Encountering the Other

Review

Talking with God: The Radioactive Ark of the Testimony 
Roger D. Isaacs
Sacred Closet Books
417 pages

In the world of the late Sixties, when I came of age, Reality was something hard, impenetrable, fixed. It was fronted by a System of centralized economies and transnational corporations, with their supporting network of politicians and bureaucrats that seemed impregnable. What better proof of this than that System commanded vast armies that enforced its will. With its bombers and napalm the System could, in moments, wipe out a jungle village and transform living flesh into jelly.

But there were challenges to the System—the Civil Rights Movement and the Counter-Culture. But the System’s two greatest challengers, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were murdered, while the war in Southeast Asia ground on.

At first appearance, the hippies seemed a hopeful presence. But in retrospect they were not serious counters to the System, simply members of a sideshow that dropped their costumes and eventually merged back into the middle class from which they had emerged.

But along with spectacle, the Counter-Culture provided several highly popular literary works that defied the absolutism of the presumed Reality. Two best selling books stand out: a French volume translated as The Morning of the Magicians by physicist Jacques Bergier and journalist Louis Pauwel and The Teachings of Don Juan by anthropologist Carlos Castenada. While The Teachings of Don Juan and its sequels, supposedly accounts of a Yaqui shaman’s instructions for gaining super-human powers, are works of imagination palmed off as anthropological research, The Morning of the Magicians is much more—a compendium of facts and speculations, ancient and modern, whose effect on me was liberating. The bulk of the writings failed to persuade me to embrace the authors’ intended message: namely, the seemingly infinite possibilities for the human intellect and personality. Rather, the collection was an explosive opening into a new world, one which conventional schooling and common sense denied. Through its numerous examples from a variety of cultures, it persuaded me that the Other, call it the hyper-Real or whatever, could break through onto our plane of existence. The seeming miraculous could occur.

Since the sixties there has been no work that I am aware of (until now) that seriously challenges our common sense account of how things work. The common sense account dismisses out of hand the possibility of any intrusion of the divine or the Other into the everyday. But now Roger Isaacs has given us Talking with God (2010) a provocative work, a precis of which would fit comfortably inside Berger’ and Pauwels’ book. Given that our culture is, philosophically, materialist, Isaac’s thesis will at first glance seem absurd to many. But Talking with God is not a book for the counter-culture; it is a work of great scholarship, and its thesis is backed with comparative linguistics so dense that it would never stand a chance of making the New York Times’ Best Seller list.

It deserves a wide hearing.

Talking with God takes its stand on two premises. The first holds that the first five books of the Bible containing accounts of the Hebrews sojourn in Egypt and subsequent wanderings are fact. This puts him at odds with most intellectuals, who are ready to dismiss ancient accounts as fiction, legend, wishful thinking, and so on. Consider, for example, that until Schliemann excavated the coast of Asia Minor, searching for the remains of Troy, that ancient city was presumed a fabrication. We forget that the ancients cultivated the memory. They had to: they did not have written records.

Let us recall that Exodus records that a cloud of dust preceded the Israelites by day, leading them across the wilderness of Shur, then of Sin and Sinai into Canaan. By night it appeared as a pillar of fire. If the cloud was said to have appeared only when God led them across this wilderness, we could explain the cloud as a literary device. But the cloud appears later, again and again, and when it appears the ancient Hebrews said the Lord’s voice spoke from it to Moses, Aaron, or the sons of Aaron. Isn’t this more than a literary device?

Isaacs’ second premise holds that the laws, prohibitions and adjurations primarily in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were not arbitrary injunctions, as they seem to many today, but were necessary to protect the Israelites. Those who did not take protective measures before coming into contact with the cloud, or the ark of the covenant, or with the cloud that descended upon it—these had to be purified. They were “unclean.” What then was the relation between the ark, the cloud, and the need for purification?

Those who came into contact with the cloud or the ark without protection developed sores and other disfigurements that resembled the sores and lesions of people exposed to radiation. Also, remember that the cloud that accompanied the Hebrews on their forty year trek through the wilderness appeared as a cloud of dust by day and a pillar of fire by night. Isaacs writes that a radioactive cloud would appear red at night. It was from this radioactivity that the Hebrews needed protection.

Isaacs writes: “When the cloud transmitted the dangerous condition first on Mt. Sinai, then on the tent and the Ark, the Ark soaked up the radiation from the cloud. Thus, it became highly radioactive and dangerous, and it remained so.” (p. 109)

Here is but one example of the effects of the cloud: the Book of Numbers recounts that God called Moses, his sister Miriam and Aaron out of a meeting tent. The Lord was angry with Miriam and Aaron for speaking against Moses, “And the anger of the Lord glowed against them, and He went away.

“And the cloud departed from above the tent, and behold Miriam [was] leprous as snow.” (Isaacs’ translation.)

Isaacs notes that the Hebrew word tsawra-at has been translated “leprosy” but that it also means “burn,” which is consistent with his theory.

Further bolstering his theory is Leviticus 13. It begins: “And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron saying, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of the sons of the priests; And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turning white, and the place be deeper than the skin of the flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him and proclaim him unclean.” (King James version)

The descriptions of the various degrees of leprosy (burns) and the priests’ responses run for a total of 46 verses.

Another startling indication of the ark’s potential danger was revealed to the Philistines after they captured it. Samuel 1:4-5 tells us that the Hebrews and Philistines fought two battles. At the first battle, the Philistines defeated the Israelites, who then brought the ark with them out of Shiloh into a second battle, where the Philistines again defeated them and captured the ark. The Philistines brought the ark to Ashdod, where the inhabitants were stricken with emerods. From Ashdod they brought it to Gath, but the people of Gath, young and old, were also stricken with emerods. So the Philisitines moved it again, this time to Ekron, but the people there cried, “They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us to slap us and our people.” (King James) Many in Ekron called for the ark to be removed, “for there was a deadly destruction [plague] throughout all the city, . . . and the men that died not were smitten with the emeralds.” (King James) The ark was returned to the Hebrews.

The Hebrew word t’chorim translated “emerods” means “hemorrhoids,” but also means “tumors.” Here we have another account that the modern rationalist is likely to dismiss. But the account is there, and does not strike me as literary invention. Something happened. Something extraordinary.

Now we come to the ark of the covenant, also called the ark of the testimony. At Mt. Sinai, where God spoke to Moses from a cloud and gave him the two stone tablets, he also gave him directions for constructing the ark of the testimony, the mercy seat, and the cherubim.

The heart of Talking with God lies with Isaacs’ contention that the ark, the two stone tablets, and the cherubim were parts of a device by which God communicated to the Hebrews. He thinks that the stones, which Moses received from God on Mt. Sinai, were the heart of the communication device. The cherubim, which were placed across from each other on the lid of the ark, were antennae that attracted communication waves. Then, when God wanted to talk to the Israelites, the cloud descended over the tent covering the ark.

All this is described in Exodus 25, 17-21. The King James’ version of the arrangement reads: “And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold . . . and thou shalt make two cherubim of gold . . . even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof . . . “ The mercy seat is the lid of the Ark, the place for annual atonement sacrifice. “ . . . and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.”

Then, verse 22 reads: “And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony.”

Without reading Isaacs’ text (with his interpretation of ancient events backed by his linguistic research) it is difficult to appreciate the seriousness of his project. Through his exhaustive research Isaacs offers alternate, accepted meanings for key Hebrew words that put events in a different light from traditional translations. We have seen that tsawra-at means not only “leprosy” but “burn,” and that t’chorim means not only “hemorrhoids” but “ulcers.” Many of the key words alternate meanings are buttressed by their cognates in Egyptian, Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, Standard Babylonian, Old and Middle Assyrian, and Ugaritic—cognates which Isaacs provides.

*
To the rationalist who denies transcendent being, I ask, “How did the first matter come into existence?” The rationalist’s only answer can be, “It just happened.” But, you rationalist, who believes that every effect must have a cause, how do you come to believe in this one miracle, that matter’s first appearance had no cause? You deny all others but believe in this, what would be—were it true—the most astounding of miracles?

Buy on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1412549973?m=A1UDT86KRFJEFL

 

 

North Dakota Voted Worst State in the Union

Lest we forget, I’m reposting the blog entry from October 24, 2016

At the annual meeting of the Association of Constitutional Lawyers held in Washington, D.C. last Tuesday, North Dakota was declared the worst state in the union by an overwhelming majority vote of 637 to 16. The minority votes were split equally between Mississippi and Alabama.

“We made this award,” association chairman Lewis Whimple announced this morning, “because North Dakota leads the nation in frack sand mining and in the abuse of native Americans.” Whimple was referring to the treatment of native water protectors by North Dakota State Police.

The award’s announcement ignited a flurry of outrage among North Dakota citizens gathered in Mandan, Bismarck and five other cities. Citizens burned copies of the Constitution along with photographs of Sitting Bull, Little Big Man, Black Kettle, Red Cloud and scores of other famous native leaders.

An effigy of Sitting Bull was burned in front of the state capitol building as scores of state police protected the demonstrators from the comments and outbursts of five tourists protesting the burning. Three of the five protestors were strip-searched and all were detained in police custody.

