-
The Ghosts of Movies Past–The Uninvited
I originally thought of this title for a series about old films some time ago and I guess the title came to me by way of memories of “A Christmas Carol.” But I waited long enough to begin, that it now fits the season of Halloween. By “ghosts” here, I mean mostly the former, the lingering effect of films, both in the minds of individuals and in the rather ephemeral but I think important national subconscious-at least the subconscious of movie fans. So I begin with two kinds of ghosts to talk about, the effect of a movie and the subject of the movie itself.
“The Uninvited(1944), is, technically, an American film but it sure seems like a British one. Set in Cornwall in the spring-summer of 1937, it concerns a brother and sister(Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey)who, while on vacation, discover a large, long deserted house and become determined to buy it. He is a London music critic and composer and she is, apparently, independently well to do. They pool their resources and succeed in getting the house, purchasing it from the owner, a crusty old carryover from Victorianism(Donald Crisp), and also come into contact with his overprotected and somewhat intimidated granddaughter, Stella(Gail Russell).
The film, like most at the time, and fortunately, I think, in this case, is in black and white. It begins with a wide-vision shot of the sea and the audience gets to see white caps as the waters come ashore on the rocks. They also get to hear the sound of this. Meanwhile, they hear Milland doing a voice-over regarding the coasts of lands that border this part of the sea and their propensity for providing a background for ghostly events. This all sets the scene nicely and puts the viewer in an agreeable tingly mood.
I will not go into the film in great detail here, but you need to know a little of what happens. The granddaughter, much against her Grandfather’s wishes, makes friends, barely, with the two Londoners. She and Milland seem to have a quick, closeness between them, and the stage seems set for romance, particularly when Milland writes her a song. But instead there is uncertainty and fear(“Stella By Starlight” became a jazz/Great American Songbook hit–you still might hear Miles Davis’s and other versions of it on Sirius “Real Jazz”)
On the first night brother and sister are together in their new home, Milland hears the sound of a woman sobbing. His sister explains that during the weeks he was cleaning up details in London and she was civilizing the house, she heard this several times, and no, it’s not Lizzie, the housekeeper, whose cat behaved oddly and refused to go upstairs. “It comes from everywhere and nowhere,” she says. Yes, indeed.
Without going into revealing details, I will merely say that this is the beginning of a tense and compelling ghost story that does not terrify you with nut cases running around with chainsaws, but may make your hair re-arrange itself a couple of times and send through you a couple of chills, so you feel as if you had just come inside on a cold winter day. Questions are asked and not, immediately, anyway, answered. The history of the house is studied and eventually, after quite a bit of tension and suspense, there are a number of ghostly manifestations(along with some explanations, too).
If you check this out on-line you will find many people praising it. But some regard it as weak stuff, nothing like today’s “shock” films with noise, blood and violence. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. This movie is not about physical violence. It is about subtle, spiritual and psychological haunting and the different but still chilling fear it can bring. It is way more sophisticated than the gross chop ’em to bits type. It is by far my favorite supernatural film–“The Haunting” from the 1960’s would be second, but for all its qualities it is not equal to this.
Part of the reason for this film’s excellence is found in the efforts of the director, Lewis Miller. Every scene seems to fit, to be an integral part of the story. The appearance and atmosphere of the house are allowed to play a significant role, but one you see or sense in the background, just part of the scenery of chills. When the manifestations do appear, they are not clear–they are foggy and indistinct, like something from a dream or a surrealist artist, as if telling us that this is not just a matter of other people, it’s other people from outside our reality, but real and perhaps threatening all the same.
Given the movie’s age you might expect to creak a little bit–and it does, but only slightly. Some of the romance is a bit contrived and the attempts at humor are clearly several decades behind the curve. But these count little, they are a small part of the overall story, maybe 5% or less of the movie. And there is the brief presence of the elegant and unusual Cornelia Otis Skinner who in a very busy life acted a little bit and maybe should have more. Her teacher/counsellor is a combination of authoritarianism and doubtful sanity that you won’t forget.
This is not a movie for people who want to be “shocked” by violence and mayhem and screaming. It is about the mystery and spookiness of encountering the supernatural and trying to figure it out, and being both afraid on one hand and anxious to learn on the other. It’s a film for people who like mystery in the most serious and meaningful sense of the term, the kind that sneaks up on you after midnight, and spooks your mind and soul rather than threatening your body. In an era where so many movies have the grossest violence with almost no subtlety at all, it is a reminder of civilized behavior and presumes it can exist among both those of flesh and blood and the wandering spirits. Try it, you might really like it.
(Other than the common title, this film has nothing to do with the one made in the late 2000’s, maybe 2009 or thereabouts. I watched about 20 or 25 minutes of it once which was enough to determine that 1) The stories are not connected and 2) I was wasting my time)
-
The Ghosts of Movies Past–Manhattan Melodrama
I first saw “Manhattan Melodrama” years ago, how many years I’m uncertain, but it’s been a long time. I remembered it as a good film. I was right about that, to the extent that I was right about the movie but it is more than just good. It strives for being a great film and nearly succeeds. Made in 1934, it got in just before the Hays Code cracked down. That might have had some effect–likely not a good one on this movie–but it’s not really a big deal. The code’s “No crime goes unpunished” rule is observed here even without the code.
The cast is interesting–I have always loved William Powell, an ideal of urbane sophistication, not only in the “Thin Man” series but in nearly everything he did. Myrna Loy, who played his wife in that series, was always one of my favorites too. And you couldn’t be a fan of old American movies without admiring Clark Gable. But Loy and Powell at least, I usually associated with lighter though not necessarily simple roles. Here they each get their opportunity to do what they could do with real drama. And Gable too, in fact matches their performances.
The story starts out with a true story. In 1904 the “General Slocum.” a steamboat, sank in the east River, NY. Two boys, Blackie Gallagher and Jim Wade are saved by a Roman Catholic Priest. Though offered more or less equal oportunites, the boys go their separate ways and when we meet them 30 years later, Blackie(Clark Gable) is a genial but when necessary ruthless gangster, who is still good company and likeable to his friends. Jim(William Powell)is a rising lawyer and would be politician.
Blackie has a lovely and witty girl friend in Eleanor(Myrna Loy) but she is not always in sympathy with his lifestyle. As time passes Jim is elected District Attorney and Blackie and Eleanor break up over his refusal to get married or to change his ways. You will not be surprised. I’m sure, to find that Eleanor and Jim fall in love and are married. But in the meantime, Blackie has committed murder in killing a welcher who owed him money and wouldn’t and/or couldn’t pay. Blackie knows that Jim is suspicious of him in the murder but there is no evidence so the case is allowed to drop.
>Shortly after this Jim runs for governor and a corrupt ex-employee threatens to go public with a lie that Jim intentionally let his friend off in the murder case. When Blackie learns of this he kills the ex-employee. This time there is an eye witness and Jim has no choice but to prosuecute. Blackie ends up with a death sentence.
Shortly after this Jim is elected governor, and here the movie, already fraught with romance, murder and violations of public morality, turns desperately personal and gripping. Jim feels that as a governor elected on a promise of reform and no favors, he cannot grant a commutation of the sentence to Blackie. And it is here that each of the three stars get to show us the real sleves of their characters and their real talents as actors.
Gable is a charming and heroic criminal, convicted of murder but still in good spirits, still considers the governor his friend and and expects no favors. He is willing to die to allow his old friend to continue his work as a public servant. He also does not to care to spend the rest of his life locked in prison. Gable expresses all this with a winning attitude that leaves you admiring him despite what he’s done and for what he’s trying to do. He is one of the most charming and likeable characters you’ll ever find on his way to execution in an old movie.(I don’t know if they ever come that way in real life, but it’s a great and magnificent performance.)
