Quantcast
Channel: Story Archives - Longreads
Viewing all 772 articles
Browse latest View live

Friendship Is Complicated

$
0
0

Maria Bustillos | Longreads | January 2015 | 15 minutes (3,706 words)

 

Download .mobi (Kindle) Download .epub (iBooks)

 
Lauren Faust, the creative genius behind the hit cartoon series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, decided she was going to be an animator when she was a child, during a family tour of the animation studios at Walt Disney World in Florida. Faust—who’d been a solitary, nerdy kid, a self-described “weirdo”—followed the tour guide past a glass wall, beyond which she could see the artists at work: “One of the animators had this long lineup of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles toys and I just went, ‘Oh!—these are my people! Like, these are the people I need to work with; this is where I need to go.’”

Eventually, Faust wound up working on Powerpuff Girls, an Emmy-winning cartoon about a trio of cute little girls who are also monster-whoopin’ superheroes. This was my introduction to her work, because my youngest daughter was utterly devoted to Powerpuff Girls as a little kid in the ‘90s. And, mirabile dictu, it was a show that I enjoyed watching with her, with its gorgeous Japanese-inspired animation, elegant design and witty dialogue. The Powerpuff Girls inspired play that was very different from the Disney Princess kind: there would be monsters to fight, and weapons to beat bad guys with, and secret adventures to have. Little boys liked playing Powerpuff Girls, too.

Faust quickly developed a reputation for creating compelling, fun and smart girl characters. That made her a natural choice for a planned 21st-century reboot of Hasbro’s then-moribund My Little Pony, a cartoon series based on the plastic equine toys first introduced in the early 1980s.

A self-avowed feminist, Faust grew up in Maryland with three brothers and no sisters; as a kid she’d preferred comics and adventure stories and toys to fashion dolls. So when she began reimagining the story of My Little Pony for Hasbro, she harked back to her own childhood My Little Pony figurines and to the adventures she’d created for them as a child. Faust’s My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic stars six pony characters, each embodying a distinctive characteristic: Applejack, a country pony with a twang, represents honesty; Fluttershy, a friend to animals, signifies kindness; goofy, bouncy Pinkie Pie represents laughter. The story centers on the evolution of Twilight Sparkle, a diligent unicorn pony student of magic sent out into the world by her mentor to learn to socialize and make friends. The episodes are generally about discovering how we can befriend and help those different from ourselves, despite the frustrations those differences may cause us at first.

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic debuted in October 2010, and quickly became one of the fledgling Hub Network’s most popular shows. The audience currently stands at around half a million viewers per week—not huge by the standards of the biggest cable networks, but a whopping success for a new one. A fifth season was ordered last May. From the start, the show was infectious, beautifully produced, with fine original music and inventive, striking animation; it had transcended its toy origins, and it became a work of art on its own.

Like Powerpuff Girls, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic could be fun for adults to watch. In addition to its popularity with its target audience of 2- to 11-year-olds, the show inspired a now well-documented faction of “bronies”—young adults, mostly male, who created a rich and appealingly weird international culture around the show and its message of tolerance and friendship.

As with some earlier classic children’s series like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, ThunderCats, and Sailor Moon (as well as the aforementioned Powerpuff Girls), fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic tend to identify with one of the team of characters and choose him or her as a kind of mascot: That’s a common trope in television for boys, as well. And the Mane 6, as Faust’s ponies are known among fans, combine to form a larger, more powerful entity, in a manner similar to the “boys’ shows” Voltron and Power Rangers. Nearly all the stories in the show are adventure stories, unconcerned with romance or dating. The more you watch, the less surprising it seems that so many boys and young men responded to Faust’s vision.

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic provides an imaginatively empowered and empowering conception of girlhood (or personhood, really), focused as it is on action, learning, exploring and fun, plus kooky, gentle humor. All of this is in stark opposition to conventional girls’ entertainments and playthings, which Faust once rather dismissively characterized as “combing hair and changing clothes.” She is an unabashed believer in adventure, excitement, and magic: as she wrote in an introduction to the My Little Pony guidebook, Elements of Harmony: “To [a little girl], magic is not frivolous and silly; it is huge, and it is glorious. It is real.”

The song “Morning in Ponyville,” from 2013’s Season Three finale, gives a clear example of the show’s characteristic charm:

Despite the runaway success of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Faust left the show before its third season, for reasons neither the studio nor the artist herself have cared to elaborate on in public. The likely causes of a split are aren’t difficult to surmise—particularly in view of the 2013 spin-off, Equestria Girls, which turned the adventurers of My Little Pony into ultra-skinny, status-obsessed high-school girls who are one thousand percent about combing hair and changing clothes. In order to effect this transformation, the ponies leap through a mirror into an alternate universe. (As, perhaps, does the viewer.)

The contrast between these two children’s shows provides a literal illustration of certain eternal tensions, not only in children’s entertainment but in literature and in American culture in general: Innocence vs. Experience, Nerds vs. Normies, Individualism vs. Conformity, Gender-Neutral Egalitarianism vs. Explicitly Heteronormative Sexuality—and maybe most strikingly, Art vs. Commerce.

6a00d8341c562c53ef01676098b1fd970b

* * *

The narrative shift between My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Equestria Girls is all but incomprehensible, until you reckon with the teen monster Mean Girls of Monster High, the wildly successful animated series and toy franchise of Hasbro’s arch-rival, Mattel. Monster High is a testament to the old advertising saw, “Sex Sells”—even to 6- to 11-year-old girls. It is a show about impossibly thin, heavily made-up teen monster girls in all kinds of sassy clothes and platform shoes, complete with long, wildly colored hair to comb and style. Annual sales of toys and dolls based on Monster High rocketed to over half a billion dollars for Mattel in just three years from its debut in 2010. It’s safe to assume that Hasbro took one look at those figures and decided that they had better start “competing in the space,” as the marketing professionals like to say.

An industry insider explained some of the complexities of how this might play out: “Not to diss on anyone who’s the head of marketing. But the person who analyzes the toy universe and says okay, we’re Hasbro, and we don’t have aspirational teen girl action figures [like the ones from Monster High]. That person can’t necessarily create a sticky, interesting, intriguing story arc with compelling characters: you need content creators and artists to do that. You know? You need writers, experienced toy designers.” Which is to say: a company may determine that there is a business need to produce certain toys, but that imperative may or may not jibe with getting artists and writers to create an effective, entertaining story around them.

There’s no question at all, though, about who’s boss in this scenario. I was a little shocked to learn that at the big studios, producers of cartoons have typically been assigned a “toy partner” before a single show has been completed. And if the toy partner should drop out of a project in development for whatever reason, the associated producers and artists can basically kiss their show goodbye. The business plans of companies like Mattel and Hasbro (and Disney, Nickelodeon, Lego, etc.) are mapped out in a detailed and explicit collaboration between artists, marketers and toy companies.

6a00d8341c562c53ef01676098b1fd970b

* * *

Branded toys routinely make more money than the films and cartoons on which they are based—sometimes a lot more—so it’s logical in a way that yes, children’s television shows and movies are basically long, elaborate toy commercials. If they are to provide something, anything, more interesting or positive for children than a siren call to the toy store, any other potential motives—humor, pleasure, an observation on human nature or a philosophical or moral lesson—are incidental to the prime directive of selling toys, lunchboxes, T-shirts, and all the other branded merchandise known in the trade as “CP,” or consumer products.