A spokesperson for the state justified the searches and arrests. “North Dakotans stand by the rule of law,” she said. “We believe unwaveringly in the right to free speech and the free expression of ideas. Those five protesters obviously did not.”

Meanwhile, following Tuesday’s announcement, the beatings, arrests, and strip searches of the water protectors have intensified.

Support for the North Dakota State Police is coming from all states. The Grand Wizard of the White Man’s Dixie Klan, Deever Bouers, announced he was leading a contingent of 36 Dixie Klan members to “keep the mongrel race in its place.” Bouers’ words have become a slogan for his followers who chant them at cross burnings, anniversaries and birthday parties.

“We will be there,” Bouers said, “with our robes, our handbooks, and our Bibles.”

Other defenders of the white race have begun arriving at Standing Rock. Skinheads and members of four other patriot parties, including the Friends of Jesus Christ and the White Resistance League, have set-up trailer encampments near Standing Rock.

President Crump reacted swiftly and predictably last night, saying, “This outrage being perpetrated by so-called native Americans—who in my estimation are no better than land grabbers—yes, land grabbers—is unacceptable. A hundred years ago we know what happened at Wounded Knee. They ended up in a big grave.”

Please contribute to the Standing Rock legal defense fund: https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/d19fAf

big_foot_leader_of_the_sioux_captured_at_the_battle_of_wounded_knee_s-d-_here_he_lies_frozen_on_the_snow-covered_ba_-_nara_-_530805-1-ab

 

GOING DRIFTLESS: Life Lessons from the Heartland for Unraveling Times

Stephen Lyons is a flatlander, a resident of the southern Illinois prairie, but he is also a man with a deep
love for the Driftless region, a land of hills and winding valleys comprising contiguous portions of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. The region is split by the Mississippi, which defines much of its character. The Driftless region intrigues Lyons, and over the years he has made numerous trips here. That’s how I met him.

Interviews
Stephen was interviewing Decorah residents as part of his projected book, Going Driftless, and we met at an exhibition of the work of Decorah painter, muralist, and printmaker, Carl Homstad. Since much of Homstad’s art is an interpretation of the Driftless landscape, he was a natural for Lyons to interview.

The core of Going Driftless consists of numerous interviews Lyons conducted over a period of four years with organic farmers, artists, writers, communards (yes, there are communes in the Driftless), a naturalist, a book store owner, a food co-op manager, and a dozen others, including my wife, Bonnie Koloc, and myself. Most of the people Lyons interviewed were suggested by other interviewees, and for that reason this sampling of Driftless residents is a collection of liked-minded individuals whose sensibilities are attuned to one another.

Stephen Lyons

They do not work retail, they do not broker stocks, they do not work nine-to-five-thank-God-it’s-Friday jobs. To one degree or another they identify with the region. And in varying ways they are creative.

Is There a Driftless Sensibility?
But there’s another population in the Driftless region: the farm families and village residents who were here long before most of the book’s subjects arrived. But that exclusion, I think, is intentional and very much to the core of Lyons’ purpose. He is looking for those people who make the Driftless region one of the most creative rural areas in the country.

“Something magical surrounded the Driftless region,” he writes early on, “and in this fast-paced, digital world, I wanted to know just what such a magical landscape can teach us.” Going Driftless is a book about a quest: Lyons wants to know what the newcomers to the region think and feel about their adopted home. He is continually asking his subjects questions that imply, “Is there a Driftless sensibility?”

He asks more than one person, “Do you feel a connection to the entire region?” Lyons himself feels that connection deeply, but one day when he doesn’t feel like “participating in the spirit of the Driftless.”

He wonders if this spirit of the Driftless can be found in its foods. He talks with a Madison chef at a cheese tasting. She tells him that she can taste the Driftless in a certain cheese. “It had a pineapple taste,” she says, and others there agree that pineappily taste in cheese makes region’s cheese distinctive.

In another chapter Lyons asks himself whether apples grown in the Driftless region have their own particular taste.

With an organic farmer he decides to “try out my theory that the region is more defined as a state of mind.” The farmer agrees, but identifies that state of mind with the region’s agricultural practices due to its topographical constraints.

When he visits novelist David Rhodes, he decides “to lay out my theory that the Driftless region is a subculture within a nation . . I tell him I see the Driftless as a Midwestern ecotopia . . .”

Rhodes disagrees and says he does not believe that a particular landscape breeds people of a certain character. On the other hand, Carl Homstad tells Lyons that the Driftless area naturally produces cooperation between man and nature.

And so it goes. Lyons comes to no explicit conclusion, which is perhaps why Going Driftless ends with an interview with Shoken Winecroff, Abbott of Ryumonji, a Zen monastery in northeast Iowa. Zen no-mind, seeing without judging, simply being—is that how Stephen Lyons has decided to experience the Driftless? Not through ideas nurtured in part by a creative imagination?

Whatever his conclusion, if any, Stephen Lyons’ book is a gift to those of us in the Driftless. Going Driftless weaves a mosaic of personalities and occupations that gives those of us who live here a better knowledge of our neighbors—yes, neighbors—across our region. Stephen Lyons helps us to look at ourselves.

For sale on Amazon:
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Going-Driftless-Lessons-Heartland…/dp/0762780657

e-book: https://www.amazon.com/Going-Driftless-Lessons-Heartland-Unraveling…/B00X2507IU

 

Homage to Grant Wood: American Regionalist

 

Self Portrait

In early February, 1942, Grant Wood lies in an Iowa hospital, dying of liver cancer. His fellow Regionalist artist and friend, Thomas Hart Benton, has come to visit him. For several years, Benton has seen his friend attacked by art critics and by colleagues at the University of Iowa’s art department. Due to an unfortunate marriage that ended a few years earlier, Wood is also deeply in debt.
He is so despondent, as Benton later recorded in his autobiography, that Wood told Benton that “when he got well he was going to change his name, go where nobody knew him and start all over again with a new style of painting.”

It would never be: Wood died on February 12.

American Regionalism
Wood and Benton, along with John Stuart Curry, were the most publicly recognized Regionalist artists of the 1930s. Wood was an Iowa native; Benton hailed from Missouri, and Curry was raised on a Kansas farm. The three gained national recognition and wide popularity during the Depression with works that memorialized the rural heartland and the doings of its everyday folk. But by the Second World War, Regionalism was out of critical fashion, derided and labeled jingoistic, fascist, naïve, sentimental.

During this period Wood was teaching at the University of Iowa, Curry at the University of Wisconsin, and Benton at the Kansas City Art Institute. Wood and Curry were not only attacked by critics, but by their departmental colleagues. That affected how their students regarded them. Wood and Curry, Benton wrote, “ . . . were much affected and in the course of time under the new indifference, and sometimes actual scorn of the young, began feeling as if their days were over.

“It was one of the saddest experiences of my life to watch these two men . . . finish their lives in ill-health and occasional moods of deep despondency. . . .

Curry and Wood

“Wood and Curry, and particularly Curry, were oversensitive to criticism. They lacked that certain core of inner hardness, so necessary to any kind of public adventure, which throws off the opinions of others . . . “

Curry died in 1946, after what Benton wrote was a physical failure that took his “big body to pieces little by little.” He came to Martha’s Vineyard to visit Tom and Rita Benton before his death. Tom tried to cheer him up, telling Curry that he must feel good at having achieved a permanent place in American art, and having come such a long way from his boyhood farm.

“I don’t know about that,” Curry replied, “maybe I’d have done better to stay on the farm.”

Regionalists Attacked
The vindictiveness of the critical attacks on Wood, Curry and Benton continues to shock me. The attacks by members of their own art departments greatly contributed to the failing health and depression of both Wood and Curry. The abuse is on a par with the partisan invective now hurled among American politicians. While it is good to see art taken seriously, the grounds of the argument against the three were spurious.

In Grant Wood: The Regionalist Vision, Wanda Corn quotes W.H. Janson, an art historian at the University of Iowa and a departmental enemy of Wood, who charged that “Many of the paintings officially approved by the Nazis recall the works of the regionalists in this country.”

Nan Wood reported in her book, My Brother, Grant Wood, that an unnamed professor in the art department sent Grant a note saying, “I do not like you, I do not like your painting.”

An article in the Chicago Times claimed that Wood’s art was socially irrelevant and led to “a trend of escapist and isolationist thought and action which was popular with some groups yesterday, but which is definitely obsolete today.”

Critic Samuel Kootz claimed that Regionalism was “an innocent approximation of the Fascist attitude.” Unlike the Chicago Times writer, however, Kootz saw that Regionalism gave Depression-era Americans “the security of familiar homey scenes . . . an America of insistent actuality.”

But for most critics, it was as though the obvious usefulness of Regionalist art during the Depression was deliberately ignored or unperceived; nor was it understood how useful it was in wartime.

Wood understood that possibility, claiming that Regionalist art was as important for democracy during the Second World War as it had been during the Depression. Wood told the Iowa Press-Citizen that Regionalist art would help Americans to “awake to the real worth of what they possess in the way of life.” If Regionalist painters continued to portray the life around them, he said, they would remind Americans of what they stood to lose in the war. Wood’s last two works, Spring in the Country and Spring in Town, were painted as examples of just what could be lost They were painted the year before he died.