Powell, whom we usually think of as the heavy drinking. wise cracking, jovial and loveable rascal in the Thin Man series and other films, is quite different here too. He is a man obsessed with the idea that he cannot set aside the death sentence, obsessed with guilt that in obeying his oath he will be bringing about the death of his old friend. Caught in this cruel dilemma, he twists and turns mentally, trying, trying to find a way out or a way of making himself feel less painfully guilty. But there is no way out. He is stuck and he knows it. He will do his duty, he thinks, but he will also murder something within himself as he does it.
Eleanor as portrayed by Loy, comes to mind as Loy’s dominant persona in our memory, the beautiful, sophisticated, and usually carefree rich girl(again, the Thin Man series but other movies too)who takes on life with zest and spreads some of the zest around to her friends too. But this is another Loy, a deep, serious, and grieving woman. She is torn by the fact that her one time lover is to be executed and that her husband could but won’t save him, his old friend. Her heart is breaking and her marriage is at risk. Her whole persona(like her whole life) is collapsing Like her husband, she has no place to turn and is pulled down in despair by the whole situation, a woman trapped and cringing inside, trying to go on outwardly, but dreading the way her life has become.
Each of these three, supported by a very good cast, incidentally, make this not only suspenseful but heart rending as you hope for a different outcome than what you think is coming. You share the characters’ desire for a way out, something that will satisfy morality and honor on both sides, something that will allow Blackie to live and Jim to succeed.
This film, so far as I know, shows up on TV seldom, but it does from time to time. So I hope you get a chance to see it and therefore, I will not reveal exactly what happens. Please see it if possible–this is 1930’s era Amercan movie-making at its best, taut, tight, gripping–and merciless in its depiction of the situation to which the human condition can lead.
I will, however, give you some interesting pieces of information I ran across on Wikipedia–
This was the movie showing at the Biograph theatre in Chicago which John Dillinger and the lady in the red dress saw on the evening of July 22, 1934. Dillinger was killed as they left the theatre by a volley of fire from FBI agents who apparently were neither movie critics nor Trumpish civil servants
Myrna Loy was one of several people who expressed disgust that the studio used the above fact to promote the film
Scenes from this movie are included in the 2009 film, “Public Enemies” in which Johnny Depp played Dillinger.
George Cukor was an uncredited and likely part time behind the scenes director. In a career that would last into the 1980’s he would develop a reputation as one of the greatest of Hollywood directors in directing women
The “real” director(and likely he really did dominate the making of the film)was W S Van Dyke. He seems to have begun his carrer working for D W Griffith on “The Birth of a Nation.” He became know as “one-take-Woodie” because he usually would do only one take and settle for what he got in it. I imagine this made him popular with actors, who I would guess dislike many re-takes, and studio owners who like films that don’t go over-budget
There is a scene in the Cotton Club, a Harlem night club that catered to white customers and a few influential blacks in the 1920’s-’30’s. The performers were dominantly if not exclusively black. In this scene a female singer does a nice version of a jazz ballad, “The Bad In Every Man.” I commented to my wife that the melody sounded a whole lot like “Blue Moon.” It turns out that the singer was a white lady, Shirley Ross, in blackface, something I would never have guessed. The song was written by Lorenz Hart(first writing partner of Richard Rodgers-Hammerstein came later), who after the film was released re-wrote the lyrics–as “Blue Moon.”
The film received one academy award nomination, for best original story, which it won. It received no others which is ridiculous.–check out the 1934 Oscars on-line for more.
-
He’s leading us–but where?
My immediate response to the new administration was to be critical and I was in the one blog I’ve done on the subject so far. But I thought it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer before going forward with such blogs. After all people do change(but seldom), and I am always against people. others anyway, jumping to conclusions. So I waited to see what Trump would present to us in his first couple of weeks. Now we part of the answer–too much.
The great thing about Donald Trump as a subject for a blogger, or any kind of analyst, is that he’s really the gift that keeps on giving. He does and says so much that you’ve just about always got a topic. Right now he’s provided us with several. Unfortunately I find it difficult to celebrate this fact. Nearly everything he does is either neutral in my opinion or worse than neutral, frequently a good bit worse.
There is so much out there right now that I am going to limit myself to (mostly, at least)his bizarre statement yesterday about Gaza and his overall attempt to destroy most of the federal establishment and take over what’s left. I may put off some of the specifics.
The most jaw dropping thing he’s done so far–though it’s hard to tell from such a large number of choices–is to announce the US will take over Gaza. He also seems to think ALL of the people, Arab and mostly with Palestinian roots, will leave. He’s not clear about of lot of things, mainly about exactly what it means, how he thinks it could be done, and what will be the diplomatic/trade/security results.
Most likely I shouldn’t even approach this first issue, but I have that kind of mind and I wonder sometimes. In this case I wonder what Trump meant when he said the US will “own” Gaza. Likely he meant we will establish international ownership rights(however you could do that), leave no doubt we’re running the place and dictate everything that happens there. That would seem to most reasonable people to constitute “ownership.”
But there is another meaning to the word one occasionally hears. “If you break it you own it” is the sort of thing I have in mind. Every now and then this is heard in politics, usually in a statement like “his party started this and now they own it.” I doubt that Trump meant this, but you know what? If he pursues this outlandish plan, the US will “own” the situation in this sense–and be looking for a buyer or anyone to take it off its hands.
I did do a brief exploration,. on line, to see if I could find an international law position on “ownership.” Most of what I first found was about an individual or company owning property in other countries. Eventually I found this. “A country’s ‘ownership’ of another country or part of one … is typically established through an act of annexation, which means forcefully acquiring and asserting legal title over a territory through military occupation, effectively incorporating it into the owning country’s sovereign domain; this is generally considered illegal …unless widely recognized by other states and international bodies.” This comes from Wikipedia and is designated “AI overview,” whatever that means.
(For an interesting–I hope— reflection on annexation see my blog of 03/24/23).
OK. this is likely what Trump meant(to the extent he knew more or less what he meant)and it is, more importantly, what most ordinary readers and most world leaders, diplomats and so forth will take it to mean. So this would require annexation, with military force if necessary. It would be interesting to know what Gen Milley or any past or current member of the Joint Chiefs would think of this,
There was outrage, predictably and in this case I think understandably. Saudi Arabia who has been inching toward the US in recent years, was bitter in its denunciation. So were others. The residents of Gaza, as described by journalists on the scene, were also bitter and many of them indicated refusal to leave the only home they had ever know.
Even if more of them were willing to go, where would be their destination.? Trump mentioned Egypt and Jordan, which makes sense geographically, but not politically, not for military security or anything else good that I’m able to see.
Egypt and Jordan have both announced their unwillingness to cooperate. Without their cooperation, how would you get the Palestinians there, even if they were willing? Use military force to get them in? Get involved in another war situation where we would be stuck, not able to win or to get out without disaster? Can anyone say “quagmire?”On domestic affairs so much is happening that I will not even try to identify it all right now. Basically, it’s the “buy out” for federal employees, the firing (apparently without legal legitimacy)of a number of non-civil service employees(particularly at DOJ), and the incredible offer of pushing the “buy out” idea with the CIA.. And all this from the man who now dominates, seriously, the party which used to accuse the opposition(that would be the Democrats)of being “soft” on communism–or immigration, or whatever the immediate perceived threat, real or imnaginary happened to be. And now they want to reduce or practically end the CIA which is tasked with protecting our national security.
Although Trump, as the man at the top and clearly the person who ordered this approach,, is primarily responsible for all this and more, it would be well to remember Elon Musk. He is the apparently power-hungry gazillionaire who now is dominating the federal government through his clearly unauthorized and possibly illegal DOGE(Department of Government Efficiency–ironical title to the maximum)
This way lies madness, at home and also abroad. What if nearly everyone with the CIA and those in the domestic federal workforce said “yes” right now? Who would deal with a non-received Social Security payment.? A threatening message to a reporter or commentator? A report of military activity by China which might threaten us? In other words, who would protect many of us from poverty, personal threats and unforeseeable trouble, abroad or at home? The answer appears to be that no one knows.