Though he eventually embraced merchandising, Jim Henson grappled with commercialization and “selling out” in the early years of Sesame Street and the Muppets. The trend heated up in  the late 1970s and early ‘80s, after George Lucas famously retained the merchandising rights to Star Wars, and became very, very rich as a result. Transformers, He-Man and She-Ra, Rainbow Brite and the first My Little Pony animated series were all “content” designed specifically to “move products.” Thirty years later, toy companies such as Mattel and Hasbro have taken the natural next step: Becoming the direct producers of those films and television programs, in addition to the associated toys and other branded goods. The result is an end-to-end chain reaching from screen to toybox (and closet, and music player, and game console). The cartoon is nothing more than one link in the chain, though a valuable one—one that gives a big marketing bang for the buck. As a cartoon producer who declined to be named explained, the best way to sell a toy is to put it in a cartoon. “You can buy a thirty-second commercial, or you can make a twenty-two minute piece of craptent.” The profit motive is the unbreakable harness that controls the fate of every cartoon character a child sees on television or in the movies, Hasbro’s little ponies included.

Equestria Girls debuted in 2013; in that year, Hasbro’s Girls category grew by 26 percent, reaching $1 billion in revenues, of which My Little Pony represented about $650 million in retail “across the brand blueprint,” according to the company’s annual report—representing a substantial chunk of Hasbro’s net 2013 revenue of $4.08 billion. To put this in a broader perspective, licensed retail merchandise represents a quarter-trillion dollars in global sales each year, with Disney in the top spot, Mattel at No. 5 and Hasbro at No. 11.

Exactly what does the merch-first strategy mean for the quality of storytelling for children? Star Wars producer Gary Kurtz lamented to the Los Angeles Times in 2010, “They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It’s natural to make decisions that protect the toy business, but that’s not the best thing for making quality films.” In effect, it’s no longer possible to produce mass-market children’s entertainment outside the parameters of “selling out.”

But every mass-market animation artist is intimately familiar with the business constraints on her work going in. Shortly after her show’s debut in the fall of 2010, Lauren Faust crisply defended her artistic choices, and the compromises she would be required to make, in a post on the blog of Ms. Magazine:

Yes, My Little Pony is riddled with pink, the leader is a Princess instead of a Queen and there probably aren’t enough boys around to portray a realistic society. These decisions were not entirely up to me.  It has been a challenge to balance my personal ideals with my bosses’ needs for toy sales and good ratings. I do my best to incorporate their needs in an acceptable way, so when we are asked to portray a certain toy or playset, my team and I work to put it in a place that makes sense within the story. There is also a need to incorporate fashion play into the show, but only one character is interested in it and she is not a trend follower but a designer who sells her own creations from her own store. We portray her not as a shopaholic but as an artist.

I never expected to work on a show based on a toy line, but I accepted the project based on my sincere childhood love of the toy and Hasbro’s desire to create an entertaining show that is not just a long toy commercial.

6a00d8341c562c53ef01676098b1fd970b

* * *

The Monster High cartoon follows the high school career of (I regret to say) Frankie Stein, the teenage daughter of Frankenstein and the Bride of Frankenstein, in her efforts to be a cool and successful goth girl monster in a high school for teen monsters. Frankie and her friends Draculaura, Clawdine and Cleo De Nile are a monster In Crowd: the story’s a little like a crazy, childlike animated version of Twilight. The girls resemble Cara Delevingne quite a bit more than they do the werewolves, vampires and mummies they’re meant to portray (except the Monster High girls are considerably skinnier.)

The show is fast-paced and stylish, with teen monster bands playing lots of bland, child-friendly rock songs about Being Yourself, and very little in the way of plot or message. Monster High is also unequivocally sexy. The girl characters compete for the boys’ attention and try to look as cool as they can, showing off their dance moves, cell phones, clothes and boots and so on. All the clothes are super revealing—skin-tight nightclub gear really, with a lolicon vibe.

Equestria Girls hews very closely to this formula. Here, a mini-skirted, platform-shod Twilight Sparkle acquires a crush almost immediately: blue-haired Flash Sentry, who manages to recall both Robert Pattinson and Sonic the Hedgehog. (But, horrors! He is the ex-boyfriend of the wicked Sunset Shimmer!)

When my own daughters were tweens, Britney Spears occupied a somewhat similar role as the presiding Teen Temptress. The more forward and fashion-conscious among their friends would wear midriff-baring shirts like Britney’s, to the breathless amazement of all. As awkward as a lot of it was, there was also something tender and sweet about little girls dressing up a bit older, and looking at themselves in the mirror, seemingly considering: “Well… like it or not, I really am going to have boobs someday… and wear makeup. Also boots.” The distance between playing dress-up and really dressing up begins to blur at around age 6 or 8, and is entirely blurred by 14 or so.

Toy manufacturers refer to this slavish admiration of tweens for teens as “aspirational” or “emulative”—call it what you like, it’s a powerful emotional and imaginative force that can be and is exploited to the tune of billions.

* * *

I met Lauren Faust just as I was beginning to learn about her work, having noticed that she’d be making a rare public appearance at a benefit for a local wildlife center. So I drove up to the north end of the Valley on a lovely clear fall afternoon and entered a pleasant park full of trees and zoo environments, little realizing that this would be my only chance to speak with the press-shy auteur. After making my way past kids and their families visiting enclosures containing sloths, snakes, a lynx, and an armadillo, I found her at a signing table: she is strikingly pretty, with dark red hair and large, expressive, gentle eyes somewhat recalling those of her characters. There were a few fans hovering around, most carrying books, posters and figures for her to sign. I introduced myself and began by asking her, what was it about My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic that has attracted such a passionate following? There are lots of cartoons. What is it about this one?

“Ask them!” she laughed, gesturing toward the assembled group of bronies.

That was when I met Nathan, a big, very muscular young man of 25, kind and talkative, who unabashedly loves My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (“the ponies”), the military, and working out. He joined the army right out of high school, has been in the National Guard for nearly six years, and sports a My Little Pony-themed tattoo on one imposing bicep. I also spoke with Adam, a shy, dark-haired young man with an encyclopedic knowledge of the show and all the ins and outs of the fandom. What is it about the show you love most? I asked. “That lady right there,” said Nathan, indicating Lauren Faust. “I grew up in the ‘90s. The show’s just really good, it’s kind of reminiscent of all those good old cartoons .” He likes the quality of the animation —”technically it’s very impressive—”

Here Adam chimed in: “The writing, the music, the characters, the voice acting.” After a while Nathan grew more thoughtful, and added that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic had helped him kick a drug habit.

“At first I thought, man, I’m just weird for liking this, there must be something wrong with me. I don’t know anyone else who’s into this—and then I realized, wow, there’s a lot of people who are into this.” (That’s something about bronies that I hadn’t known before I met them: they’re very much aware of exactly how weird it sounds.) “And it made me kind of step outside of my head for a second and realize that what I was doing wasn’t who I wanted to be. So, I’ve been clean for three years now… it came into my life at the right time.” This self-awareness coexists with an almost childlike candor. Nathan’s clear blue eyes are entirely innocent of guile, snark or self-consciousness. He is the embodiment of what in the context of literary criticism would be called The New Sincerity.