Spring in Town

 

The pugnacious Benton gave back to his critics as good as he got, hurling plenty of insults at those he called “the museum boys.” In the April 14, 1941 issue of Time magazine, Benton said the typical art museum was “a graveyard run by a pretty boy with delicate wrists and a swing in his gait.”

Spring in the Country

But Wood and Curry, both gentle souls, had done nothing but create communicable art that found widespread popularity. (Curry’s popularity was greater in New York City than in his native Kansas, where his paintings Baptism in Kansas and Tornado were accused of perpetuating Kansas stereotypes). Regionalism’s attackers (Benton called them “highbrows”) were proponents of European modernism, which had greatly influenced American artists, including Marsden Hartey and Arthur Dove, after the First World War.

Thomas Hart Benton

But none of Benton’s critics were apparently aware of the fact that Benton had spent several years in Paris, closely studying the new works, and according to art historian Henry Adams in Tom and Jack, Benton had absorbed its principles more thoroughly than any of his contemporaries. For several years in and after Paris, Benton painted in a style called Synchronism, which had been developed in Paris by two of Benton’s American friends. Unknown to the critics, for much of his life Benton continued to paint an occasional abstract work. Whether it was to keep experimenting with purely formal principles, or for simple enjoyment, it was something Benton would not publicly admit.

With the onset of the Second World War, modernism had almost completely captured American galleries and academies, and by the late forties Abstract Expressionism was enthroned. The time when the United States faced inward in its Depression-era period of self-examination had passed.

***

Art critics (and the public) have been equally aroused and incensed in other, fairly recent times. Matisse and Derain and the other Fauves (“wild beasts”) had elicited sneers. (“A pot of paint has been flung in the face of the public.”) Musical innovations had fared worse. Stravinsky’s tonal innovations in “The Rite of Spring,” caused at least one riot. The changes in visual and musical forms of early modernism were more abrupt than any in the past. Prior to the last decades of the nineteenth century, changes had come gradually and representational art was not questioned prior to the early twentieth century.

Traditional societies of the past, such as that of the European Middle Ages, perpetuated themselves by virtue of common core beliefs and rituals that ordered their societies. The most fundamental of these beliefs posited the existence of a transcendent world and the existence of a divinity or divinities. These common core beliefs, including the existence of archetypes or ideal patterns in the transcendent world, formed the basis for traditional art. Ananda Coomeraswamy, a former curator of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, demonstrated this in numerous essays on the arts of traditional societies East and West.

Traditional societies would be in complete agreement with Wood that that art which expresses a common sensibility helps that society cohere, a point that modernists will likely consider naïve.

The modernist’s art-for-art’s-sake stance developed over centuries following the breakdown of the common culture of the Middle Ages and the growth of individualism. Following the First Word War, European styles and schools, mostly rooted in Paris and mostly non-representational, began proliferating. The formal content of a work—its interaction of color, shape, and balance—was all that mattered. A work that was pleasing to the eye was “beautiful.” Since modernists deny the existence of a transcendent world, (and what else, philosophically, is modernism?) the notion that art can reflect archetypes is relegated to the category of unsophisticated ideas. Truth, an ancient criterion of beauty, was irrelevant.

In his popular 1934 book, Modern Art: The Men, the Movements, the Meaning, critic Thomas Craven made his case for representational art that sounded the mood of the times. “I have considered art as a human activity,” Craven wrote, “as a healthy act of labor preceding from, and affecting, the lives of people. I cannot, therefore, accept technical experiments in structure as substitutes for experience . . . . I ask that art contain meanings which may be verified, shared and enjoyed by a large and intelligent audience. “

Craven promoted Curry, Benton, and Wood in Modern Art and elsewhere, and his thoughts echoed Benton’s. Both wanted art that reflected meanings, and Benton was particularly concerned with American meanings, by which he meant the work and interaction of people with one another, and with their environment, be it urban or rural.

Wood went further in his expectations for art than Benton. By painting an idealized portrait of Midwestern agrarian society, Wood was hoping to preserve a fragment of American society. In the essay, “Revolt Against the City,” written by Frank Mott but reflecting Wood’s thought and published under Wood’s name, Wood expressed his reaction to the urbanization and homogenization of American life. Influenced by the Southern Agrarians, Wood saw the necessity of shoring up regional cultures. To this end he and Cedar Rapids artist Marvin Cone established the Stone City Art Colony, which lasted two summers. During one summer, Curry came to visit and he and Wood posed for some iconic photographs together.

Wood’s idealism ran deep. The art colony was meant to be a model for other regional art centers, each of which would interpret the life and culture of its own region; thus, each would contribute to the revitalization of regional folkways and life.

At the very opposite of Wood’s idealism is whatever thought might underlie a non-objective painting. While it might have meaning within the mind of its maker, it cannot by its very nature communicate meaning. As the phrase “npn-objective” implies, a non-objective painting does not depict objects. If one considers the confusion, the violence and the irrationality of modern life, and then contemplates the multitudinous collection of modernist and post-modernist art styles, how can one not help but concede that this collection, taken as a whole, is but a mirror of the confusion and irrationality of contemporary life? And what will naïve viewers, which is to say the majority of viewers, make of this collection? What can they take from it except bewilderment? Or, at best, the conviction that one work is beautiful or nice, and another is ugly?

By the very fact that the history of art goes back in continuous line to humanity’s origins, and that today when countless amateurs are creating art of some kind, we sense that art is somehow central to our being. In traditional societies art was symbolic and connected man to a transcendent world. Today that art which is meaningful is representational but lacks the ability to connect. But at least, if it is good, it connects the viewer to a place, or to other people: it fulfills a partial need. But when confronted by a bewildering display of art void of meaning, the naïve viewer may well suspect that meaningfulness itself is denied. That, I think, explains the majority’s aversion to modern art.

How would Wood approach his task today, that of revitalizing rural life, when our farmland is degraded with chemicals and monocultures, and the farmer is often alienated from the land by virtue of his machinery? How would Wood deal with our depopulating towns and villages and the forces that lie behind the depopulation? With his gentle nature Wood might have created more satiric works, like Daughters of Revolution, but we are forced to ask, what art can contribute to the cause?

Honkytonks and Penguins

(Background: In the early 1990s, Nashville’s lower Broadway was still lined with honkytonks that offered one country or western band after another, playing afternoons and evenings. The homeless thronged to them, spending the cash they earned as day laborers. This story, written in those days, accurately predicted the demise of the honkytonks.) 

I’m having a drink at Squires Music City, standing at the curve of the bar by the front door, yakking with one of the regulars (I’m hardly there two minutes) when BAM, two figures rush up the room towards the front door— The guy in back is shoving— It’s the bartender— He has a hold of the other fellow’s left arm and belt— He’s pushing this fellow (no doubt a drunk) out at a fast trot, and as they pass through the door, with a last burst of energy the bartender flings the other off the ground— The drunk spins awkwardly, then disappears without a word as the bartender stands at the door with hands on hips . . . What an opening act!!!!!!

Billy Byrd, who’s been playing on Nashville’s lower Broad since he was fourteen, is on the bandstand singing and playing guitar— As the drunk is hustled out Billy says, “Well he just said goodnight.”

What a difference from Merchants, that apogee of respectability and splendor just a block away, which in an earlier incarnation was as a wild a bar as you could get here or anywhere, but now is the home of unflappable penguins in suspenders and freshly laundered shirts and dry cleaned black or gray suits sitting over vodka tonics, talking BIG business, you bet, like real estate, municipal bonds, utility stocks, whatever it is that male and female penguins talk about  . . .

Some of Nashville’s big money boys would probably love to see Squires Music City and the other honkytonks urban renewed out of existence, say in the form of a loud explosion and a cloud of reddish vapor— Or else have these sawdust bars transformed into respectable Holiday Inn lounges— You can bet that the money boys are standing in the wings right now, with their flunkies, who are holding potted ferns—

As these penguins lead us and themselves into the Brave New Technocratic World of the Future that shines with brand new computer chips and missiles, fewer and fewer people will ever care or even know of the whereabouts or existence of the honkytonks—

But at the honkytonks the customers haven’t the slightest inkling that they are fast becoming an irrelevance, extruded OUT of society by the very fact of their disinterest in municipal bonds, $100,000 sports cars, and Braun coffee makers—

On this particular night, however, no one at Music City is alarmed, even by the drunk’s quick exit— Billy Byrd simply moves into an up-tempo tune, and a blonde mustached gent in a white shirt begins clogging to the music, elbows up, hands waist level— Soon another man joins him—

Earl Thomas Conley, the famous country singer, is here with his entourage, which includes the Clogger in White—

Jo Eaten co-owns Music City, a pleasant, interesting woman— “I’ve always had dreams of having a bar down here,” she says, and adds that although she and her husband have owned Music City for a year and a half, that she’s “been down here and worked here five years. I’ve seen it all.”

You can believe it, if you know lower Broad.

“I don’t think they”—the honkytonkers—“are ever going to change. They”—the refurbished bars with potted ferns—“will never get the atmosphere these old ones have. You can’t drink three ribbon beer”—Pabst—“on a three ply carpet and enjoy it.”