This is enough for now. I need to find what has happened since I’ve been researching(a little bit) and typing(a lot) here at the library. Please consider what I’ve said and pay attention to the news. It nearly always seems we are in times of serous change but this time I think we really are, including a possible threat of a constitutional crisis. I hope to be back soon to comment further on this–or, perhaps on mysteries and music–some of each might be welcome.
-
Should We Pardon These Pardons?
I was disappointed when I heard on inauguration day that President Biden had issued a number of pardons just a few minutes before leaving office. This seemed to me to be bad timing and likely a bad idea.. When he pardoned Hunter I stated that I thought it was a mistake and that he shouldn’t have done it. But I also said that speaking from a human and humane point of view I understood his motivation–or words to that effect. I just thought that another bunch of pardons did not seem quite right and I disliked the idea of the political boost it might give to the new Administration.
I was right to an extent, but look what we have to compare it to. Trump pardoned somewhere between 1250(CNN) and 1500(Trump)people later in the day. A comparison of the two actions, both in numbers and legal factors, may be enlightening.
First, it was not immediately clear to me that Biden’s pardons came in two groups, one early in the day, the other within the last 20 minutes or thereabouts of Trump’s taking over. I thought they all came in the later group. Maybe the media were at fault here or maybe I just didn’t pay close enough attention, because that is not how it happened.
The first group of Biden pardons was a small one-actually both were small compared to what I had expected from some of the reporting. In the first group he protected Dr Anthony Fauci, Gen Mark Milley and the House of Representatives committee which investigated the Jan 6 issue. This included, of course Liz Cheney who was vice-chair of the committee and Mississippi Rep Benny Thompson who was the chair. Obviously, Liz did the greater part of the work, or at least did more to publicize the committee and the evens of Jan 6.
In addition to that he pardoned black leader Marcus Garvey, who died more than 80 years ago, as an historical correction of an old injustice. And he pardoned four other people, all found guilty of NON-VIOLENT crimes. To some people, most significantly he commuted the sentence of Native American activist Leonard Peletier, who was serving a life sentence for killing two FBI agents about a half a century ago. He is now 80 and in poor health in prison.
The most significant of these in current impact are of course Fauci and Milley. Dr Fauci was the voice of science and rationality during the covid crisis. He had been a doctor and a public servant for years, and already around 80 when this began, he played his largest role advising Americans about the covid and trying to help find a protection against it.
Dr Fauci also challenged Trump in ways that won him the (former)President’s hostility. Now I think first, to be fair, I should concede that Trump had one real victory with the covid. He began and pushed for the effort to develop a vaccine. This was Operation Warp Speed, a combined government-private company effort, and it produced a useful vaccine in less than year. Many lives were saved and many people prevented from illness by this. It worked much faster than most anticipated.
This was, however, about the end of the Administration’s successes. Trump will always be the guy who suggested shooting disinfectant into one’s body to fight the virus, an incredibly stupid idea opposed by Dr Fauci and many others. He also offered the opinon that covid would disappear with warmer weather. It didn’t.
Through all of this Dr Fauci was a rock, dispensing knowledge, explanations and encouragement to one and all. But his refusal to let political circumstances affect his science irritated Trump who turned hostile and made vague threats toward him.
Gen Milley, a distinguished commander, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He seemed traditionally non-political, for the most part, but did express an opinion now and then including some supporting Biden policies. He particularly drew attention during the campaign when he told an interviewer he thought Trump was a fascist–likely the highest ranking American to say it that openly. He also attracted threats from Trump–a sort of reverse retirement present about the time he left the service. After his retirement he was on the National Infrastructure Advisory Committee and he was removed by Trump from that position about as soon as Trump took office.
Trump also threatened Liz Cheney whom he accused of treason. In his book, I guess so–she disagreed with him. In any event, such a threat indicates a high degree of hostility and, as Trump has foolishly decided to prove early in his second Administration, he is determined to make good on many–perhaps most–of his threats.
This being the case I think that it is entirely reasonable that Biden issued early pardons to these three remarkable and patriotic people who have served the US and its citizens so long and so well. It would have been chancy and irresponsible not to have protected them, not only leaving them in danger, but risking further national division if serious measures were taken by the Trump Administration against any of them.
As for the last minute pardons, Biden was protecting his family. Protective pardons went to his brother, Francis, his brother James and wife Sara, and his sister Valerie and husband, John Owens. The timing on this was pretty bad and one wonders why he didn’t do it earlier. Still, given the nature of Trump’s personality and taste for revenge, it was not a foolish idea to take these people out of his reach. While I think this will have at least a temporary effect on Biden’s reputation, I don’t think it will be a big one.
Trump has issued around 1200 pardons, maybe as many as 1500(including commutations, which means your legal record is not completely cleared as it is with pardons, but that you get out of jail immediately). These have not, mostly anyway, gone to people whom most would find deserving. They have gone to, among others, thousands of the maniacal mob that stormed the Capitol Building on Jan 6. People(on both sides)died as a result. Many were injured. The US appeared to be teetering on the edge of political instability.
Many Republicans were forced to say they disagreed with Trump because the national outcry against the mob was so lound. Later on a lot of the leaders of the Party backed down on that and became Trump lap dogs again. The political atmosphere, already soured by the election, was made worse.
Now most of the people who were imprisoned for Jan 6–nearly all of them, I believe–are free. They will be free to make whatever trouble they like, at least for awhile, One of them has already stated he intends to buy guns. What do you suppose he thinks he might use them for?
Although I am all for human freedom, including freedom of speech, these people, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers or whoever, are not just ordinary citizens. They are dangerous criminals and a lot of them are willing to perform illegal acts again, possibly violent ones. How they act may even give second thoughts to Trump and his people. But by the time they decide to act(whatever that action might be)the boys may be back in the streets, or even worse, hiding in the woods, polishing their guns and their egos and waiting.
That this is the case is clearly Trump’s fault. I have nothing further to say on this, except that I hope you consider the two sets of pardons and make your choice.
-
Ambiguity, Passion, Excellence and Secrets
“The Martyred” by Richard Kim, published by George Braziller, 1964
“The Amen Corner” by James Baldwin, 1954
I am not sure why I chose to begin reading Richard Kim’s “The Martyred” a few weeks ago. I guess it was partly because my wife has a paperback of his later book, “The Innocent” which I see from time to time. I recalled trying it once and quitting, I think because I had read “The Martyred” and this seemed different in some ways, But I’ll have to find out I guess, I can’t say now about that.
It is ironic, maybe, that about the same time I stared reading this book, South Korea slipped into a series of tragedies and crises which we hope have now ended. We also hope this ambitious and noble people will recover their determination and their belief in individual freedom and get on with their society
This would be the best way I could think of both to irritate and successfully frustrate Kim Jong Un, whose latest accomplishment has been to send thousands of his troops to Russia where the Russians will use them as more or less cannon fodder against Ukraine In fact, Putin is already doing it.
I first read “Martyred” years ago, in my twenties or early thirties. I remembered it as a good, well written book about serious issues. But I suspected that I would pick up more on a second reading and I did. It is very nearly a great novel and Kim clearly was a great writer. I believe it attracted some attention from the literary/intellectual community in the 1960’s but it seems to have largely faded from view and is now reportedly out of print.(I’ll bet -a little, anyway–that it’d be worth trying a couple of rare book dealers if you’re interested).
Broadly speaking, there are two things to discuss here, the meaning or subject of the story and the style, because the style so affects the overall feeling you get from the book. I’ll try the style first.