“I don’t have to prove my guy card to anybody,” he said. “I’ve been in the military for five years, I’m a personal trainer, I go to the gym every single day, I love motorcycles and Sons of Anarchy, and I also like this. Because it’s good.”

All the bronies I have met share this effortless camaraderie; some are shyer than others, but basically they are twenty-somethings with the simple, unaffected friendliness of 5-year-olds.

Some weeks later I inveigled my friend Evan, a young English professor of very game disposition, into coming along with me to the Grand Galloping Gala at the Knott’s Berry Farm Hotel in Anaheim. It was a costume dance, so we furnished ourselves with a pair of Venetian masks and motored down. The event was held in a single featureless, glaringly-lit hotel meeting room haphazardly decorated with streamers, a mirror ball, a few merchandise tables and a dance floor in the center, the whole producing an atmosphere reminiscent of a middle-school dance. There was no booze at all, just punch in plastic cups. Slowly, a crowd of one or two hundred gathered, many of them cosplayers: Soarin’, a handsome boy of 22 in a pale blue polyester suit with white wings sewn into the jacket, pony ears, aviator sunglasses and a roguish expression, who posed happily for photos; a girl in a sequined flapper dress, a sweet young man in steampunk gear, including a felt top hat and silver-topped cane; and many pony-themed ensembles featuring tails and manes. I was happy to see Adam, whom I’d met at the Lauren Faust event, here too. Though dressed in a sharp black suit himself, Adam seemed quite taken with Soarin’s ensemble. Would you ever cosplay? I asked. “If I could learn how,” he replied shyly.

It was about as far away from the world of Equestria Girls as could be. Improvisational, random, low-budget, the opposite of glossy or corporatized. The imagination of Lauren Faust and her brave and gentle characters may have inspired these kids to come together so improbably in this Knott’s Berry Farm Resort Hotel meeting room, but really, they were here for each other.

* * *

Business and marketing analyses of children’s toys and games commonly mention the acronym KGOY (“Kids Getting Older Younger”) or the phrase “age compression,” meaning that younger and younger kids are being sold clothes, toys and stories hinting at adolescent themes. Which doesn’t mean they are “getting older younger,” it only means they are being sold things that connect with these specific developmental states. Little kids have always idolized teenagers. But catering to these “aspirational” interests of tweens courts a certain societal uneasiness with respect to their (real, not imagined) budding sexuality.

Weirdly, on this score I find My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic quite a bit more grownup than either Monster High or Equestria Girls, because the latter, with their very narrow-minded, totally heteronormative, totally body-dysmorphic, materialistic and shallow understanding of sexuality really are so retrograde. And maybe even somewhat harmful?? Because only the impossibly skinniest, most fashionable girls are presented as admirable or even acceptable in these shows. No character without these very specific, fantastical physical attributes is considered worthy of the remotest interest. It may be de rigueur to be a zombie or a vampire or a mummy, but one shudders to think what would happen to a gay or trans kid, or a chubby kid, or a kid with a disability, at Monster High.

On the opposite end of the political spectrum there is a cohort of incensed moms objecting to Monster High in familiar puritanical tones (sic throughout). “I was very upset to find a monster high doll tonight at Walmart,” one wrote. “The doll had its boobs hanging out in a little top and a very short skirt with a tattoo on its stomach and high heels. […] I will tell you this [my daughter] will NOT be getting any of these slutty inappropriate dolls. Put some cloths on them maybe our generation of young ladies would learn it inst necessary to expose their bodies so much.”

Equestria Girls, though just a little less “knowing,” is hitting all the same marks as Monster High with respect to swooning high-school crushes, scheming Mean Girls, provocative clothes and stick-thin body imaging… and not by mistake. Even if these shows aren’t very good, so long as they produce merchandise sales—even just as a viable alternative for girls who may tire of their Monster High toys—the project will be counted a success where it matters most: in earnings per share.

6a00d8341c562c53ef01676098b1fd970b

* * *

There’s a temptation to reckon the attempts of artists like Lauren Faust to create entertaining and meaningful shows within the straitjacket of corporate commerce as entirely futile, hopeless. A mug’s game. But then I remember the Grand Galloping Gala in full swing. In time the techno music was blasting and a throng of kids massed together in the center of the dancefloor, dressed in cosplay pony ears and swishing tails and all sorts of homemade cartoon finery, pogoing, and suddenly it became clear that they were all chanting together.

Evan, I said. Are you hearing what they’re chanting. He’s all, What is it? It was this:

Friendship! Friendship! Friendship!

Let’s say you run a big public company; your rivals come up with a product you must compete with, you make a business plan and share some of the details about it in a conference call with analysts, and they publish reports anticipating earnings and make recommendations based on those. And then if all your plans succeed, there will be a solid uptick in the share price, thereby fulfilling the fiduciary responsibilities of the corporate management and board of directors. That is Commerce. But if two hundred kids in Anaheim are pogoing in a hotel conference room and shouting “Friendship!” over and over? Nobody at all knew that that was going to happen, or could possibly have anticipated it. That is Art.

* * *

Maria Bustillos is a journalist and critic living in Los Angeles.

* * *

Editor: Mark Armstrong; Fact-checker: Brendan O’Connor


Long Live Grim Fandango

$
0
0

Jon Irwin | Kill Screen | January 2015 | 17 minutes (4,253 words)

 

Below is a new Longreads Exclusive from Kill Screen, the videogame arts and culture magazine. Writer Jon Irwin goes inside the resurrection of the videogame classic Grim Fandango. For more from Kill Screen, subscribe.

* * *

In 1987, Tim Schafer sat in a lecture hall at University of California, Berkeley. Professor and anthropologist Alan Dundes spoke about a ritual found in Mexican culture, where family members welcome the dead back into their homes. Stories of The Day of the Dead, or El Dia de los Muertos, fascinated Schafer, then a budding writer and computer programmer. A decade later, he wrote a videogame—ambitious, over-budget, late—inspired by these tales. Grim Fandango was the last of a dying breed, a PC adventure game beset by constantly advancing hardware and an audience raised on faster, louder, flashier alternatives. You have likely never played the completed work.

That’s because, like so many of its characters, Grim Fandango died. It succumbed as any late-’90s computer game on CD-ROM would, its jewel case an inevitable coffin. The game was built for Intel’s 386 processor; one year later, the 486 arrived. Computer games rely on a web of interlocking code that resembles more a cityscape of cards as opposed to a single, measly house. These new chips were too fast, and the difference in speed made this towering game tumble down. In 2015, the only way to play the original Grim on a modern computer is to download special files modified by a fanbase that put years of effort into keeping the game alive, the work of a patient and overzealous mortician.

There is no wrong way to mourn those lost to us. Some remember. Some let go and wait for their return. But no matter the macquillage, an ugly dead thing remains ugly. Grim Fandango—the long-deceased original—is beautiful and strange and smart, an improbable marriage of disparate cultures and time periods, of plots and puzzles and balloon animals the shape of Robert Frost’s head.

There is an old interview with Schafer from 1997, the year before Grim came out. A reporter  is asking him about LucasArt’s next big game, wondering what the next “holy grail for gamers” is. The interviewer surmises a few: “Better graphics, better sound, better interface?” Schafer answers. “We try to do a real story, a complicated story, with real human involvement.”