In the old days, before the Grand Ole Opry moved out of the Ryman Auditorium for the sanitized splendor of its present home, Opry stars frequented these joints, particularly Tootsie’s Orchid Lounge (smack behind the Ryman), where they drank beer between appearances, or before or after shows— Legend has it that lots of famous songs were written at Tootsie’s, including Willie Nelson’s “Crazy”—

Back at Music City Jo leans across the table and says, “See, we’re sttin’ here with Earl Thomas Conley. They”—the country stars—“are used to these old places. Dolly, Johnny Cash, Johnny Carver, Kris Kristofferson, George Jones, Willie Nelson, Faron Young, they’ve all played here. That’s how they all got started”—

Suddenly the barkeep leans across Jo’s back and calls out, “Bob!” Bob, a slobby unshaven character with an open-mouthed stare, turns in his chair. The bartender’s face and finger are inches from Bob’s nose. Bob is vacuous looking; his shirttail hangs out, his long black hair covers his collar.

“Bob,” the barkeep repeats in a warning tone, “you’ve got a bad attitude!” Bob says nothing but stretches out his hand in a peace offering, which doesn’t cut any mustard with the bartender who repeats his warning yet again: “You’ve got a bad attitude, Bob.” Whatever the offense was, we’ll never know, but Bob agrees that his attitude needs adjusting and nods his head.

The bartender is Jo’s son, the perfect host/bouncer/bartender for a bar like Music City, friendly if you are, but a I-don’t-take-no-sass-but-sarsaparilla type, if you ain’t  . . . . . unnerSTAND?

Drunks are handled promptly at the honkytonks, especially since last year’s crackdown by His Honor Bill Boner, who lined lower Broad with lines of cops (practically), and cop cars, and an ever-present paddy wagon— The cops may not have been able to stop any drug deals or prevent any murders or robberies in the rest of the city, but boy could they arrest those homeless drunks or suspected drunks, even tourists!— No one is quite sure what prompted the crackdown, whether the boys with potted ferns were putting pressure on the mayor or whether the mayor thought up that idea by himself— 

At any rate, the Rhinestone Cowboy was forced out of business and the beer board started playing games with Music City, like yanking Jo’s license the very day she slapped down $17,000 for it— Things got so bad that Tootsie’s owner, Robert Moore says, “I don’t even want to talk about the mayor”— Eventually the homeless got the message and few are seen around the bars today—

Those bleak days are in the back of everybody’s mind, certainly the regulars, some of whom had begun the evening at Tootsie’s, right across the street. The Conley entourage had begun festivities there—

Tootsie’s is a dream in sepia tones—brown walls, brown bar—walls covered with framed pix of country singers, and every square inch not covered with a picture is covered with signatures, even the top and sides of the bar— Like the rest of the honkytonks like Turf, Music City, the Say When II, and the newly opened Blue Bayou, Tootsie’s has always had live music, a rotation of singers in western shirts with long sideburns and slicked down hair, guys you could imagine at home in a truck stop over a mug of coffee and a cigarette—

The honkytonks are a never-ending vaudeville show— Pick any day and hang out long enough and you’ll get the point— Earlier that night at Tootsie’s a fat man in a blue jacket, yellow shirt and sneakers (none other than the world champion yodeler!) had been exercising his tonsils as the audience clapped and Ray Wicks played guitar— When Wicks picked up the tempo the yodeler warbled faster and the audience (mostly working class couples) cheered and hooted— The women with their smooth meaty faces, the men with worn and lined faces— Take away the music and the beer and it’s a tough haul— There were perhaps twenty in their nylon or vinyl jackets and K-Mart sweaters, plus a man at the back of the room taking notes (not me)— By 9:15 the bar was packed with tourists, including a bunch from Germany, all talking to Wicks, who appropriately enough took off on a good, rocking version of “Fraulein” that had patrons on the floor and dancing—

Upstairs there’s a party for country and western d.j.’s, which is why Conley drove in town from his home in nearby Franklin— I’ve left Tootsie’s for Music City by the time he shows up there, too— He is an intense looking man with a beard and piercing eyes. He says, “Back when I first came to town I used to come down here all the time.”

“When did you first come here?” I ask him.

“Came here in 1968 from Cortsville, Ohio. Was working in a steel mill, moved to Huntsville [Alabama] so I’d be close to Nashville. This”—lower Broadway—“is where it was AT when I first came to Nashville.”

“What made it the place to be?”

“Music. We didn’t care about good music and bad music. The heart of country music is people doing what they feel. I believe in doing what I feel.”

Indeed, Conley is known for that, and for speaking what he thinks and feels. He’s the real thing, with twenty-one songs recorded in the eighties that made it to country’s Top Ten.

Now, he says, the business is determined by “the nostalgia of the common people. A lot of stars cut music they know people will fall for. It creates a kind of music that has already happened.”

Prepackaged, predetermined, and plastic, like Opryland.

Meanwhile, next door at The Say When II, a handful of the homeless nurse their two drafts for a dollar and a half. But at the homes throughout Nashville, penguins are taking their Lean Cuisines out of the freezer and popping them into microwaves.

The Clogger comes up to Conley, wavering and almost shouting, “Earl, we got go, man!”

“Where?” Earl asks.

“Back to the other one”—by which he means Tootsie’s.

By now the scene at Music City is chaotic, not rough, just chaotic with at least twenty different dramas going on— A young female songwriter—one of the entourage—is on stage singing, but hardly anyone listens—

All at once I spot a character I hadn’t seen in a year. I recognize him by his mustache, a big thick Terry Thomas mustache, comic in its hugeness, his big mealy face pleasant, almost quizzical— His name’s Terry, too— He’s a cab driver, running in and out of the bars between rides to sing a chorus or two or three— 

Almost a year before, one wild night at The Turf, an evening of great western swing, the walls practically rolling with the beat, suddenly during a break this mustached fellow came running in, leaped onto the band stand, grabbed a mic, the band swung into a blues, to which he improvised tremendous lyrics, sounding almost like a black, like Chicago—

Now, a year later, I spot him again— By one a.m. he’s at The Blue Bayou where the Zack Taylor Band (“a bunch of old guys trying to have fun and make bucks” their leader says) have been playing— Terry’s up on stage claiming that he drives a cab because he got sick of the music business— The band starts again, a big SLAMMING beat, Terry’s spieling out nonsensical strings of words— No matter— He’s yelling like a black church shouter and playing a scrambling, shrieking guitar— The drummer ups the tempo WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP odolabodola oodola toddle WHAP WHAP WAMMA WHAP WHAP, Bass guitar craze sound twirling twirling crazy WAMMA WAMMA BAPITY BAPIDDY WHOPITA WHOPA DA dada whop whop squiggles of yellowgreenblues guitar noise, Terry shakes his head, ecstatic, blue lights, drums bam bam, Cymbals! bass deep, guitar squeals louder, stars crash bar! beat! boPs! lookOUT!!!

A wild mad ending to a perfect evening of drama and music that you couldn’t pay to see on a New York or Chicago stage cause they ain’t there, and these performances by real life people, mind you, not actors or penguins— But such are the afternoons or evenings on Broadway, like the golden afternoon at Wanda and Louie’s Place (long closed) when it was one entertainer after another holding forth on the floor, first a singer later discovered by Roy Acuff, then a retired famous d.j. who used to wear a yellow suit and ride a bicycle around town while holding an umbrella— Others too that day, like the big-bombed lady in spandex pants and boyfriend in Italian gangster clothes, she trading wisecracks with the d.j.— Nothing preplanned, all spontaneous, a crazy grab bag of days, some bleak and bad, of course, like real life— At best it was life as it should be, no fears, no timetable in your head, no uptight “I wonder if I shouldn’t be doing taxes or shitting bricks?” but just throw off your shoes and lay back for the fun—

Let Bubba Howard, Tootsie’s bouncer, tel it, a good old pleasant-faced country boy with straw hat, brim up, crown deep cut with guitar pins on the front— He’s been in Nashville 22 years, plays bass, drums, and rhythm guitar— He’s just gotten married and so came off the road where he’d been playing with various bands— He has a deep love for the strip, and he’s seen a lot of changes.

“Bars’ve changed over,” he says, standing just outside Tootsie’s front door, “and a lot of ’ems closed up used to be here.They tore a bunch of ‘em down, tried to tear Broadway here down, tryin’ to close Tootsie’s down, tryn’ to close everybody, really.

“I was tellin’ you The Wheel used to be one of the nicest clubs here and now it’s a peep show. There’s another peep show down the street here.

“I mean people don’t come down, things done got commercialized. Opryland has everything, you know. Like I said, when I first come here these streets was wide open.

“Right now, this time of day, this time of year, these streets would be loaded. They wasn’t scared to come down here and now things has got out about how rough it is down here, which is a bunch of crap. The Nashvilleans are scrared to come down here and if they get guests or friends and family to come in and visit ‘em they say, “Don’t go down there to Broadway, it’s dangerous.

“But right now Broadway’s as good as it’s going to get. We have patrolmen down here all the time.”