This is a book which could be read–particularly if you’re a student of literature in college, or anyway a devoted reader–just for it’s style. Kim was influenced by Albert Camus among others and his style is reminiscent of what little I remember of Camus, who I read a bit many years back. Now I think I’ll take another look at him.
The style is what many would call “spare.” There are short, declarative sentences. Although there is a great deal of philosophical questioning and wondering, it never devolves into wordiness. Kim was interested in both telling a story and asking questions–perhaps also giving answers but that is another issue–see below. I sometimes like but also am often frustrated by Faulkner’s wandering and wordy approach. It does yield beautiful things sometimes, but not always. If you are sometimes without patience for this type of writing, you may rejoice at Kim. He is deep and searching in ideas, but his sentences get right to the point, more to the point than you may realize at times-the Hemingway of philosophical literature.
It is a cliche to say something like “Nothing is wasted” in reviewing such a work; I believe it applies here. Another effect it has and which I applaud is that it keeps the story moving, because there is a story being told here, not just a bunch of questions presented. And Kim was, in his way, a superb story teller.
The story revolves around Captain Lee, a young army intelligence officer and his friend Park, a officer in the South Korean Marines. Both of them were college history teachers when the Korean War broke out with North Korea’s invasion of South in 1950. Lee and Park were apparently both reservist officers because they are immediately assigned to duty in the war.
Kim moves quickly through the early part of the war. The initial north(Communist)advance is halted deep in South Korea(which almost fell)and after the US/UN invasion at Pusan the South Koreans and their allies counter-attacked. They took over the southern part of North Korea and held it for several months. And Capt Lee is ordered to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital now ruled by the South.
It is here that he encounters the issue that will dog him for months-puzzle him, challenge him, affect his relationships and cause him(and the reader)to delve deeply into their belief system about the world, its pain and the existence and character of God.
He is informed that there were 14 ministers who, before the UN rescued the city from the Communists, were captured by the North Koreans and executed for their refusal to cooperate with them. But there are doubts about the story and Capt Lee is assigned by Col Chang, his bitter and sarcastic superior, to find out exactly what happened.
If the 14 men really were heroes and there can be no doubt of it, then their story would make excellent propaganda to use for rallying the people. But if the truth is less than that, if any of them behaved dishonorably, then the authorities need to know and the truth will be suppressed or at least used sparingly. It is the Captain’s duty to figure this out.
This leads Capt Lee into a valley of doubt, despair, lies, hope and faith and leaves him questioning just about everything. He is not a particularly religious man as the story begins. He changes some, but not necessarily in the way you expect.
He learns early in his investigaion that actually only 12 of the ministers were shot by the North. Two of them surviveed. One of them is still in town.
So Lee goes to the home of Mr Shin, one of the surviving ministers and begins to question him. This is a long, and sometimes difficult trail for Mr Shin to recount or for Capt Lee to accept. Without going into detail, let me just say that not all of the ministers were heroes. Meanwhile, Mr Shin and the Capt become almost friends and the latter watches the older friend slip deeper and deeper into tuberculosis and possible death. And the Capt slips into more and more philosophical confusion.
The book does not have a satisfactory ending if you want everything tied up in a package of “answers.” It has few answers at all except, perhaps, that the lot of man is to search for some meaning to his life and to the world and that everyone should pursue this. But this is never explicit and I doubt Kim would have thought it likely everyone would make this choice.
Now here comes the mystery and the doubting. I read several reviews or comments on line from fans(and a couple of non-fans)of the book and I gained some valuable insights from them that have made my own hits and misses here better. But none of them pursued what I thought the most important question.
For the most part, the ministers and their congregations are portrayed in a way that will be at least partly familiar to most American Protestants, particularly those inclined towards what is usually defined as Evangelical They are Bible conscious and devoted to their faith. Their faith in God is unshakeable, even after the experience of war and oppression most of them have felt They are pious in their relationship with God in a way which which will repel many intellectuals, and unquestioning in a way that many(me included, at some times)will find naive.
You may believe the above mentioned qualities to be good or bad or a mixture. But one largely indisputable thing is that they are dedicated to their church and to each other and that their faith will hold them–most of them, at least–to the end. And some take comfort in that. And Capt Lee is attracted to it. He does not believe, apparently, but he is attracted by their spirit, if not their belief system
One of the reviews commented that passion is always there in this book, sometime suppressed(though I’m not sure he said that-the “suppressed” part),but there, and it is passions–the people’s passion for their faith, Capt Lee’s for his duty and for the truth included–that dominate the feeling of the book. I am not going to tell you exactly how it ends, but I will offer this. Capt Lee attends a church service and is moved. It is not clear how far he is moved in the direction of faith, but how far is left undefined. There is no easy answer here and I think that there shouldn’t be, so that’s OK. But the search of Capt Lee, which we follow from one interview and encounter to another, is never totally finished. At the end we don’t know where he is. But then maybe that’s as it should be.
Despite its heavy themes and its determined seriousness. Kim’s book is what I would call a “fast read,” at least for its type. If you try it you may well finish earlier than you thought-and I hope you’ll try it.
I thought it was ironic that just about the time I finished “The Martyred” my wife and I and some friends went to a local production of James Baldwin’s “The Amen Corner,” at a local theater, The Weathervane. You have likely heard of Baldwin, at least in passing. He was one of the earlier black American writers to be taken seriously by the larger US intellectual society, and in the 1960’s and after he was often taken quite seriously by this community. And for good reason–though I did not always agree with him and his obsession with race(he had, of course, better reason than I for that obsession)he was a superb writer.. I only realized how good a writer he was, how accomplished at his trade he was, when I re-read something by him in a book club a few years ago.
“The Amen Corner” is, so far as I am able to tell, his only play and it is beautifully done. It is grinding, depressing and discouraging in many ways as it takes place among poor, black fundamentalist Christians In NYC in the 1950’s. It is also exciting, charismatic, inspiring and gripping to the extent that, as one of the on-line commentators put it, the first act runs about 50 minutes and you get there almost before you know it.
This is a three act play with two intermissions which runs altogether nearly three hours. That’s OK–you won’t get bored. It is, first of all, a human drama. It is about a small church and its longtime female pastor, Margaret Anderson, a determined lady of about 50 who knows what she believes and spreads the word with vigor, not to say emotional violence. Such a person will naturally have a few non-followers in her group, perhaps some that even might be described in a way as enemies–and she does. But she rules with an iron hand and her knowledge of the Bible and its ways, or at least how she sees its ways.
She is an effective and strong leader, but not one everyone rallies behind–not every time anyway. And she has had a sad life, in many ways. Married when she was young, she had one son. But she and her husband, Luke, quarreled, and he drank and then he left. And she has been long at least semi- estranged from her son, now a 20 year old piano player who still can do religious music but has been drifting into blues and jazz and away from the church.
There are many conflicts boiling here and some of them are ready to surface given half a chance. They get it. Luke returns after an absence of about a decade. He is ill with TB, how badly not immediately apparent. But it’s bad enough that Margaret, with doubts, offers him a spare room for at least awhile. But there is no warmth between them, just duty.
She also has some more intimate conversations with her son. He is honest with her about starting to drink himself, and about his music. He does not hide from her his doubts and disappointments with the church. And she is now unhappy with her two men, both apparently drifting away from her religion which has been the main driving force in her life..
There are also conflicts within the congregation. Margaret is a strong leader as I said, and as we all know, strong leaders sometimes beget dissatisfied and rebellious followers. This happens to some extent among her parishioners and there are some nasty verbal clashes there, too. So the second and third acts are mainly about conflict, particularly the old conflict with husband Luke.
The actors the Weathervane recruited for these roles(just about all of them, actually)are truly ideal. The passion, the anger, and a strange kind of eloquence come from them. Margaret and Luke quarrel with a passion which made me feel I was watching a black version of ‘”Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?” The parent-child anger-mixed-with love was heartbreaking. The anger that dwelt within Margaret, that pious women, was frightening.