Today Mr. Schafer describes Grim differently. He’s 47, divorced from the now-defunct LucasArts and a decade into his own studio Double Fine Productions, who, along with Sony, is bringing Grim back to life for modern systems. Grim Fandango Remastered is a celebration of a game gone too soon, a belated wake seventeen years later. For a small contingent, this act of faith is a validation of their love—for the rest of us, it’s a chance to experience a lost masterpiece. “It’s kinda nuts, this game,” he says. “You’re playing it and all of a sudden you’re standing in a sewer with a giant white alligator and you’re wearing an aztec mask.”

Into the sewer, then. It is time to welcome Grim Fandango back into our homes.

Grim_Fandango-office_copal

* * *

At the time of its release in 1998, Grim was celebrated for its droll fusion of ‘80s-era capitalism and ‘60s-era Beat poetry and ‘30s-era gangster noir, all wrapped in Mexican folklore and dipped in custom hot rod chrome. To a small circle of passionate fans, the game remains the best they’ve ever played; the enthusiast site AdventureGamers.com voted Grim the #1 Adventure Game of all time. Metacritic, the aggregating media review site, scores the game an almost unheard-of 94 out of 100. The early videogame website GameSpot.com awarded the title its coveted “Game of the Year” award in a year stuffed with classics you’ve actually played: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time; Metal Gear Solid; Pokemon Red & Blue.

Grim is a point-and-click adventure game without the pointing and clicking. You play as Manny Calavera. He is dead but so are his clients. His job is twofold: Gather the recently deceased from the Land of the Living and transport them to the Land of the Dead; Try to upsell them plush travel arrangements they’ve earned through living productive, generous lives. Manny is both reaper and travel agent. Jerks and hooligans suffer the cramped confines of a stuffy coffin; only the pious get to ride the Number 9 Train.

This is no traditional hellscape. The dead (including Manny himself) are represented as walking calaca or calavera, the Day of the Dead skeleton dolls. You’re chauffeured by a demon auto mechanic styled after Ed “Big Daddy” Roth’s hot rod monsters, the creature’s eyes bugging out and tongue flapping in the wind. Later on, you walk for miles on the netherworld’s ocean floor and fight a submarine-dwelling octopus. And yet within the fantastical malarky there is a heart.

Early in the game you uncover a covert operation to steal tickets from the righteous and sell them to the rich, damning an innocent client to an afterlife she never deserved. Now you’re a target and a schmuck. Time to make amends.

* * *

Schafer says that for many of his games, the world came first. The motley cruisers of Full Throttle, a 1995 adventure game about bikers (and his directorial debut), stemmed from a friend’s anecdotes from Alaska, where she’d frequented a biker bar; hearing stories of this subculture too frequently boiled down into Angels from Hell led Schafer to believe this was material worth plumbing. Psychonauts, a surreal platforming game for the Xbox and Playstation 2, slid out of a long-percolating idea that began in a “Psychology of Dreams” course Schafer had taken in college. What would happen if we could travel through someone else’s subconscious? (Instead of Mario’s Ice and Fire worlds, the main character Razputin Aquato visits different characters’ brains, their neuroses constructing inhabitable levels such as The Milkman Conspiracy or Milla’s Dance Party.)

The Day of the Dead intrigued Schafer as a spiritual ceremony that, through the influence of Mexico’s Bureau of Tourism, became an image to stamp on calendars and travel brochures. The DayGlo sugar skulls and rampant commercialization of what was once a quiet, family-led time of remembrance did not sour his regard for the event. “[When Day of the Dead] became more of an industry, that made it more appealing to me,” he said, adding that the festival became “more based on the immediate needs of people who are alive.” This, plus the implications of a corrupt underworld, sowed the seeds for what would become Grim Fandango.

When Schafer and his team pitched their new game to LucasArts in the summer of 1996, most everyone at the table loved the idea. Then a lone detractor raised his concern. “One person was like, ‘Um… isn’t it a bummer that everyone’s dead?’” Schafer remembers. The Grim team countered that, no, that wouldn’t be a problem at all. In truth they had no idea.

Today, Schafer understands the squeamishness. “Some people are put off by death and don’t want to think about it or talk about it,” he says.  Death is depressing to many, or it scares them; a game with a dead guy on its cover was a risk. I suggest it was smart to tell the story using animated calaca dolls instead of, you know, rotting corpses.

“But look what’s popular now?” Schafer says. “Rotting corpses. All the biggest games and TV shows are rotting corpses. I underestimated the public’s demand for rotting flesh.”

Later, Schafer tells me via email: “I had one worry about making a game about death: What would we do if someone close to the project died? For some reason, I knew it would happen.”

So he devised a plan. He describes a scene showing spectral lights dancing in a forest; these were pure souls allowed easy passage to the Land of Eternal Rest. The end sequence would include these lights racing off to their reward with text on-screen naming the dearly departed. The idea was scrapped during production and never made it into the final product.

During Grim’s first act, Manny visits the Land of the Living to gather a client’s soul. Those still alive appear as cardboard cut-outs, their faces a fractured collage of eyes and nose and mouth glued together like ransom notes. Move Manny close to one of them and he utters an aside to the player. It is voiced by actor Tony Plana but written by Schafer: “It is the fear of death that makes monsters of us all.”

* * *

Grim Fandango is not your typical undead-fest filled with violence and guns. Most of your time playing will be spent in conversation with the game’s wry inhabitants. Grim leans hard on the tough charm found in Raymond Chandler but with an acerbic, absurdist intelligence, as if penned by David Mamet. The plot revolves around a spirit of one-upmanship the same way Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross (an influence, Schafer says) conjures tension and cruelty out of contemporary business mores: Someone always wants what someone else has.

Though its characters are dead, the music that scores their actions is lively and swinging, full of walking bass lines and soaring brass with the occasional strum of a charanga. Peter McConnell composed Grim’s score and has worked with Schafer for nearly two decades, composing dozens of videogames since the late ‘80s. For Remastered, he re-recorded parts of the score with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. I asked him about working on such a complicated project, but before we discuss sound and ambiance, he refers to the spiritual.

“It’s kind of a miracle, alright.” I assume he’s describing the original being made in the first place. But he is actually referring to the new remastered version, its existence held up by numerous obstacles. Disney, who owns LucasArts, had to sign the same dotted line as Sony and Double Fine. Then there was the sheer Hidden Object Game of finding the original game.

A modern remaster requires more than the CD-ROM from 1998; any game comprises thousands of art assets, hours of recorded sound, a spaghetti tangle of programming code, and to touch up Grim Fandango meant to have access to the marrow of its boney construction, locked away in places given purposefully vague names such as “the vault.” Getting this puzzle game back in players’ hands was to be a puzzle in itself.

According to McConnell, Jory Prum, sound mixer for the newly orchestral score, cobbled together some Rube Goldbergian machine of wire and hard drives to enable access to the old material. Rob Cowles, former LucasArts marketer, rescued much of the archival data Double Fine used to remake the game. That’s McConnell’s term—”rescued”—not mine; even to its creators, Grim feels like something alive and worth saving.

McConnell’s composition imbued the game with this contradictory feeling: a game about the dead that pulses with life. A soundtrack doesn’t always slickly play over the action; instead a warbling jazz horn pumps in from a scratchy radio on someone’s desk. That hoppin’ band playing downstairs is first heard thumping through the floor below, then over an intercom. In a film, such diegetic (or main source) sound creates the impression of being witness to a character’s day; we’re hearing what they’re hearing, too. In a game, this immersion is amplified; we control this character directly. We don’t hear what Manny hears; we, as Manny, hear.