He talks about the men who wrote songs in Tootsie’s— Roger Miller, Kris Kristofferson, Willie Nelson— He looks up and down the street, pointing out the bars and talking about each— “I love Broadway,” he says, “I love what it stands for. It’s history. This whole street is history.”

We also have a story on the great western swing artist, Bob Wills, written by Rudy Gonzalez:
Nashville honky tonks | robertwolfthewriter.comwww.robertwolfthewriter.com › tag › nashville-honky-tonks

If Descartes Had a Wife

“And another thing,” said Madame Descartes, who was in a bad mood.

Monsieur Descartes was reading a book while drinking his morning coffee. It was Saturday and he was trying to concentrate.

“You’ve thrown bird seed all over my garden.”

Monsieur Descartes did not look up. He had heard that complaint before.

“Every year, guess who has to clean that mess up? ME! I don’t want WEEDS growing in my garden.”

“Uh-huh.”

“Uh-huh,” she repeated derisively. “You’re going to have to go out there with a Shop-Vac and get rid of all those seeds.”

Monsieur Descartes had thought this would be a quiet morning. He thought perhaps he could have it with her. Normally she went to the village coffee shop and sat with friends, but this morning the ground and roads were covered with sleet and he thought for a change they could sit quietly together. She liked sitting with him in the mornings but very seldom did it.

“You go downstairs and bury yourself in a book!” she had often said before heading off for town. Now she was complaining about something else, the bird seed.

“I need help around here. I’m too old to be doing all the cleaning by myself. My joints hurt. No other woman I know has a husband who sits around all day scratching on paper and reading. They help with with housework!”

He ignored her.

“Other husbands vacuum, do dishes, help with the bathroom.”

She paused.

“I know why you married me! You wanted a maid. I’m tired of having to clean the bathroom! You should clean it once in a while. You could live in a pig sty and you wouldn’t care! All men are like that.”

Now she had absolutely destroyed the morning. He looked out the window at the sleet-covered ground and at the few birds who were trying to peck through it to get at the seeds.

“I’m going to hire someone to clean and make you pay for it.”

“All right.” He was not looking at her but at the words in his book, which were not making sense.

“I can’t invite anyone over here because you leave your papers all over. Of course you can have your friends here. They don’t care what the place looks like, Like your friend, the other genius. What’s his name, Marsenne?”

“Yeah. Aaah, papers all over, huh? I had a small pile on the coffee table. Where are they?”

“That Discourse on Blah-Blah?”

On Method.”

“It’s wherever you put it last.”

“I left it on the coffee table.”

“You wouldn’t know where you left it. Half the time you walk around here in a fog.”

“I need those papers.”

“Why?” she demanded. “No one’s going to publish a Discourse on Blah-Blah. You need to get a real job. Part time teaching doesn’t pay the bills.”

For the past five years Monsieur Descartes had been constructing his System of the World, of which his Discourse on Method would be a principle part. He wanted to publish it along with two other works, one of which he called Treatise on Man. The treatise had a lot of physiology in it, and in order to understand his subject, he had brought pig’s hearts, livers, brains, and kidneys home from the butcher shop. He would take them into the basement  to dissect and study them.

But he had to keep getting fresh organs every few days because whenever Madame Descartes came downstairs she went through his study and threw them out.

“I won’t have that disgusting stuff in the house! You do that again and I’m leaving!”

She never did leave, though. And now Monsieur Descartes suspected she had thrown out his Discourse.

“I’m going to town!” she announced, and rose from the couch and went to the living room, put on her coat and stepped outside.

Monsieur Descartes watched her lose balance on the front stoop and grab hold of the door to keep from falling.

“The stoop is total ice!” she yelled as she stepped back inside. “I’m going to have to salt it!”

“Don’t go to town,” he told her, “the roads look bad.”

“I’m going.”

“I’ll get the salt. Where is it?”

“Where do you think it is? Where do I always keep it?”

“It used to be on the stoop,” he offered.

“It’s in the GARAGE!”

“Ill get it,” he said and walked into the kitchen to the inside garage door and pushed the garage door button. When the door was raised he saw that she was walking around the front of her car. He picked up the bag of salt and walked outside and as he began spreading it over the stoop, Madame Descartes’ car disappeared.

Back inside, Monsieur Descartes decided the dishes needed cleaning.

 

Grand Tally: A True Account of the Recent Happenings in Moosehead, Montana and New York City

Note: This post is \one of three installments from my novel, Grand Tally, which is available at local bookstores and on Amazon. The idea for the novel came from a writer for People Magazine who told me that a major U.S. mapmaker had issued an atlas minus one of the western states. The novel is my take on the insanity of contemporary America. It’s characters include FBI agents, the Montana militia, a charismatic Christian cult headed west to meet the Rapture, egomaniacal network news reporters, two New York celebrity nitwits, and assorted  rednecks.

The Background:

The heir to Grand Tally has no interest in the family mapmaking business, and the board appoints two Harvard MBAs to head the firm.  Thanks to their business acumen, Grand Tally, “the world’s foremost mapmaker,” is now run by accountants.

***

Inside Grand Tally offices on the seventy-fifth floor of a New York skyscraper, Jovina Rates, assistant accountant, sat at her desk examining the proof sheets of Grand Tally’s new world atlas, its first in fifteen years. In a move designed to increase sales, Tally had combined its U.S. Road Atlas with its Student World Atlas. Newspapers and magazines were anticipating review copies.

The board of accountants, which had supervised the making of the atlas, had decided at the outset that the map would have 120 pages, no more or less. Ms. Rates was looking at the last page of the proof sheets for the atlas. Something was wrong, and she began to feel very sick. Her stomach began twisting itself into knots.

“Mr. Potts!” she called to a balding gentleman seated at a desk nearby. “What is it?” Mr. Potts wanted to know.

“Something’s wrong!”

“What’s wrong?” insisted Mr. Potts.

“Please look. Come here.”

Not very pleased at leaving his sandwich, Mr. Potts pushed back his chair, stood up and ambled over to Ms. Rates, who was jamming her left forefinger repeatedly onto the top left corner of the last page.

“What?” asked an irritated Potts.

“The number! The number!”

“What about the number?”

“Look!” she gasped in horror.

“For gawd’s sake what?” insisted Potts.

“It’s number one hundred twenty-two!” she rasped.

“It’s a hundred twenty-two,” Potts repeated emotionlessly.

“Yes! and the book’s only supposed to have one hundred twenty pages.”

Ms. Rates slumped back in her chair.

Mr. Potts bent forward, turned the page over and said, “Did it ever dawn on you that this might be an error? Did you check the other numbers?”

“Yes,” Ms. Rates answered quietly.

Mr. Potts began turning pages quickly, checking the numbers, moving from the last page to the first. The closer he got to the front of the book, the more agitated he became. At page one he decided that he must have missed a number and went from beginning to end, slowly.  “A hundred twenty-two pages,” he murmured when finished.

“Somebody’s going to get sacked,” Ms. Rates guessed.

“Not me,” Potts assured her, “I didn’t design it.”

The two nervously notified their supervisor, who checked the book and called Henry Mason the vice-president for marketing, who checked it and called a meeting of his staff, which included Ms. Rates and Mr. Potts.

Mr. Mason and his staff discussed the problem, and as Mr. Mason said, “If there is one thing we have to base our decision on, it is the fact that the board of accountants made clear that this atlas is to have no more than one hundred twenty pages. Two pages have to go.”

The staff looked at one another.

“The question is,” said Mr. Mason, “which two.”

Waiting for a decision from their leader, the staff looked at Mr. Mason.

“Well?” Mason asked. “What’s your recommendation?” He scanned the frightened faces. ”Ms. Duncan?”

Ms. Duncan’s eyes moved back and forth as she glanced at her colleagues.

“Yes?” Mason asked reasonably.

“I—I don’t know.”

“Who,” Mason asked, “has the leadership to make a suggestion?” He paused. “Remember, everyone’s job is on the line.”

“Why don’t we combine some of the countries?” someone suggested.

“Good thinking,” Mason said.

But it was decided that that would prove impracticable. So many pages would have to be shifted that the cost overrun would be enormous. And that, Mason knew, would get them all fired.

“What about removing some country?” someone suggested.

“Good God,” someone else said, “can you imagine what that might mean for foreign sales? Besides, the world is so internationally oriented now that plenty of people would notice and we’d lose all credibility.”

The group reluctantly agreed with this analysis.

“That pretty much leaves the United States,” someone observed.

The logic of the suggestion was noted.

“So we cut out one or two of the states,” Ms. Rates said.

“How do the rest of you feel about that?” asked Mason.

“I don’t like it, but what choice do we have?” someone asked.

There was a murmur of agreement.

“How many of you agree with that?” Mason asked. “Let’s see a show of hands.”

Everyone looked at one another. A few began tentatively raising their hands, at which others began raising theirs. Soon everyone’s hand was in the air.

“All right,” Mason said. “We’ve reached a consensus. Now we need to decide which one or ones.”

“Well,” said Ms. Rates, “it’s got to be unpopulated, whichever it is.”

“Yup,” someone said.

“One of the western states,” a voice added.