This is a tragic and abrasive story about the things people do to each other, particularly to those they love or once did; but it’s also about the uses(and misuses) of spirituality and religious impulses and the ways they inhibit a family or a person or an institution, and sometimes take over the whole person or thing.
Baldwin thought there was a lot wrong with the black inner city church of his youth and I think he was right. He makes this clear with his dialogue and the facts of the lives of his characters. The church often brought oppressive thought, dictatorship and bullying to the fore. And yet, And yet…
There is something else which is palpable there. There is, mixed in with all these bad things, a strange kind of joy and belonging. Some of it is from the shared experiences and pain of being black in 1950’s America. But a lot of it is–the music.
Some of the music is depressing, but most is not. It is mostly what we would call gospel music, and I have never been a fan of this kind of music as something to worship to. I’ll take Beethoven and Frans Joseph Hayden for that.(OK, I’m a snob) But I still respond sometimes to gospel music because it has a beat and a sound to it that gets under my skin and makes me want to tap my toe.
Part of this is because gospel music , as one commentator puts it, is “the roots” of the tree of American Black music and the blues constitute the trunk. Blues and gospel are not exactly the same, one being religious and the other secular, mostly(though I think it is not always easy to say a thing is all one of these). But blues skips along in the same beat as gospel does and it uses the same basis for its sound. The great singers, our commentator said, came out of gospel, the great instrumentation out of blues.
I have always had a liking for the blues, though as a middle class white I tended toward the softer side of the blues just as I tend toward the softer side of jazz, my favorite. But I am keenly aware of the role blues plays in American religious history, white and black, thought more the latter.
Along with this I am also taken with the fact that because of music, sometimes, along with other things, such as experiences and deep longings, people often reach what seem to be contradictory decisions in these matters. This is what seems to me to happen to Capt Lee at the end of “The Martyred.” It also is what seems to happen among the characters of “:The Amen Corner” and certainly among the audience we were a part of. About evenly split between black and white theatre goers, I would bet that a large majority of each was put off by a lot of the more fundamentalist-oriented and oppressive teachings of Ms Anderson as they were by a lot of her personality.
But at the end she breaks down and shows her real humanity and pain. And as she snuggles with her dying husband and retrieves her humanity, her parishioners seem to find an odd joy. As for the audience, disapproving as they might have been of her theology and her religious style, and regardless of the fact that this play is basically a tragedy, it seemed to me that a majority of them left wanting to tap their toes and do the high fives with others. There was a curious enthusiasm for it all, almost an exhilaration, and it was mainly the music that did it, the music and some of those strange contradictory feelings I mentioned above.
If all of this makes sense to you, well, good. If it doesn’t, well maybe that’s good too–I plan to reflect on it and I may comment on it again. In the meantime, if you reside in the Akron-Cleveland area and if you like the theatre or music or stories about human doubts and conflicts, then go see “The Amen Corner.” I don’t know if you all would like it, but I pretty much guarantee you won’t be bored.
-
Panama, Canada, Greenland and Donald
As Trump gets closer and closer actually to being President anxieties are, I think, increasing among his non-fans about what he plans to do. The obvious split in his supporters between MAGA types and Musk types is to me not a cause for great joy in that it’s almost one of those contests where you wish both sides would lose. But not quite–I’ll take the Musk side, however reluctantly, in that one. But I just might criticize them too.
Among the more bizarre things Trump has said(or written)lately is that he would like the US to acquire Canada and Greenland, and “take back” Panama. I believe he talked about buying Greenland the first time around but our immediate neighbor to the north and our long time(if slightly reluctant)partner in running the canal are being so honored for the first time. My immediate reaction–that this was a typical Trumpish ridiculous policy has not changed much-I still stick with it more than 90% for reasons I think we’ll shortly see.
But I do call your attention to an article in Salon.com by its editor, Andrew O’Hehir which does give us a little more understanding and just a tad of nuance. It’s not that Andrew approves of Trump in any noticeable way. He describes Trump’s posts about these three places as “blatantly inflammatory and insulting, not to mention well beyond self-parody.” So he’s not a fan. He speculates that the President-elect is still somewhat affected by a few things he learned in school sometime about foreign policy and has “accidentally horseshoed himself into spectacularly ill-informed opinions that nonetheless capture something of the contemporary zeitgeist.”(O’Hehir writes well!)
In other words, Trump is now, perhaps somewhat subconsciously, saying things that reveal his mental dependence upon ideas of decades ago, a few of which have been updated a little bit and separated from their original context. It appears that in that context they have affected and appeal to the MAGA folks. O’Hehir says that Canada as a dependency or satellite of the US is an old idea, much predating the Trump era. This idea, he says, is “not quite true but also not entirely falsifiable,” and he suggests we solicit opinions from other lesser powerful nations with powerful neighbors, such as Ireland, Belgium, or Finland.
He then goes on to denote the ridiculousness of this idea which he says is “one million percent not going to happen.” If Canada were to become a US state it would be geographically bigger than the other 50 put together, but just about tied with California for the largest in population.
Going on to other Trumpian fantastic ideas– at one point the former President claimed Chinese soldiers were “lovingly, but illegally” running the Panama Canal. This leads our author to comment that “his pronouncements are ludicrous and his facts are wrong.” Trump said about 38,000 American were lost during the construction of the canal. The figure of 38,000 might not be far off overall, we learn, but only about 1% of them were Americans. Most were actually Caribbean laborers.
Getting Greenland is likely the most goofy of Trump’s “proposals.” It is, O’Hehir says, one of “the strangest places on earth.” Its “indigenous” people, the Inuits, arrived after the first Europeans did and today are about 90% of the population. For about 300 years Denmark has owned it outright, or at least been the ruling power. This situation lasted until fairly recently and some of it still remains. Forty some years ago Greenland got “home rule” and they now have “self government,” just short of full independence. But Denmark still plays a role in that it provides a close to $600 million a year block grant which is likely a good reason for not seeking full independence.(O’Hehir points out this is about 1/4 of the Greenland GDP)
Turning to Panama, O’Hehir says it is independent today “only” because the US plotted with anti-Columbian forces in the area(it was part of Columbia then)to bring about the rule of “a revolutionary” junta. He is mostly correct, but I question that this is the only reason Panama is independent now. There were other possibilities that could have happened if the US had not intervened.
But, as any student of US diplomatic history and/or of our most dominating President, Theodore Roosevelt, knows, O’Hehir is mostly right. TR, in one of his earlier displays of colonialist enthusiasm, schemed to bring about a “revolution” by a few Panamanian leaders who declared independence from Columbia. The TR Administration gave diplomatic recognition to the new regime in about a day, a speed only seen, to my knowledge, one other time in US History. In 1948 it took Harry Truman about the same amount of time to recognize Israel.
One could make an argument that Panama has not reaped an entirely bitter crop out of this. It has had advantages from being the friend of the US. But it has been at least guided (if not more)by our government. And O’Hehir is correct in that “Panama has gone through a dizzying array of interventions.” It has been independent for a long time but not always stable.
O’Hehir concludes with an interesting comment, particularly interesting in that some of the Republicans have been turning back towards isolationism again, and that Trump appears to have recognized and decided to take advantage of that change. This puts him in the to-some-extent semi-pacifist camp that many Republicans and the America Firsters slid into after WWII began but before we were in it.
O’Hehir doesn’t address this fact directly, but he does say the following–“If this pseudo-neo-imperialism doesn’t seem to fit with Trump’s supposed version of overseas military entanglements, it’s because that too involves a suspension of disbelief. Trump is only opposed to foreign wars after the fact, if they turn out to be painful and expensive. He’d be delighted to invade some small and powerless country that can’t fight back, and then hold an expensive victory parade.”
