endurance the way other people learned art.

Years collapsed into seasons. Seasons into decades. The children grew up and left. Thomas’s back gave out, but he worked anyway. Anna Mary worked alongside him, her hands cracked and strong, her body shaped by repetition.

She rose before dawn. She slept late only when illness forced her to. She never once thought of herself as an artist.

In 1927, Thomas died.

Anna Mary was sixty-seven years old.

The farmhouse fell quiet in a way it never had before. No footsteps. No shared meals. No voices carrying across the fields. For the first time in her life, she belonged only to herself, and she did not know what to do with the silence.

She turned to embroidery, the familiar motion of needle and thread. But age had arrived uninvited. Arthritis stiffened her fingers. Each stitch burned. What had once been comforting became unbearable.

Her sister suggested painting.

“Your hands might manage a brush better than a needle,” she said.

Anna Mary had never held a paintbrush in her life. She had never seen a museum. She did not know what “art” was supposed to look like. But she walked into the general store and bought a few cheap tubes of house paint, the kind meant for barns and fences. She found old boards in the shed. She mixed colors on cardboard.

She was seventy-eight years old when she painted her first picture.

It was simple. A farmhouse. Rolling hills. Figures working the land.

But something opened.

Memories flooded out. Winter sleigh rides. Maple sugaring parties. Barn raisings. Harvest dances. Children skating on frozen ponds. A world she had lived inside and watched slowly disappear.

She painted from memory, not observation. She did not sketch. She did not revise. She worked quickly, confidently, joyfully. Sometimes she painted until two in the morning, humming hymns at her kitchen table.

For three years, she painted without expectation. She gave pictures to neighbors. Sold a few for three or four dollars at the local pharmacy. It was enough to buy groceries. Enough to keep going.

Then, in 1938, a man named Louis Caldor walked past the pharmacy window.

He was an art collector from New York City. The paintings stopped him cold.

He bought every single one.

“Who painted these?” he asked.

“That’s just Grandma Moses,” the pharmacist said. “She’s about eighty.”

Caldor drove straight to her farmhouse. He found her in a calico dress and apron, painting at her kitchen table.
“You’re going to be famous,” he told her.

She laughed. She thought he was teasing.

He wasn’t.

Within two years, her paintings were hanging in New York galleries. Critics called her work primitive. Naive. Untrained. They searched for categories because they didn’t know where to put an elderly farm woman who painted joy without irony.

The public understood immediately.

They saw warmth. Community. A world where people knew each other and seasons mattered. They saw happiness without apology.

At eighty, Anna Mary Moses appeared on the cover of *Life* magazine. At ninety, she painted every day. She worked until she was 101 years old, producing more than 1,600 paintings.
She had spent nearly eight decades doing what survival demanded.

Then she spent the rest of her life doing what her hands had always wanted to do.

She did not talk about inspiration. She did not speak about destiny. She simply painted what she knew and loved.

Anna Mary Moses proved that a beginning does not expire with age. That the life you were meant to live can wait patiently for you. And that sometimes, the longest road leads exactly where it was always supposed to end.