Though we view Manny from a third-person perspective, we have direct agency over his decisions. Press the arrow keys and he walks. Speak with someone and four lines of dialogue show on screen; the player chooses Manny’s very words for him. How you choose to interact with the world determines what happens next. Grim Fandango belies a lot of conventions—from folklore and film noir especially—but stripped down, Schafer and his team built the same machine that’s run smoothly since 1975, when Will Crowther and Don Woods made a computer game called Adventure.

Grim_Fandango-thatsalot

* * *

If Grim Fandango started in Alan Dunde’s UC Berkeley lecture hall, it continued in a cluttered room inside LucasArts’ Santa Monica offices, where Schafer, lead artist Peter Tsacle, lead animator Eric Ingerson, and lead programmer Bret Mogilefsky would talk about puzzles. “We’d meet every day until we had two puzzles,” Schafer says.

An adventure game, then, is something of a misnomer. Because more than swashbuckling derring-do or dangerous questing through uncertain lands, an adventure game is defined by a specific kind of puzzle. Crowther’s and Woods’ Adventure, along with early computer games like Zork, solidified the template, consisting of rooms to enter, objects to find and use, and obstacles to overcome. These worlds were rendered through nothing but text. The only way a player can move forward is to solve a problem devised by the game’s creators. A simple puzzle: There is a locked door. Somewhere, a key is hidden. Find the key, unlock the door, and forge verily ahead.

Through the years, both the environment and your interactions therein grew in complexity. Roberta Williams’s King’s Quest series for Sierra brought rich visuals (for the time) to the genre’s until-then imagined landscapes. Maniac Mansion, designed by Ron Gilbert and Gary Winnick, added a thick skein of humor and the absurd. Half of the dialogue for that game’s sequel, Day of the Tentacle, was written by a young Schafer.

Playing Grim Fandango is as much about laughing along with its creators as it is finding solutions. This is not a “funny” game; there are no rim-shots or obvious parodies for comedic effect, as in Grand Theft Auto’s self-aware pastiche. The humor comes from an honest assessment of its world.

“Humor was always important,” Schafer tells me. “We had a big family, five kids. So the dinner table was the place to try out jokes.”

Schafer’s game writing is a continuation of that mealtime standup. Grim’s first act continues with you walking around your workplace, The Department of Death, and talking to co-workers. Upon entering the office of Domino, a fellow salesman who seems to land all the best clients and is blowing off steam by hitting a speed bag, Manny gets in a jab of his own: “Is it hard to kiss up to the boss so much when you got no lips?” While talking to your boss’s secretary, she refers to her time as a living person as “my fat days.”

These aren’t punchlines so much as observations on a world filled with skeletons. Though the plot hews closely to and is inspired by both classic and modern noir—The Big Sleep, Gilda, Chinatown—the intersection with Dia de Los Muertos makes certain the standard genre fare doesn’t stay standard.

“There’s this really rote formula for when people think about [film noir,]” Schafer says. “I loved Double Indemnity, which is a movie about an insurance salesman. Your hero doesn’t have to be a private dick. He can be just some guy who gets caught up in a shadowy underworld.”

And when the lingering stories from Mexican folklore mashed into all those Bogart films Schafer had been watching—the criminal underworld would be a literal underworld!—Grim started coming together.

One such puzzle exemplifies the moebius-strip development ethos of Schafer and his team. There’s still a lock, and a door, and a room beyond. But the world and its characters inform the riddles. Midway through the game, you’re captured by a group of underground freedom fighters. They’ll only let you go if you give them access to your building, but office security works through teeth-scans—a sly nod toward grisly deaths requiring dental work to identify the body. What to do?

The key equals a mouthguard (you recall Domino hitting the speed bag in his office) filled with packing foam (the dead are fragile and require travel accoutrements similar to Amazon shipments). Find one, fill it with the other, and hand over the pearly substitute; you are now free to go. The interim between problem and solution is where the player’s adventure lies: between the ears. This, incidentally, is one of the more straightforward puzzles in the game.

The genre can have a reputation for leaning too much on obtuse, arbitrary combinations. (Read a walkthrough for how to obtain the Babel Fish in 1984’s videogame adaptation of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” for one example of designed cruelty.) But such solutions stem not only from the desire to test the player’s aptitude. We often make up rules to govern our own IRL existence that, on their face, make little sense.

“When I was young,” Schafer tells me, “I remember checking this closet to see if there were monsters in it when I was a kid. I had to bang it three times before going to bed. For like a year, I would bang that doorknob three times before going to bed.” Schafer, like most of us, was a born puzzle-maker. He just didn’t grow out of the habit.

* * *

Like Schafer, concept artist Peter Chan began work on Grim Fandango long before the game existed. In 1977 he received a Star Wars magazine that sparked an interest in art; twenty years later, his illustrations gave rise to LucasArts’ most visionary creation. Last year, when Sony announced Grim Fandango Remastered at their Electronic Entertainment Expo press conference, they decorated their stage presentation not with high-res art but Chan’s original pencil drawings.

McConnell, the game’s composer, also looks at Grim as a reflection of his life’s work. In 1996, when not in the composition studio, McConnell played in rock bands and went to clubs in San Francisco’s Mission District: “On a given Friday or Saturday night you could walk around and hear the Red Hot Skillet Lickers playing at Bruno’s. When you got hungry you’d go around the corner to the cantini and there’d be a mariachi band playing.” Such nights were more than inspiration. “The Grim Fandango score was the Mission District,” McConnell tells me. “That was my life.”

Schafer grew up wanting to be a writer in the mode of Kurt Vonnegut. But as typewriters turned to microprocessors, Schafer turned his attentions elsewhere. He snuck into RadioShack to mess around with their TRS-80, an early home computer. His parents finally got him an Atari 400 and later an Atari 800; he and friends dabbled in programming, making animated title screens for made-up games but rarely pushed beyond the instruction to “Press Start.” Games were never a possible vocation in his mind, just a fun thing to do while making other plans. Then he saw a job posting on campus while attending University of California, Berkeley. The ad was for a programmer who could also write. He applied and got the job at Lucasfilm Games, which would become LucasArts. His first work there was helping to port Maniac Mansion to the NES. He then helped program and write dialogue for The Secret of Monkey Island and its sequel, and Day of the Tentacle.

Cue screen-wipe to 1995: Schafer writes and directs his first game, using Chan’s concept art and McConnell’s score, based on biker gangs called Full Throttle. It’s a risk that pays off; the game’s a huge success. Schafer and his team are feeling confident. They’ve been kicking around an idea for awhile, melding Mexican folklore with film noir. A few years before the new millennium seems like high time to consider the afterlife. Board members want a sure thing, a sequel to what just worked. Schafer writes another thing entirely.

* * *

Grim Fandango takes place amongst the dead, those who have left the living behind. But in the game, the living are not an ideal the dead aspire towards, but caricatures, those frozen, ransom note horrors. When Manny returns to his world, a festival is bustling downtown. Phones ring. Cars careen down the road. This is the real, living place. What if the dead haven’t left us behind, but gone on without us? What if we are the ones rotting in place?