Most of Grand Tally’s employees had never been west of Pennsylvania, and despite the fact that they published a map of every state in the union, had no idea of what any of them looked like, let alone anything about their population or manufacturing or agricultural base. Moreover, they did not care. They were, to the core, hardline New Yorkers.

“South Dakota,” someone suggested.

“What’s that?” someone else joked.

“South Dakota’s got Mount Rushmore,” Mr. Mason said. “Too many dweebs driving out there to see the carved heads. Can’t do it.”

“North Dakota then,” someone offered. “Possibility,” Mason said.

“No one lives there,” Rates added.

“How about Wyoming?”

“Look for a western state that covers two pages.”

Five employees scanned the pages of the proofs.

“North Dakota.”

“Montana.”

“South Dakota.”

“We said no to South Dakota.”

“I’d say Montana.”

“Sounds good to me,” someone said.

“It’s unpopulated, no one knows anything about it, no one cares.”

“Let’s take a vote,” said Mr. Mason. “All in favor of eliminating Montana, raise their hands.”

Everyone raised a hand. And so it was decided that Montana would be eliminated from the forthcoming Grand Tally U.S. & World Atlas.

“I’ve got one question,” said Mr. Potts. “Do we tell Mr. Driggs?”

“I’ll send a memo to Mr. Driggs telling him that we made an adjustment,” said Mr.Mason.

That memo did not state that anything had been omitted, merely that two excess pages had been cut. Nor did it mention that in a moment of panic Mr. Mason, supported by a number of sub-accountants, had ordered the U.S. map redrawn to omit Montana. Mr. Driggs did not ask what had been cut. And that was that.

Two months later the Grand Tally U.S. & World Atlas was selling in every gas station across the United States.

Grand Tally is available from your local bookstore and on Amazon (print and ebook). Don’t be the last on your block to own a copy.

Shakespeare or Shakespere? A Case for Reasonable Doubt

Who wrote Shakespeare? I do not believe it was the man from Stratford. The Stratford native, whose name on contemporary documents was twice spelled Shakspere, was a businessman whose effigy in the Stratford church depicted a man with his hands resting on a sack. I say “depicted” because that is not what the “restored” effigy shows. The “restored” effigy, created in 1748-49, depicts a man holding a quill pen in one hand and a sheet of paper in the other. But the earliest record of the original effigy is a sketch made in 1649 showing a man with both hands resting on a sack.

An effigy shows what a man was, what he did. The Stratford effigy sketch does not depict a writer but a merchant, a businessman. Are his hands resting on a sack of grain, or wool?

Once the Shakespeare legend was developed, it was necessary for the city of Stratford to “restore” the monument to reflect the legend, and the Stratford tourist industry was launched.

The First Folio

Those who believe that the Stratford businessman was the author of all the plays in the First Folio are called “Stratfordians,” and those of us who doubt his authorship naturally call ourselves “Anti-Stratfordians.” I like another term for the believers, “bardolators,” for the reason that I do not believe that one man wrote all the plays. (Making the case for multiple authorship involves stylistic analysis too complex for this essay.)

In the 19th century an American woman, Delia Bacon, opened the authorship question, arguing for the theory of multiple authorship. She was called “mad,” but she got the authorship question notoriety and was in part responsible for Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Henry and William James to doubt the orthodox attribution.

Whitman wrote that either “one of the ‘wolfish earls'” or some “descendent and knower” of the feudal barons had written the works. And Twain wrote, “So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.”

The known facts of Shakspere’s life are so few that they fill less than two sheets, so his “biographies” are essentially histories of Elizabethan and Jacobean times filled with, “Shakespeare must have known . . .” or “Surely Shakespeare saw . . .” In other words, the “biographies” are heavily salted with conjectures. Twain noted of Shakspere that, “He is a Brontosaur: nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris.”

For those who are unaware that the authorship of the plays was ever in question, look at a few more points:

Of the six times that Shakspere’s name is affixed to legal documents, only two of the signatures are spelled alike.

Shakspere’s parents were illiterate and his two daughters were illiterate, although one could at least sign her name (or someone perhaps signed it for her). Parents and daughter made their marks. As Sir Derek Jacobi said, we’re to believe that the family line is “illiterate, illiterate, great writer, illiterate, illiterate.”

John Ward was vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon from 1662 until his death in 1681. Shakspere’s older daughter, Judith, was alive in the first year of Ward’s appointment and Ward’s brother, in a letter, urged Ward to see her. In his diary Ward notes what locals have told him of William Shakspere. From the diary it is clear that Ward believes that Shakspere wrote plays, for he questions, “Whether Dr. Heylin does well, in reckoning up the dramatick poets which have been famous in England, to omit Shakespeare.”

But what he was told of Shakspere suggests that while Ward believed the Stratford man to be a poet, the neighbors did not. “I have heard that Mr. Shakspeare was a natural wit, without any art at all; hee frequented the plays all his younger time, but in his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two plays every year, and for itt had an allowance so large, that hee spent att the rate of 1,000 l a-year, as I have heard . . .” He was “without art,” meaning “schooling,” and was given an allowance for delivering (not writing) two plays a year. In other words, he was a front or middleman for the author(s).


The Original Effigy

Playwrights wrote for multiple theaters. Phillip Henslowe, an owner of several Elizabethan playhouses, kept minute records of his payments to playwrights. He had no share in the Globe, and no record book for the Globe exists, so far as we know. Thus we will never know if payments were ever made to William Shakspere for Globe performances. But Henslowe’s account book lists performances of Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, Henry VI: Part 1, and Henry V but, unlike other plays that listed authors’ names, no writer is credited for these five plays. For those of us who think it most likely that Shakspere was a front man for other authors, one of whom may have been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, this omission is a telling fact.

The books and articles that have appeared on the authorship question now amount to a sub-minor industry; many are quite imaginative. Recent entries include Robin William’s Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman Write Shakespeare? (which proposes that Mary Sidney and her literary circle were the authors) and The Truth Will Out, written by Brenda James and William Rubinstein, which claims Sir Henry Neville wielded the pen.

But the award for most imaginative detection on the question goes to Dr. Douglas M. Baker and his book, The True Authorship. The doctor’s book blurb reads in part: “Dr. Baker, an authority on the paranormal for forty years, has used methods of occult research and investigation to unlock the mysteries surrounding the authorship of the so-called Shakespearean Plays and The Sonnets.” Dr. Baker, the blurb continues, “has done extensive scientific research into those hinterlands of the mind which one might call psi-semantics.”

Declaration of Reasonable Doubt

The web hosts numerous sites that question Shakspere’s authorship and offer a variety of possible candidates. The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition does not emphatically assert that William Shakspere was not the author of the First Folio, but has issued a declaration of reasonable doubt. The declaration states, “We make no claim, in signing this declaration, to know exactly what happened, who wrote the works, nor even that Mr. Shakspere definitely did not . . .  [Why] is it even necessary to say that there is room for doubt? There clearly is doubt, as a matter of empirical fact — reasonable doubt, expressed by very credible people. Reasonable people may differ about whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Mr. Shakspere, but it is simply not credible for anyone to claim, in 2007, that there is no room for doubt about the author.”

Those who agree may sign the declaration and to date 3,588 persons, including myself, have joined a list that includes the eminent actors Sir Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance, and Michael York.

Doubt About Will, as the coalition calls its website, not only assembles previously known items that point against Shakspere as author, but offers one I had not heard before. On its homepage the coalition has posted a video, “The Impossible Doublet,” which examines the doublet worn by the figure engraved on the cover of the First Folio. Purportedly a portrait of William Shakespeare, the sitter’s doublet is an impossibility, a fact I never noticed until watching the video. Impossible Doublet shows that the left front of the doublet is in fact the right back, and points to the engraving’s other absurdities.


The Restored Effigy

“By clothing the figure in the ridiculous and nonsensical garment,” the video’s narrator tells us, “the publishers [of the First Folio] were most likely indicating that the person ostensibly depicted, Shakspere of Stratford, was not the true author of the plays that followed.”

The site contains a list of past doubters in addition to those I have already mentioned, names that include Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin, John Galsworthy, Mortimer J. Adler, Sir John Gielgud, and others.

One of the website’s pleasing offerings is a video discussion between Rylance and Jacobi on the authorship question. Both agree that Shakspere did not write the plays, but Jacobi thinks several authors contributed to the canon, while Rylance thinks it the work of a single mind.

In 2013 the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition challenged the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to a mock trial over the Trust’s claim that Shakspere’s authorship was “beyond doubt.” The coalition even offered the trust a £40,000 donation if it could substantiate its claim but the trust has not taken up the challenge. And why should it? It couldn’t not possibly win, and as the owner and manager of five Stratford properties, including Shakspere’s presumed birthplace and Anne Hathaway’s cottage, the trust stands to lose a great deal of global tourism.

I fully agree with the other signers of the declaration that “…that the identity of William Shakespeare should, henceforth, be regarded in academia as a legitimate issue for research and publication, and an appropriate topic for instruction and discussion in classrooms.”