This is an excellent assessment, in my opinion, of Trump’s moral qualities and of how his mind works. Say what you think your supporters will like, do it if it appears to be a winner and stay out of it if you might lose. It may turn out as a contradiction, but MAGA people don’t much worry about contradictions as long as it’s their own guy who is making them. When it come to complicated things like foreign policy, just assume he’s right and support, him loudly, if unreasonably,
I hope the Trump foreign policy will be something better than this in the second term. But hopes in politics-well, you know, right?(By the way, I had not looked at Salon.com previously–check it out if you haven’t)
-
New Author and Terrific Book
Meg Wolitzer-“Belzhar,” copyright 2014 by Penguin Random House 264 pgs
Well, OK, Meg Wolitizer is not exactly a new author. But she’s new to me as I’m not really conversant with all the latest stuff in the literary world. But I’d like to be. I might have found this book through such a connection. As it was I found it by chance and what a good fortune for me! It was in the “take it home for for free” part of the library because, I guess, no one was taking it– well, their loss, my gain.
I thought at first this looked, at a glance, as if it might be a mystery and/or suspense novel. It’s not in the usual sense of those terms. There is mystery in it about the backgrounds of five young people and it is definitely suspenseful in that you want to know what’s next. It’s often nearly impossible to stop at the end of a chapter and not find out what’s right around the corner. But it is the human story and the human heart you’re tracking here, not whodunit or howdunit(though I deeply respect those books and am reading one now.)
After reading a few chapters of “Belzhar” I took a look at Meg on Wikipedia and at a handful of her reviews. I was not surprised to find that this is a “young adult” novel, although she is mainly an “adult”(in the best and most mature sense of that much abused term)novelist. But don’t let that stop you. Here’s one old adult who enjoyed it immensely.
I was surprised to learn Meg is in her mid-60’s. Although one shouldn’t make these sorts of judgements and I am usually critical of people I notice doing so, her writing makes you think of a younger narrator. I guess this makes sense here since the narrator is a teen-age girl. So good for Meg at being able to do that.
The book is told first person by teenager Jam Gallahue. Jam, a New Jersyite is now in a school in Vermont. Its name is “The Wooden Barn” and it’s no ordinary high school. It’s a high school for teenagers having trouble dealing with “the lingering effects of trauma..” So the students there are special in an unusual type of way. They have survived bad things, things no teenager, or maybe any agers should have to go through. But they are young and looking forward(one hopes)to many more years of life and they need to deal with their trauma and get on with things.
Going there at the beginning of her junior year, Jam is also assigned to anomalous class, “Special Topics in English.” One of the unusual things about it is that students don’t choose to take this class. The class, or rather the instructor, chooses them based upon what she learns about the new class members every school year. She then makes her selections based upon her own criteria. It’s considered somewhat weird and somewhat of an honor to attend by most of the other students.
The teacher, Mrs. Quenell, is approaching retirement. She tells them in her introduction to the class she will retire at the end of the semester. She also tells them a number of other things about the class, about the responsibilities she expects them to take, and about what they will , she hopes, get out of the class.
She is not too specific in some respects, but she emphasizes that they will each keep a journal. They will write twice a week in their journals, write about whatever they choose. She will eventually have them turn their journals in to her and she will keep them, but NOT read them. So, there’s the weird part. They’ll write a lot and turn it in but the instructor won’t read it. So it can’t affect their final grades. So what’s the purpose? Well, as I said, in some ways this is a mystery.
So begins the tale, and, always(I hope)the good mystery critic I’m not going to tell you much of what happens after that. But I will tell you a little bit, as otherwise this whole thing would make no sense to you. Slowly, more or less class by class, we find out, sort of, what the students are writing about. And we find out something more–we learn, slowly, one by one, the traumatic event that placed them each in this unusual school.. And by this means we come to know them, particularly, Mag, very well. We know Mag, however, more by her musings about relationships and other puzzling aspects of life. Her “event” is not revealed until near the end.
There are, of course, parts of the book that do not, at least not directly anyway, deal with the class or the journals. There are jealousies and ambitions and likes/dislikes(of the personal kind, of course) which go on here as much as elsewhere. In some ways they’re a lot like their equivalents on what I guess we might call “the outside.”
But there’s something else too, the most strange and perhaps the most challenging thing in the book. When they write in their journals something odd happens, and we get a close up view or two of this in Jam’s case. When they write in the journals they literally go back in time, back more or less(if not exactly)to the traumatic event. And they get to live it over again and and cringe at the experience again. But they can’t stay in the past with those people, even though sometimes, despite the pain, there’s a temptation. They have to come back to the present world, the “real world” and deal with the whole thing.(There is apparently one exception here, but not one you’d want to take in my opinion-and theirs).
Now there is never an explanation of this. Some may regard this as a big shortcoming, but I don’t. I do, understand it, though. Of course we want to know what this thing is, how it works, what it means. Is God behind it? Is there such a being and does He care about us? Then why is the world such a big mess? How this whole thing happens and who/what is behind it is never explained in any detail, although I guess you’re free to speculate. Some will regard this as a shortcoming. They will want an explanation. And that’s OK–hey, I wanted one. Was God behind this, directly I mean? Was this an indication that there is another life, another realm? Anybody else we haven’t thought of and don’t know about? Does this mean there is another reality, whatever?
I don’t blame anyone for wanting to know. Hey, I want to know those things too. But Wolitizer never goes beyond hinting here, and hardly that very much. The trick is to learn from the experience, but not necessarily to understand it. And what they learn seems to me to be wisdom, wisdom about the world, about people, about that often mentioned but rarely described thing, human nature. It is about how do deal with problems; is it ever OK to give up? Is there a difference between giving up and ceasing to struggle? If so, what is it?
There are no miracles here, but there are some surprises. And we do see young people grow and expand their horizons and get ready to move on. And to that extent this is an optimistic book. But only to that extent. It may not be “happily ever after” for all of them. But they have learned to struggle with that, to give and seek warmth and comfort, to take responsibility and move one. Or at least they’ve learned how to do this most of the time. Not always.
And as a matter of fact, despite some pain and shock, some of them have a good time, temporarily anyway, along the way. If you like to speculate and wonder, and one of the things you wonder is why life is so painful and what you need to make it a little less, so–well, you might find some hints here. No final answers–no formulas. Not the Big Answer everyone seeks. But hints–and sometimes I think that’s the best we can hope for in many ways. That what Meg gives you. I suggest you give her a reasonable chance at it.
-
The Republicans Go To the Bathroom
With the historically brief exception of 1792-1815, the House of Bourbon ruled France from the Middle Ages until 1830. This latter date was the end of the Bourbons, as rulers, largely because of Charles X, last Bourbon (reigning)King who ruled 1824-1830. Their fall came through a revolution brought on largely by Charles’s misrule, trying to use his power to oppress the state at large and to get revenge on his enemies.
It was said (wisely, I’d say) that the Bourbons never learned anything and never forgot anything. This phrase came into my mind recently after reflecting on our election and on what we’ve since seen of the anticipated beginning of a new Trump Administration. I had been hoping that we would see a new type of Trump rule–didn’t really expect it, but I hoped he would show a change. Those hopes were rather quickly dashed. He appears never to learn how to govern better or how to forget his past quarrels and lust for revenge against individuals or groups who have opposed, criticized or otherwise irritated him. And he appears never to abandon his tendency to do the outrageous just to be outrageous, or rather just to implant that idea in the public mind with the assumption that in his case it’s a sign of originality.
All this would be bad enough if it stopped there but it doesn’t. The more we learn about the appointments and the appointees, the less we trust the process, at least as done by this President-elect and his minions. They have given us so far a list of prospective leaders who are often of questionable qualification in personality and experience. That was discouraging enough. Now many of them seem to have lackings in morality, sense of honor and common sense which would be enough to disqualify them from high office.