Grim Fandango is smart enough to not ask that question directly. But there is a sense that Schafer’s games are a response to the world proper sometimes not being enough. If his time on earth lacks a certain panache of prior eras, his games would not. Clues abound: the blatant use of a voice actor who sounds an awful lot like Casablanca’s Peter Lorre; a disparate blend of Art Deco architecture with ancient Aztec temples; cars hopped up on jet-fuel with drivers straight out of “Big Daddy” Roth’s famed pencil illustrations from the 1960s.

Schafer was introduced to Roth by his older brother, Danny. His brother loved the slick chrome and gnarly creatures, and so Schafer, in classic younger brother mode, loved them too. His brother didn’t love videogames, though, teasing little Tim for spending time chasing made-up scores or solving imaginary riddles. I asked Schafer how his brother felt about his influence immortalized in Grim. “He never got to see this one,” he says. On January 27, 1997, midway through Grim’s production, Schafer’s older brother died in a motorcycle accident.

His plan for how to work on a game about death in the midst of tragedy did not hold. The souls-of-light sequence and text dedication was never made. “What I had thought was a great tribute in the abstract just seemed like a weak trivialization compared to the actual loss,” he writes. “The only way to keep working on the project was to compartmentalize.”

Adventure games had always leaned on visual metaphors: an object glows if it can be picked up, or a verb floats on-screen, identifying what action you can perform. Schafer wanted Grim’s User Interface, the means of interaction between player and game, to be as literal and grounded as possible; everything the player saw was in the world. For example: There is no “inventory menu.” Instead, Manny takes each item out of his robe and speaks its name, as if remembering.

Grim’s surprising elegance stems from noir’s tight economy of language, but also its creators’ desire for clarity. Death is a murky venture. The Grim player’s experience is clean, unbesmirched with the typical on-screen icons, or floating hands, or other explanatory graphics of Adventure games then and now. This is a game designed for the immediate needs of people who are alive.

If the player succeeds in solving every puzzle and progressing through the story, Manny’s earthly life isn’t restored and given back; the optimal result is a trip on the Number 9 train, a faster transport to the afterlife. You can’t go back. But you can attain a kind of peace.

Schafer’s older brother never got to see the finished product, nor would he have played it. “[My brother] always made fun of videogames and stuff like that,” Schafer tells me. “But I did find, after going through his stuff, all my games in his closet on a little bookshelf. He’d been going out and buying them.

“Danny was the one who taught me to love hot rods [and] heavy metal,” Schafer writes later in an email. “So he’s in the game, and almost every game I’ve made.”

* * *

On October 28, 2013, at 2 a.m., Manny Calavera spoke his first words in over fifteen years. “Good evening,” he said. “I would like to read a poem.” Across the world, sixty-four hep cats snapped in RT form.

The above quoted line is from @MannyPoetry, a Twitter Bot programmed by an anonymous fan. During the game Manny frequents a club called “The Blue Casket,” which hosts a poetry open mic. Step up to the microphone and you get to decide your poem, one line at a time, culling from such fresh jives as “I curl into a fist” and “Lugubrious” and “Don’t pet the cat that way.” The bot tweeted out a single line from Manny’s repertoire every day for an entire year.

A communal adoration forms among those who have danced the grim fandango. Fans have Manny tattooed on their skin. Web sites which sprouted at the game’s release remained active far longer than seems reasonable; Grim Fandango Network operated for over a decade, and The Department of Death played host to Grim fans for over seven years. In 2013, a troupe out of New York called D20 Burlesque organized a burlesque show devoted to Schafer’s work, Grim included. The troupe’s emcee, Anya Keister, performed as Tim himself.

The real Tim and I are talking over Skype, watching little video feeds of each other’s heads. It feels like a moment out of some movie prognosticating the future. Or a Schafer game. He’s telling me about that burlesque show, and I ask him about the game’s community of fans and why, in his opinion, the game is embraced so fervently. Our connection falters; his face freezes in place but the audio remains. Schafer’s become a character from Grim’s Land of the Living, just a caricature in stasis.

“No two people play the same game,” says Schafer’s face, stuck in digital rigor mortis. “You’ll think you’re just making a game that’s entertaining, then you’ll get this letter from someone and it feels like they’re crying, because it helped them deal with the death of their father.”

Weeks after we talk, a thing he and others created from nothing will rise again after having once been buried and gone. His mad scientist creation will not be forgotten. His masterpiece will once again exist in the present. On Skype, Schafer is still frozen and still talking, lips ever-pursed. His eyes have not blinked in minutes. He speaks as if beyond time, a living memory of the past. What future generations will think of this game is not for him to decide. “No one knows what the meaning of their work is,” he tells me. “They just know what they put into it.”

* * *

Jon Irwin is a teacher and writer living in Atlanta. His work has been published in Billboard Magazine, Down East, Lumina, Paste, and Transitions Abroad, and he’s been a contributing writer for Kill Screen since 2011. His first book, Super Mario Bros. 2, was published by Boss Fight Books in 2014.

* * *

Published by Kill Screen, January 2015.

The Rise of Joan of Arc: How a Visionary Peasant Girl Defied a Dress Code and Challenged the Patriarchy

$
0
0

Kathryn Harrison | Joan of Arc: A Life Transfigured | Doubleday | October 2014 | 29 minutes (7,119 words)

 

Below is an excerpt from the book Joan of Arc: A Life Transfigured, by Kathryn Harrison, as recommended by Longreads contributor Dana Snitzky.

* * *

On October 12, 1428, the English laid siege to Orléans. As it was the single remaining bastion that prevented them from crossing the Loire and occupying what remained of France, there was talk of little else. The kingdom that had reigned supreme in Europe just a hundred years earlier now faced extinction. Should Orléans fall, all of France would follow it, and all who called themselves French would find themselves under the rule of the king of England. It grew ever harder to manufacture hope in the face of what appeared inevitable defeat. Soldiers too honorable to defect sank into the apathy of the condemned, and the French clergy found themselves marching circles around the army’s frozen infantry, processing through the streets on a regular basis to demonstrate the constancy of their devotion in hopes of summoning a miracle. The dauphin, whose fear of illegitimacy inspired fatalism, was making plans to abandon his sinking kingdom for the castle of one of France’s allies—Scotland or Spain.

Siege of Orléans. Image via Wikimedia Commons

Siege of Orleans. Image via Wikimedia Commons

* * *

For whatever reason—and perhaps it was nothing more than her own impatience—Joan left Domrémy in haste, a leave-taking remembered primarily for her cryptic good-byes. She left quickly but not in secret, bidding farewell to those she encountered as she was heading out of town. If she looked, she never found an opportunity to tell her friend Hauviette that she was leaving, and Hauviette, who said she “loved her very dearly,” had “cried very bitterly about her going.” Mengette, with whom Joan spun and “did other household chores,” did get a last embrace, perhaps due to proximity, as her “father’s house was almost next door to Joan’s father’s.”

“When she went away, she said good-bye to me,” Mengette testified. “Then she departed and prayed God to bless me, and set out for Vaucouleurs.”

“All I know,” the farmer Gérardin of Épinal testified, “is that when she was about to go away, she said to me: ‘Friend, if you were not a Burgundian, there is something I would tell you.’” It would appear Gérardin was the single enemy sympathizer in town, whose head Joan would have been happy to “take off,” should God ask her to. As for Gérardin, he assumed Joan’s secret was no different from that of any other girl of her age, “something about a lad she wanted to marry,” he guessed.

