🚀 go-pugleaf

"Simon Belmont" <123@abc.xyz> wrote in message
news:fMfUb.983$AI1.627@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> "Todd Michel McComb" <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote
> > Hearst really lived there, so it wasn't about attracking gawkers,
> > but it _was_ about vanity.  There are some interesting pieces there,
> > and some interesting historical anecdotes, but the overall aesthetics
> > of the place is simply awful: totally garish, with way too many
> > pieces put together haphazardly, no overall theme or broader design
> > symbiosis, etc.  It's about as trashy as millions and millions of
> > dollars of architecture and art can be.  Still, it *is* an experience,
> > and the surrounding countryside is very nice.
>
> After seeing a few exterior pictures of the "castle" and all its auxillary
> buildings I must agree with you: the place is train-wreck. straight up.
>
> At the same time it might be cool see it for myself to dissect what all
> the fuss comes from. I suspect it is mostly a source of pride for CA.

Your comment made me laugh (not snicker), it makes CA sound like a small
town. I don't think Hearst Castle ranks among the state's top destinations,
but it's worth a vist on the right trip (not yours, it doesn't sound like
you have time). Mostly I agree with Todd *and* Bob Barnett, the tours are
excellent, and that outdoor pool is amazing, although those who get to swim
at UC Berkeley can enjoy a less garish Julia Morgan creation. The indoor
pool's pretty wild, too.

Hearst Castle reminds me most of Marblehead, a shocking display of wealth
from a different time, on a scale too large to imagine.

-Amalia