Naturally, the Republican leadership in Congress has had to deal with this apparently unexpected though not unforeseeable(if your remember the first time Trump was President) situation. They seem to be able to do so, mostly only by a combination of irrelevant comments, distortions of facts and unfounded denials. And of course, the time worn Trump trick of doing something super ridiculous to hide the fact that several other appointments or whatever are merely ridiculous, not super so, leave them seeming almost acceptable.
But it has occurred to me that the Republicans have found a new part to this attitude, related to what they’ve done in the past, but still not really tried until now. When they seem to feel they’re in real trouble they go to the bathroom. Yeah, OK, so what do I mean?
Well, a time honored way(on both sides of the aisle) of avoiding dealing with embarrassing facts it to find a distraction, a fact alluded to above. But they have found a new way to do this using a new issue-this is trans-gender matters , particularly bathrooms and who goes where.
Now I am perfectly aware that I am treading on treacherous ground here. Many people have issues and problems and strong, serious feelings on these matters. I do not deny them their feelings or their right to express them. But I do wish to ask–well, when we’re dealing with things that might affect Gaza, the Russian-Ukrainian war. the stability of American society and the welfare of our middle class and others–do we really need to talk about who uses which bathroom at the same time?
It used to be that when faced with difficult issues members of Congress would say at least the equivalent of, “Hey, let’s go have a couple of beers,” or “OK, guys let’s go have coffee.” Now it appears to be , for the Republicans, “OK, folks, let’s go to the bathroom.” And that’s where they go, or at least their minds do.
Rep Nancy Mace, R-SC, was, I think, one of the first out of the starting gate in this race to the twisting of the political mind. She indicated she would “stand in the way” of Sarah McBride. Now as nearly as I can tell, Rep McBride has done nothing to incur Ms Mace’s wrath except be elected to the House as a Democrat and be trans, apparently the first “openly trans-member” of the Congress.
II haven’t seen much of McBride but have been suitably enough pleased by what I did see. She seems determined to stand her ground and do her job, but not to expect a medal for it. She said that if permitted, the House Republicans would see that “all we talk about is bathrooms.” A slight but understandable exaggeration.(“You say Iran just invaded Israel? Well, sorry, we got this bathroom identify crisis we gotta solve first”). She also said that she will abide by Speaker Johnson’s rules even though she disagrees with them.
Speaking of the Speaker, it appears that he does have, legally and according to House rules, the right to make a decision(which he did)to ban members from using a bathroom not in accordance with their “biological birth.” He included a plea that everyone be treated with “dignity.” I agree, but how about policies that make this easier, not harder?
Of course, speaking of off-the-wall House Republicans, Marjory Taylor Green got into the act. She threatened (unspecified) physical violence against her Delaware colleague whom she described as “mentally unbalanced.” Well, Marjory, speaking of “unbalanced”–it would appear that being called unbalanced by you would be tantamount to being called loud by a carnival barker.
No doubt some things still need to be worked out here and maybe we can hope for some balance and good will on each side. My hopes aren’t real high on that one. What do Johnson and Mace expect trans-members(McBride is the only one as far as I know now)to do while they work out a policy? Carry a Mason Jar? Bring their own port-a-potty? Raise their hand and ask the Speaker if they may go down the block to the nearest service station?
Well, whatever, the gathering of minds in the bathroom will reduce the pooling of intelligence or even less than intelligence on the House floor. And this may mean further delays in deciding on Trump’s carefully chosen(for ironic irritation)list of nominees, particularly the Hegseth and Gabbard type.
Speaking of that, I intend to follow up on this soon with a reflection on Trump’s nominees who are still “running.” Gaetz just dropped out a couple of hours ago which is a relief. Now about RFK, Jr …
-
Racing and Guessing toThe End
This is Wednesday-the election is Tuesday. It’s coming, folks and while many have already voted. many others, perhaps the majority, have not. So campaigning is still important and we’re getting as much as you’d expect and maybe a bit more. And there are significantly important things happening now, mostly in the US and the campaign, but elsewhere too
Most importantly, Kamala Harris seems, perhaps only for the moment, to have seized the initiative and that big political imponderable, “momentum.” This has happened in recent days and there have been two important parts to it. The first was the Trump “rally”(or whatever it was at Madison Square Garden Sunday night.) The next was Kamala’s speech in DC last night. The two are worth comparing.
The Trump thing was a conglomeration of people, most of whom I’d never heard of before(I’ll bet most of the viewers were as ignorant of them as I). They were largely a disgusting lot, casting vicious bigotry and racial/social. ethnic insults all over the place. This was accompanied by a great deal of vulgarity. I don’t mind a certain amount of vulgarity in private conversation and I’ll even allow a little of it in public. But common sense and common decency suggest certain limits and they were not observed here.
One speaker almost outdid all the other by referring to Ms. Harris’s “pimps.” The implications for the candidate are obvious. But the one most remembered and who outdid the pimps guy was Tony Hinchliffe who identifies as “comedian.’ He took the cake for the evening by referring to Puerto Rico as an island of garbage.
Even the Trump campaign(though apparently not the candidate himself)thought this too much and disavowed it. But the rest of the bigotry, vulgarity and all round salute to bad taste was unchallenged by its organizational source So presumably it stands as their(and Trump’s)statement. As a Harris supporter that’s OK with me but overall, it doesn’t bode well for the country that they think this works.
The second big thing was Kamala’s speech last night at the Ellipse in Washington with its plethora of memories for Americans. In the first part she took on her opponents ideas and actions and essentially said, hey, enough, let’s get back to civilized behavior. In the second half she said something like I do have some plans and then proceeded to talk about them. She was masterful in her use of information and impressive in her use of language(she is one of the better speakers of recent American history).
But President Biden muddied the waters with a comment of his own. Attacking Trump(quite correctly, incidentally)he made a statement that sounded much like calling Trump’s supporters garbage. He said later he didn’t mean the people but the candidate’s policies and this would make sense, but it still sounds bad.
The White House later argued that you should imagine an apostrophe in “supporter’s” showing the President was referring to something pertaining to them rather that to their worth as human beings. But if you parse the sentence closely that doesn’t work. There’s no noun after “supporter’s” to justify the apostrophe.
Well, perhaps I parse too much. But this was an unfortunate choice of words by a good man who, I’m pretty sure, didn’t mean to demean anyone, but who just goofed. He has a very long history of this, of committing “gaffes.” Donald Trump’s reaction was that no one who was or wanted to be president should demean fellow Americans like that. He’s right, of course, but hey, look who’s talking. I hope he or his supporters will have that pointed out to them–on TV in the very near future.
In the meantime I hope that this will not be a third big thing which will dominate the end of the campaign. I suspect it will lose Harris a few votes, but not a lot– may make next to no difference. What she must do is to continue on her quest to prove her plans for the US and her differences with Trump. I think she still has the momentum, perhaps a bit slowed. It will be up to her and her advisors to keep it as the campaign finishes and election day looms.
Actually, as this all nears its ending both sides have to guess in a way. They must guess on which is the most important issue–the economy? immigration? women’s personal choice? democracy? national security? They’re all important, but it matters who emphasizes what. This is particularly true since it appears that one of the things that may decide the winner is who gets out the vote best. They each need to emphasize what will bring out their people in larger numbers, though they must not forget other issues as well. It likely depends mostly on turnout and on the way these difficult issues I have discussed here play out. Stay tuned and pay attention
-
Story Tellers Change but Spenser Stories Stay the Same–Mostly At Least
“Robert B Parker’s Someone to Watch Over Me,” by Ace Atkins G P Putnam’s Sons, copyright 2020 306 pp
Robert B Parker was the leader of American mystery/detective fiction writing for a generation or more. Born in 1932, he began to publish in the 1970’s and he died in January, 2010. There were competitors, but none of them really came close as far as I know. He was widely regarded as the most legitimate heir of the great Raymond Chandler, author of the Philip Marlowe novels of the ’30s to the ’50’s and indeed he finished “Poodle Springs,” after the death of the founder of the genre.