 

Links:

Doubt About Will

Robert Wolf
Free River Press
American Mosaic Radio with Robert Wolf

 

Stein, Anderson and Hemingway: Part Two

Sherwood Anderson had published Winesburg, Ohio by the time he introduced himself to Gertrude Stein in Paris in 1921. Stein, who had published only small editions of two works, Three Lives and Tender Buttons, was known primarily to other writers.

Anderson’s praise of Stein’s work endeared him to her, especially because Anderson was a major figure in American prose and Stein was struggling to make her work known. She was, at that time, writing her more than 900-page tome, The Making of Americans and collecting smaller pieces into what became Geography and Plays, published in 1922. Stein’s editor suggested that she ask Anderson to write an introduction to that book, which he did.

In return, Stein wrote a tribute to him in 1922, “Idem the Same: A Valentine to Sherwood Anderson.” You can hear Stein read it at: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/243164.

The year before, 1921, young Ernest Hemingway and his wife Hadley Richardson, visited Stein and Toklas. Anderson had provided Hemingway with an introduction, not only to Stein but to Ezra Pound and others in the émigré community.

Hemingway came to Paris with experience as a journalist, which gave him the basis for his craft. As a young reporter for The Kansas City Star, he knew its style-sheet, which began: “Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English. Be positive, not negative.” Hemingway said that, “Those were the best rules I ever learned for the business of writing. I’ve never forgotten them.”

Ezra Pound became one of his mentors. In a letter to Lewis Galantiere, Hemingway wrote that Pound is “teaching me to write, and I’m teaching him to box.” What Pound undoubtedly taught him were the principles of a style of writing he called Imagism—a lean, spare style that dispenses with adjectives and adverbs and any other word not absolutely necessary to a direct presentation of the subject.

At the same time, Hemingway was getting advice from Stein, who was not fond of Pound. (He had broken one of her chairs by sitting on it.) In Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story, Carlos Baker described a conversation in which Stein, shortly after first meeting Hemingway, offered him criticism of one of his works-in-progress. According to Baker, “. . . she did not care for the novel. ‘There is a great deal of description in this,’ she said, ‘and not particularly good description. Begin over again and concentrate.’ Ernest picked up his ears.”

Later, in Spain, Hemingway wrote Stein and Toklas “. . . I’m trying to do the country like Cé́zanne and having a hell of a time and sometimes getting it a little bit . . . but isn’t writing a hard job though? It used to be easy before I met you. I certainly was bad, gosh, I’m awfully bad now but it’s a different kind of bad.”

Years later, in A Moveable Feast , Hemingway wrote that Stein “had . . . discovered many truths about rhythms and the uses of words in repetition that were valid and valuable . . . . But she disliked the drudgery of revision and the obligation to make her writing intelligible . . .”
Of The Making of Americans, Hemingway wrote, “This book began magnificently, went on very well for a long way with great stretches of great brilliance, and then went on endlessly in repetitions that a more conscientious and less lazy writer would have put in the waste basket.” Stein began The Making of Americans in 1902 or 1903 (opinions differ), and completed it in 1911. Whether or not it ranks in quality alongside Joyce’s Ulysses and Marcel Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past, it is, like them, a significant modernist experiment. Hemingway proofread the manuscript and arranged for its publication in the transatlantic review in 1924.

The Making of Americans is not an obscure work. Consider its third and fourth paragraphs: “It has always seemed to me a rare privilege, this, of being an American, a real American, one whose tradition it has taken scarcely sixty years to create. We need only realize our parents, remember our grandparents and know ourselves and our history is complete.” “The old people in the new world, the new people made out of the old, that is the story that I mean to tell, for that is what really is and what I really know.”

Stein was a writer of many styles, and the language of The Making of Americans has no similarity to her experiments in pure sound, such as “Idem the Same.” As noted in part one, Stein’s earliest sound experiment, Tender Buttons, inspired Anderson to begin his own, unpublished experiments. His explorations, together with the prose of Three Lives, opened something within Anderson that found fit expression for his sensibility.

Each of the seminal works of the three writers—Three Lives, Tender Buttons, Winesburg, Oho, and In Our Time—has its distinctive rhythm and style. What the books have in common is their authors’ deliberate choice to work with a limited vocabulary. With their simple words, critic Edmund Wilson wrote, the three writers could convey “profound emotions and complex states of mind.”

Hemingway biographer Carlos Baker wrote that in1925, when Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald and Christian Gauss discussed their respective influences, “Hemingway named Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg, Ohio as his first pattern.”

Baker also reported that in 1935 Hemingway listed sixteen books that he would rather read for the first time than receive one million dollars annually. Of the sixteen, only two books were American—Winesburg, Ohio and Huckleberry Finn.

When In Our Time was published, the first edition came with a blurb from Anderson on the dust jacket. Hemingway bristled. He did not want the association. At least two reviewers found similarities between the writing of the two men. Hemingway’s story, “My Old Man,” one wrote, was clearly influenced by Anderson’s racetrack stories. “By this time,” Baker wrote, “Ernest was sick of being compared to Anderson.”

An interesting distinction between the two writers lies in Hemingway’s treatment of a theme Anderson handled in Winesburg—that of a woman who gives herself to a man. “Up in Michigan” is a very early story and written from a woman’s point of view, something Hemingway never again attempted.

The man takes the woman for a walk. They sit and he touches her under her dress; she tells him to stop. “She was frightened but she wanted it. She had to have it but it frightened her.” He does not stop and he hurts her. Afterwards, he falls asleep and she works out from under him and kisses him on the cheek. When he does not respond, she cries. “She was cold and miserable and everything felt gone.” Then: “Liz took off her coat and leaned over and covered him with it. She tucked it around him neatly and carefully.”

Like all early Hemingway it is written in an almost clinical manner. We don’t care about Liz, because she is not fully alive. This is partly due to Hemingway’s youth, and partly a result of his artistic vision, which at the time focused on the essential exterior of things. But most of all it is because Hemingway has no sympathy for the woman.

For whom did Hemingway have sympathy? In The Pound Era, Hugh Kenner quotes Pound as saying, “ . . . Hem . . .never knew one human being from another . . . and never much cared.” Anderson, on the contrary, had a deep interest in people, in what they thought and felt. One of the early stories in Winesburg contains an episode that I believe formed the germ of “Up in Michigan.”

In “Mother,” a young woman seeks out the company of traveling salesmen and goes for walks with them. “She did not blame the men who walked with her and later she did not blame Tom Willard. It was always the same, beginning with kisses and ending, after strange wild emotions, with peace and then sobbing repentance. When she sobbed she put her hand upon the face of the man and had always the same thought. Even though he were large and bearded she thought he had become suddenly a little boy. She wondered why he did not sob also.”

Wanting to distance himself from Anderson, Hemingway wrote The Torrents of Spring, a parody of Anderson’s style and vision. Anderson, mind you, had gotten Hemingway a contract for In Our Time with his publisher, Boni and Liverwright. To break his contract, which included future works, and to further distance himself from Anderson, Hemingway offered the firm The Torrents of Spring. The firm naturally declined the book and the contract was severed.

Stein responded by breaking with Hemingway. In The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, Stein wrote: “Gertrude Stein and Sherwood Anderson are very funny on the subject of Hemingway. The last time that Sherwood was in Paris they often talked about him. Hemingway had been formed by the two of them and they were both a little proud and a little ashamed of the work of their minds.”

But with characteristic charity, Anderson never replied to Hemingway in kind. After his death in 1941, Anderson’s friends and fellow writers contributed essays to Homage to Sherwood Anderson. Stein contributed a piece in which she wrote, “Yes undoubtedly, Sherwood Anderson had a sweetness, and sweetness is rare. Once or twice somebody is sweet, but everything in Sherwood was made of sweetness.”

Theodore Dreiser wrote, “And so sometimes the things he wrote . . . had the value of a poetic prayer for the happiness and the well being of everything and everybody . . .”

New York music critic Paul Rosenfeld wrote, “… through the Chicagoan’s personality and his work a beautiful, extraordinarily humanizing force was active in American life.”

Anderson’s empathy and understanding of what lay beneath the surface in others (qualities he said he developed in the army) allowed him insight into people. Hemingway acknowledged this empathy in A Moveable Feast when he wrote, “ . . . I liked some of his short stories very much. They were simply written and sometimes beautifully written and he knew the people he was writing about and cared deeply for them.”

In a letter Thomas Wolfe wrote to Anderson in 1937 he commented, “I think you are one of the most important writers of this century, that you ploughed another deep furrow in the American earth, revealed to us another beauty that we knew was there but that no one else had spoken. I think of you with Whitman and with Twain—that is, with men who have seen America with a poet’s vision and with a poetic vision of life, which to my mind is the only way ultimately it can be seen.”

***

Of the three writers, Stein is the fountainhead. Through the influence her earliest published writings had on Anderson and Hemingway, Stein indirectly influenced countless other writers. Today Stein is lionized by contemporary poets for her nonsensical writings, which are called “hermetic” by those who want to enshrine her reputation as a master. But “hermetic” is a misnomer: “hermetic” indicates that which has inner meaning, and much of Stein’s work has none. Her experiments with sound and her unexpected juxtapositions of words, however, have made her a writer’s writer.