* * *

“No eggs! No eggs!!” Sir Robert says to his steward in Saint Joan, by George Bernard Shaw. The play opens like a fairy tale, in a castle, and amplifies the apocryphal bird imagery that lifts Joan’s story above those of other mortals and loans her the vantage of angels. “Thousand thunders, man, what do you mean by no eggs?” How can it be that all Sir Robert’s hens—“the best layers in Champagne”—have stopped producing eggs?

“There is no milk,” his steward tells him. “There are no eggs: tomorrow there will be nothing . . . [T]here is a spell on us: we are bewitched . . . as long as the Maid is at the door.”

Joan, however, wasn’t waiting at the castle door. Nor was she staying outside town with her uncle in Burey, but lodging with friends of his, Henri and Catherine Le Royer, who owned a house within the walls of Vaucouleurs. She had no intention of returning to Sir Robert before strengthening the legitimacy of her request by attracting more and more powerful adherents to her cause. Word had spread in the eight months since Joan’s earlier visit. Before the siege of Orléans, it had been easy to laugh off the odd girl in the homespun red dress, but news of the pivotal city’s imminent fall delivered the French to a desperation that transformed Joan from the butt of a joke into a young woman who merited serious attention. Perhaps she really was who she claimed to be, the prophesied virgin from the marshes of Lorraine. “I heard it said many times that she was to restore France and the blood royal,” her childhood friend Jean Waterin testified.

Joan had no sooner arrived in Vaucouleurs than the whole city knew of her return. Impatient for a first look at her, a throng gathered around the Le Royers’ door.

“What are you doing here, my dear?” asked Jean de Metz, a squire stationed in the city garrison. “Is it not fated that the King shall be driven from his kingdom, and that we shall all turn English?” Jean asked her, his tone arch. A knight in training, like Bertrand de Poulengy, he was playing to an audience at Joan’s expense, unprepared for sincerity so absolute it didn’t acknowledge sarcasm.

“Before mid-Lent I must be with the King,” Joan told him. “Even if I have to wear my legs down to the knees.” The salvation of France had been ordained, and “for that she was born,” she said to Henri Le Royer, identifying her messianic role as clearly as Jesus had to those who “sought him and would have kept him from leaving them” to minister to “other cities also, for,” as Jesus said, “I was sent for this purpose.” As it had been for Bertrand de Poulengy, the fervor of Joan’s answer made Jean de Metz her friend for life, a man of good standing who became another of her instant adherents. “I had great trust in what the Maid said,” Jean testified, “and I was on fire with what she said, and with a love for her which was, as I believe, a divine love.”

“I believed in what she said,” Catherine Le Royer testified, “and so did many others”—enough that Joan could gather together a party of companions and set out for Chinon without Sir Robert’s blessing. But according to Catherine the mission was quickly aborted. “Joan said that this was not the way in which she ought to depart,” and the party came back to learn that Joan’s fortunes had shifted once again, just as they had the last time she’d returned to Vaucouleurs. But that was after an absence of many months, not the few days it took to get to Saint-Nicolas, a quarter of the way to Chinon, and back. As Saints Catherine and Margaret had promised, God had indeed cleared her way to the lord dauphin.

* * *

Sometimes depicted as a lazy dilettante without any interest in rule, or as a simpleminded playboy, the dauphin was neither stupid nor apathetic. Prior to his mother Isabeau’s betrayal—that is, the doubt she cast on his legitimacy—he had been known for his theatrical military exploits, leading an army against the English when still a teenager. But Isabeau’s betrayal left him prey to a psychic paralysis that made him vulnerable to scheming courtiers jockeying for power, some with allegiance to the Burgundian party. His marriage, in the spring of 1422, when the dauphin was nineteen and Marie seventeen, and the subsequent death of his father that fall resolved nothing. Seven years later, as Joan struggled to make her way to Chinon, the dauphin had yet to claim what was his, the throne of France remained empty, and his mother-in-law Yolande had financed an army Charles didn’t have the confidence to dispatch. She wasn’t about to sacrifice the kingdom she’d secured for her daughter to his inertia, and her immediate concern was to keep the remaining houses of France united while fending off an advancing enemy. For months now she had been searching for a means to guide, or force, if need be, Charles into a war she wanted and he didn’t. That a girl claiming to be the Virgin from Lorraine had arrived in Vaucouleurs to announce she’d been sent by God to lead France’s army and escort the reluctant dauphin to be anointed king at Reims was news Yolande seized with excitement. Immediately upon coming into possession of so welcome a rumor, she dispatched her messenger, Colet de Vienne, from the court at Chinon to that of her son René, the future Duke of Bar and Lorraine and Sir Robert’s immediate overlord.

Sir Robert, Yolande wrote to René, was on no account to squash or banish this peasant girl, not when his country needed the energy and confidence inspired by a prophecy fulfilled. René must contact Sir Robert immediately and tell him to have the girl evaluated and her words taken as those meriting serious attention.

Son obeyed mother; captain obeyed duke; Catherine Le Royer found herself with unexpected visitors. Sir Robert had done what Joan never thought to do: he summoned a Church authority to validate her mission, obliging Joan to participate in what she knew was a charade and considered a waste of time. “I saw Robert de Baudricourt, then captain of the town of Vaucouleurs, and Messire Jean Fournier enter my house,” Catherine testified. “I heard Joan say that this man, who was a priest, had brought a stole, and that he had exorcised her in front of the captain, saying that if there was any evil thing in her, let it begone away, and if there was any good thing, let it come to them all.” Since he had heard her confession, and thus already knew the state of her soul, “Joan said that this priest had done wrong.” Promised success by her voices, Joan hadn’t troubled to puzzle out how it might be realized, nor did she defer to earthbound clerics who ruled what they called the Church Militant, “all good Christians engaged in the struggle against the enemies of Christ,” to distinguish it from the Church Triumphant, whose members inhabited heaven. Still, all the rest of the world, who lacked direct access to God, believed that to offend Church doctrine was a grave mistake, and it was only after Joan had Fournier’s sanction that she received a summons from René’s father-in-law, the old Duke Charles of Lorraine.

* * *

An invitation to the home of a nobleman was as good as an announcement that through the inaudible direction of her voices and the invisible hand of Yolande Joan had bounded out of the peasantry and into the highest echelon of society, an accomplishment rare enough to qualify as something of a miracle. Now her appearance needed to reflect her new station. “I asked her if she wanted to travel in those clothes,” Jean de Metz said of Joan’s dress of “the reddish-brown homespun material known as russet.” If it was the typical farm girl’s dress, it was long sleeved and ankle length, with a laced bodice. “She replied that she would rather have a man’s clothes,” Jean said. “Then I gave her a suit and breeches belonging to my servants, so that she could put them on.”

But, Joan’s uncle Durand said, “some people of Vaucouleurs” determined that Joan should go off to see the duke in the clothes of a gentleman, not a servant, and had “everything that was necessary” made for her. As the clothing was offered as a gift, the citizens who outfitted their virgin warrior can hardly have found the idea of a woman wearing male clothing “abominable to God and man, contrary to laws both divine and natural and to ecclesiastical discipline . . . and prohibited under penalty of anathema.” The trial record dilates this judgment with a description of Joan’s dress so lingering in its specificity that it can only have been inspired by the delight taken in counting up the sins of others. Joan “wore shirt, breeches, doublet, with hose joined together and fastened to the said doublet by twenty points, long leggings laced on the outside, a short mantle reaching to the knees, or thereabouts, a close-cut cap, tight-fitting boots and buskins.”