Chandler’s genre, which Parker changed a bit and expanded some, but never betrayed was that of the hard boiled detective. He told the story first person and the reader presumably got to follow his thoughts and feelings as he worked his way through a case. He was ambivalent about relations with women, liking the women but hating the strings attached that went along with the relationship. He had a few friends, but not many and then often they served a professional purpose. And he had his own way of talking, often using clipped, quickly worded and not extravagant metaphors to get across his meaning.
The hard-boiled detective did not look for trouble but when he encountered it he know what to do. He was tough and resilient and could handle the baddies with his fists or, occasionally, with a pistol. He was introspective and considered the world pretty much of a mess. This was his world, however, and he did not consider it a raw deal necessarily for him or for most. It was just the way things were.
This description mostly is about Marlow and his innumerable imitated versions, most of them not too good, but at least one, Dashiel Hammett’s Sam Spade, reaching for the same height. Phillip and Sam were both from California which may or may not be important.
Parker’s very great contribution did change some things quite a lot, yet it kept most of the rules the earlier books had largely established. He wrote an immense number of books, pushing one hundred, I think, but is best known for the stories about Spenser, a Boston Private Eye. Spenser is a traditional tough guy PI with some changes,. Like Marlowe he is courageous and physically tough. He was once, briefly, a professional boxer and he was also a cop before the frustrations of cop rules drove him into private detecting.
Spenser has a large number of firearms in his collection and he is expert at using them all. But he is big and tough enough he can often handle bad guys with his fists. In many ways he is like Marlow and the influence of the earlier writer upon the later one is both obvious and admirable. But Spenser has some additional tidbits about him.
Unlike Marlow, who pretty much went from one woman to another,(but not a lot of them)Spenser is in a committed relationship with Dr Susan Silverman, a practicing psychologist and a Harvard Ph.D. Susan is sexy, brilliant, witty, insightful and independent. She met Spenser early in his career and they have shared their lives for several decades. But they keep separate apartments so don’t “live together” though they are obviously close to it. In many ways they function as a married couple, but not quite.
Both Susan and Spenser love dogs, both are gourmet cooks and based on Parker’s descriptions and I think meeting them at party or about anywhere would be quite intimidating. You would be meeting beauty, charm, brilliance, physical power, quick wit and towering intellect all rolled into one–well, OK, two. Spenser is surely the most intellectual of all the fictional private eyes. He likes to point out that his name is spelled like the English poet, though he never explained why he, an Irish American, had that English name, just as he never. for some reason told us what his first name was. He knows poetry, literature, art and some music and history.
He once confused a bad guy who asked what he was doing there. He said, “We’re studying the earlier works of Increase Mather.” Huh? Sam Spade never would have said that–or understood it. So Spenser is a great intellect as well as being physically strong, courageous, tender, at least with Susan and dogs, and and all round good man to have on your side.
When established mystery guy Ace Atkins took over the books(as requested by Parker’s family) not much changed. He caught Parker’s addictive, what-happens-next pacing almost perfectly and he didn’t miss by much on Spenser himself, or the minor characters, such as Quirk, a cop and former colleague and sort of friend. The only two people close to Spenser are Susan and Hawk, and if there’s anyplace Atkins doesn’t quite measure up to the master, it’s with them, though he does pretty well there too. Susan, I have already described. It does seem to me that Spenser’s relationship with this lovely, accomplished and strong woman is not quite as compelling as told by Atkins. This is particularly true in “Someone,” I think, but part of this is that she’s in the story less often than usual. Still, she comes through pretty loud and clear.
Hawk is one of the great creations of American pop lit. He is a black man a little young than I think Spenser is, but about the same age(be patient a minute here and I’ll comment a bit further on age) . He is a tough guy who also knows how to use his fists and weapons. He is at least as deadly as Spenser is and less inclined than Spenser to be restrained by moral compunctions.
What he did in the past is left somewhat vague, but for years he has been a professional tough man, who works out at the gym several times a week, keeps himself in shape for fighting or loving, and enthralls(usually only briefly) attractive and adventurous women. He works with Spenser when needed and is loyal and dependable. What he does for money other than be sometime partner to our hero is not entirely clear, but he obviously does well. Like Spenser he is a closet intellectual, though one hidden very deep in the closet. He does come up with startlingly intelligent remarks now and then.
The relationship of the two men in this book is also not quite like in the old Parker days, but seems closer than the one with Susan. Neither of them is developed here quite as fully as in Parker’s case, but it’s not really a serious flaw, just a slight decline from near perfection
Regarding age, by the way, for the first decade and a half or so, Spenser clearly identified himself as a Korean War veteran. That would have made him at least pushing 60 by sometime in the 1980’s and somewhere along the line Spenser’s past just dropped out of the stories. For a long time mystery writer there’s really no way other way to handle this. Note that Hercule Poirot was a retired detective in “The Mysterious Affair at Styles,(1920)This would have made him around 115 by the end of the series, but Agatha just kept him going along without comment and for her and the readers I’d say that was the right thing to do.. Eventually such characters exist in an admittedly imaginary but someone very real and poignant world understood by writer and reader if no one else.
I have read perhaps half of the Atkins’s Spencer novels and this is one of the later ones. Atkins has now returned to his own characters and stories. I think this book is actually better than a couple of the others, He keeps the story moving in the usual way and this is partly done by introducing a new character. This is Mattie Sullivan, who as a teenager a few years ago was helped and supported by Spenser through a very difficult time. She is now grown up and determined to be a PI herself. She works as a sort of combination gopher and investigative assistant to Spenser and is at least as dedicated(but less funny)than he is.
The story, which is turning out to be the lesser part of this article, is of another teenage girl. This one tells Mattie she was assaulted in a private club by a revoltingly decadent man and describes him and his practices in details that would possibly shock a Trump rally. The girl, Chloe, fled the situation but left her laptop and backpack behind and now needs them back to protect her privacy and to prevent possible personal disasters.
So this leads to Mattie and Spenser taking on the case, with Susan providing comfort and her usual psychoanalytic insights and Hawk bringing along the weapons and muscle. The other characters include a number of girls who have had similar experiences with the same man or his disgusting friends, “creepy old men,” as I remember one charter describing them.
This leads our friends from place to place and situation to situation around Boston. But the icky man at the top, Peter Steiner, is elusive. He is protected by a huge fortune and a lot of powerful friends, deeply connected in business, politics and law. It is difficult to touch him.
Steiner, however, owns his own island in the Bahamas and the chase to nail him, stop his depredations and bring him to justice leads Spenser and Hawk there eventually. After a careful and complicated approach they get on the island and into a position to free a lot of innocent girls and get their oppressor out of circulation. How this happens with what results I will not, of course reveal, but these are the basic facts you’ll be working with if you read this book. I recommend that you read it. It’ll keep your mind off elections and things of that sort. Anyway, it’s worth the time.
I should not stop here, not without adding that while the Spenser stories are what Parker is best know for he wrote a lot of other books. The best know of these would likely be the Jesse Stone novels. I tried one once and didn’t finish it, not because it wasn’t a good book but, hey, it just wasn’t right for the author(or the reader, I guess). He also began, late in his career, a series of novels about Sunny Randall, a female Boston PI. She lives in the same real and literary world as Spenser. She occasionally deals with one of the old colleagues of Spenser with the police and her psychoanalyst is Susan Silverman. These are basically stories asking you to imagine a female Spenser. The idea works.
Ace Atkins has been replaced by another top American mystery writer, Mike Lupica, who is apparently going to do both Sunny and Spenser books. I read a Lupica Sunny Randall novel recently and enjoyed it. If you have never read any of these people, I commend both Atkins and Lupica to your attention. But nobody beats Spenser–or Parker.