Stein and Anderson preserved their friendship through letters and rare visits until Anderson’s death in 1941. By that time, Anderson’s literary reputation had faded, as Hemingway’s continued to rise. The irony is that Anderson is the much more sincere and honest writer. After Hemingway’s first brilliant short story collection, his work slowly fossilized. Hemingway’s characters do not speak as real people; they talk like Hemingway characters. The writer who was so consumed with “getting things right,” including atmosphere, sights, sounds and smells, did not create living characters.

To repeat what his friend Pound said, “ . . . Hem . . .never knew one human being from another . . . and never much cared.”

From an early age Hemingway carried deep wounds within him— his father’s suicide and his own war injuries, which, added to his alcoholism, surely account for his frequent spiteful behavior and nihilism. The nihilism reached unfettered expression in an essay cum story, “A Natural History of the Dead,” published in his 1933 story collection, Winner Take Nothing. Reading Hemingway from the perspective of his nihilism and self-disgust, his suicide makes sense.

Anderson, by contrast, was, as Paul Rosenfeld wrote, a powerful humanizing force in America. Anderson is now known to the reading public exclusively for Winesburg, Ohio, but two of his other books, his novel Poor White and his memoir, A Storyteller’s Story, need to be read. Like Leaves of Grass and Huckleberry Finn, they are quintessential American works. His style is rooted in American speech and his overarching concern is with the American landscape.

His works are meditations on the transformation of the American character under the influence of the machine. He is not, as J.B. Priestley claimed, longing for a pre-industrial idyllic existence. Anderson had seen too much and lived too much to fall for that.

He, perhaps, was the first our of writers to make loneliness and the individual’s inability to connect with others a major theme in American literature, one that later became central with Thomas Wolfe. One wonders what course American culture might have taken had more writers had Anderson’s concerns and sensibility.

 

Stein, Anderson, and Hemingway: Part 1

Mention Gertrude Stein’s name to most people and they will reply with words like “obscure” and “silly.” Yet what people who make these associations do not know is that Gertrude Stein is the root of modernist American prose and her book Three Lives shaped many future styles. The sentences of Three Lives are unlike later sentences that Stein wrote. They have a seeming clumsiness, which is forceful. Their power influenced the works of Sherwood Anderson and Ernest Hemingway.

Stein’s Three Lives came first, then Anderson’s Winesburg, Ohio, then Hemingway’s In Our Time. Together these works form a triumvirate of early modernist American prose, almost a school of writing. While Stein’s work remained obscure for many years, her influence was carried by the writings of Anderson and Hemingway.

To put things in order, let’s begin with dates. Stein was born in 1874, Anderson in 1876, and Hemingway in 1899. Stein was a major influence on Anderson, and Anderson and Stein together influenced Hemingway. Hemingway had another great influence, the poet Ezra Pound. I’ll mention him later.

Stein had written two short conventional novels before she wrote Three Lives in 1909, when she was thirty-five.

Anderson published two novels in 1916 and 1917 before he published his finest work, Winesburg, Ohio in 1919. Hemingway’s In Our Time appeared in 1925.

Anderson was in his mid-thirties by the time he began writing and moved to Chicago, where he became friends with members of the Chicago Literary Renaissance. It was probably in Chicago where Anderson read Stein’s first two published works, Three Lives and Tender Buttons, and read them both while writing Winesburg, Ohio.

In 1921 Anderson, by then a famous writer, visited France briefly. At Sylvia Beach’s bookshop, Shakespeare & Co, Anderson told Beach his enthusiasm for Gertrude Stein and Beach wrote him an introduction. The relatively unknown Stein and Anderson became friends for life.

That same year, Anderson met twenty-three-year-old Ernest Hemingway at a party in Oak Park. Hemingway and his new bride were intending to live in Rome, but Anderson advised the aspiring writer to head for Paris and wrote him an introduction to Stein.

Stein had written Three Lives in Paris while living with her brother Leo at 27 Rue de Fleurus, famous for the salons Stein and Leo and later Stein and Alice Toklas held there.
In A Moveable Feast, Stein’s one-time star pupil, Hemingway, recorded that when they first met “she had published three stories [Three Lives] that were intelligible to anyone. One of these stories, “Melanctha,” was very good . . .”

Stein claimed that “Melanctha” was “the first definite step away from the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century in literature.” Most likely she made that claim because she knew the language of “Melanctha” and the other two stories made the great departure.

One aspect of that departure came from the restricted vocabulary Stein used to write Three Lives. From Stein, Anderson and Hemingway learned to use simple, Anglo-Saxon words. Hemingway later said, “The old, simple words are the best” and Sherwood Anderson said, “My own vocabulary was small. I had no Latin and no Greek, no French. When I wanted to arrive at anything like delicate shades of meaning in my writing I had to do it with my own very limited vocabulary.”

A part of the impetus for Stein’s break with traditional structure came from what non-artists would consider an unlikely source. Gertrude and Leo Stein were early collectors of modern European art, and their collection included works by Matisse, Picasso, Braque, Gris, Gauguin and Cézanne. Among their purchases was Cézanne’s portrait of his wife. In The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (which is actually a memoir), Stein wrote: “It was an important purchase because in looking and looking at this picture Gertrude Stein wrote Three Lives. She had begun not long before as an exercise in literature to translate Flaubert’s Trois Contes and then she had this Cézanne and she looked at it and under its stimulus she wrote Three Lives.”

Stein claimed that before Flaubert and Cézanne writers and painters had one central idea or theme and all other parts of their work were subordinated to it. This changed when “Cézanne conceived the idea that in composition one thing was as important as another thing. Each part is as important as the whole, and it impressed me enormously.” Stein tried to convey this in her writing.

There is much to be said for this claim. The recurrence of words and phrases and ideas in each of the three stories—one of the hallmarks of Stein’s style—renders to the whole a certain flatness. In the same way, Cézanne’s compositions, built of patches of color (each of nearly equal importance) gives to his works an overall effect of two-dimensionality.

In “The Good Anna,” the first of the stories in Three Lives, the servant Anna is a frugal woman, and we are reminded of that throughout the story’s 65 pages. “Save and you will always have the money you have saved, was all she could know.” Mrs. Lehtmann, Anna’s friend, “was diffuse and careless in her ways. . .” and Stein reminds us of that too.

Repetition can come in subtle ways, through synonyms and images. Stein taught Hemingway the value of repetition and a reading of the stories of In Our Time, particularly “The Big, Two-Hearted River,” shows him using repetition in very subtle ways. As in the poetry of archaic peoples, repetition adds force and depth to lines and sentences.

Stein had grown up in a family that employed German immigrant servants and knew how they spoke. She used German constructions in “Lena,” the final story in Three Lives. By accustoming us to German constructions, she twists them further. It is this “twisting,” or using words in new combinations—”Herman was getting really strong to struggle” and “with that always scolding”—that gives added strength to the writing in Three Lives.

I have not read how Stein developed this penchant for unusual constructions, but I think she gives us the key in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. There she informs us that her favorite writers were the Elizabethans, in particular the pamphleteer and playwright Robert Greene. English in Elizabeth’s time was without set syntax. All of English was in upheaval: not even names were spelled consistently. Out of this cauldron modern English was born.

I think Gertrude Stein saw that the English of her time was growing moribund, set in its ways, and therefore losing vitality. I think that her transfer of Elizabethan constructions and rhetorical devices was a conscious attempt to revitalize the language. It was not an experiment that either Anderson or Hemingway picked up.

Three Lives prodded me into thinking about words in combination, about new uses of words, and of unusual ways to express thoughts that we often smother in phrases worn smooth into near meaninglessness. Her work had the same effect on Sherwood Anderson.

Tender Buttons was Stein’s first experimental work of the kind that stamped her reputation as a writer of gibberish. There is much of Stein’s work that I find incomprehensible and pretentious, but Tender Buttons is not one. The work has no meaning but for writers it has significance. It is divided into three sections, “Objects,” “Food,” and “Rooms,” and each consists of a collection of “descriptions.”

Consider, for example, a paragraph titled, “A Drawing.” “The meaning of this is entirely and best to say the mark, best to say it best to show sudden places, best to make bitter, best to make the length tall and nothing broader, anything between the half.”

When Anderson read Tender Buttons he was led to create his own arbitrary word combinations to see the effects of their interactions. In A Story Teller’s Story, Anderson wrote: “How significant words had become to me! How it [Tender Buttons] had excited me! Here was something purely experimental and dealing with words separated from sense—in the ordinary meaning of the word sense—an approach I was sure poets were often compelled to make. Was it an approach that would help me? I decided to try it.”

Anderson wrote hundreds of pages of word exercises in the manner of Tender Buttons, and threw them away. During the time he was making these experiments, Anderson visited the studio of a friend, the painter Felix Russman. Russman took Anderson into his studio to show him his paints. “He laid them out on a table before me . . . I shifted the little pans of color about, laid one color against another. . . Suddenly there flashed into my consciousness, for perhaps the first time in my life, the secret inner world of the painters . . . the words used by the tale-teller were as the colors used by the painter.”

Read Part Two: https://www.robertwolfthewriter.com/2017/06/12/stein-anderson-and-hemingway-part-two/