Joan, as it turned out, was—or she quickly became—something of a fop. The tailor-made clothes the citizens of Vaucouleurs gave her awoke a taste for the luxurious fabrics and flamboyant styles that sumptuary laws held out of a peasant’s reach: velvet surcoats embroidered with gold thread; fur-lined mantles; colorful tunics bearing coats of arms; tight-fitting damask doublets with jeweled buttons and slashed sleeves that revealed contrasting silk linings; brightly colored hose; voluminous gowns—houppelandes—with sleeves that hung to the ground; pigases with their extravagantly long and pointed toes; chamois gloves; belts hung with bells and trinkets; an “infinity of hats . . . tam-o’shanters and furred caps, hoods and brims, chaplets of flowers, coiled turbans, coverings of every shape, puffed, pleated, scalloped, or curled into a long tailed pocket called a liripipe.”

Joan could not have chosen a more dramatic moment to defy a dress code. Costume historians identify the high Middle Ages as the arrival of fashion in western Europe. Cotton from Egypt; silks from the Ottoman Empire; improved dyes and dyeing techniques; complex patterns and new fabrics, like brocade and velvet, made possible by Chinese innovations in weaving: crusaders went east bearing murder and returned home with the ingredients for haute couture. And the increased social mobility that accompanied the aristocracy’s loss of power strengthened the yet ruling nobility’s resolve to assign and maintain standards of dress that identified a peasant as a peasant, no matter how much money he had to spend on disguising himself as a lord. Etymology identifies villein as the progenitor of “villainous,” as is churl of “churlish,” suggesting the regard in which the aristocracy held a peasant, whose lowly stature was received as proof of his base character. The Burgundian chronicler Georges Chastellain “attributes sublime virtues only to the nobility,” Huizinga observed of his Chronique des choses de mon temps, a history of the years 1417–74 that was written when “God, the theory went, had established an intangible order of which costume was merely the expression.” The Third Reich didn’t invent the yellow badge that announced its wearer as a Jew; it revived the idea from a decree made by Pope Innocent III in 1215 that Jews be “marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples.” By the time Joan was born, two centuries of increasing social unrest had drawn the strictures of sumptuary laws that much tighter; never before or since has Europe insisted on so rigid and visible a classification of its citizens. Even were a prostitute successful enough to afford the fine clothes of an aristocrat, she could never be confused with a lady, required, as she was by law, to wear a striped hood or cloak. Within this context, Joan, whose dress revealed, in the opinion of her judges, “her obstinacy, her stubbornness in evil, her want of charity, her disobedience to the Church, and the scorn she has of the holy sacraments,” refused to acknowledge the most basic and essential distinction, that drawn between male and female. “It was characteristic of the time, of the doctors’ narrowmindedness, of their blind attachment to the letter without any consideration for the spirit,” Michelet wrote, “that no point seemed more grievous to them than the sin of having assumed the garments of a man.”

“Mark what I say,” Shaw’s inquisitor lectures, “the woman who quarrels with her clothes and puts on the dress of a man is like the man who throws off his fur gown and dresses like John the Baptist: they are followed, as surely as the night follows the day, by bands of wild women and men who refuse to wear any clothes at all.” Shaw’s representation of the clerics’ response isn’t drawn from historical record, but it represents the Church’s viewpoint well enough. As pronounced by an anonymous member of the University of Paris, “If a woman could put on male clothing as she liked with impunity, women would have unrestrained opportunities to fornicate and to practice manly acts which are legally forbidden to them according to doctrine . . . for example, to preach, to teach, to bear arms, to absolve, to excommunicate.”

Jesus drafted his own death warrant in the temple when he upturned the tables of the moneylenders and berated those who sold doves for holy sacrifice, publicly challenging a corrupt social order that allowed the rich to purchase sacred power—an order swiftly reinvented by the Church that deified him. So now had Joan drafted hers by drawing the attention of both those who made and guarded rules she refused to obey and the multitudes governed by their misogyny.

With the example of Saint Margaret and other virgin martyrs before her, Joan sheared off her hair; by doing so, she announced she had removed herself from the company of other unwed girls, who were expected to leave their heads uncovered in public, their hair undressed and falling down their backs as an advertisement for prospective suitors. At a time when women didn’t get their hair cut, ever, Joan’s barely covered her ears. Hers was the original bob, the haircut assumed by flappers as a symbol of female liberation and still known in France as la coupe à la Jeanne d’Arc. It would have been possible for Joan to preserve her hair’s length and still wage war, especially as women and girls often wore plaits coiled over their heads. Arguably, it would have been a comfort, or even a precaution, to have an extra layer of padding under a metal helmet designed not only to deflect arrows but also to preserve a knight’s skull from the impact of a rock dropped on his head from a parapet.

But Joan didn’t want a woman’s hair any more than she wanted a woman’s fate. By the time she accomplished her mission, Joan would have attended the highest state function mounted on a white horse, dressed in armor, and cloaked in red velvet as she processed before courtiers and nobles, escorting her gentil dauphin to the altar of Reims’s cathedral, where he would be anointed Charles VII, his title secure, as no mortal could undo what God ordained. Unarmored, Joan wore clothes that befit a national heroine: conspicuously stylish and costly, as noted both by her worshipful, approving followers and by her enemies, who would call attention to her dress as evidence of decadence and, worse, pride. As they understood it, Joan had seized a set of symbols she didn’t merit.

What Joan wore—and what she didn’t—announced what was more powerful for not being spoken aloud. Under interrogation, she said she dressed as a man as a practical concession to a life spent making war among men, but Joan wore male clothing under all circumstances, among soldiers or not. Schiller’s Joan seizes a helmet before leaving home to embark on her crusade; from it “warlike thoughts” pour into her head and make her eyes flash, her cheeks red. The costly male costume in which Joan cloaked her virgin female body transcended the pragmatic. It was the physical manifestation—the announcement—of her refusal to abide by patriarchal strictures, a defiance that was absolute and uncompromising, and both Joan and her judges knew that. The extravagant attention the inquisitorial trial paid her clothing and the role her cross-dressing would play in the decision to execute her reveal how subversive and genuinely dangerous the clerics who ruled society considered Joan’s assuming the right to wear male attire. No one, especially not Joan, thought her dressing as a man was “a small, nay, the least thing,” as she dismissed the topic when under interrogation.

* * *

From the time she arrived in Vaucouleurs in early January 1429 until her departure for Chinon on February 13, subtracting two weeks for her visits to the courts of Bar and Lorraine, Joan was left with a month to fill, and it’s assumed she received instruction in riding and carrying a lance from the knights stationed in the garrison there. “She was very bold in riding horses . . . and also in performing other feats and exercises which young girls are not accustomed to do,” said Jean de Wavrin, a Burgundian who fought against Joan at Patay.

To master a knight’s necessary skills, ordinarily acquired over years, Joan had the four weeks at Vaucouleurs and would be granted an additional three at Poitiers, when not being interrogated by the clerics assembled there to assess her claim of a divine vocation. Even a strong rider with native talent would be remarkable in achieving so high a level of expertise in six weeks. The girl who had protested that she “knew not how to ride nor lead in war” was praised universally—by comrades and enemies alike—for her adroit handling of a destrier. The expression Joan used for “ride” referred to a horse not as a garden-variety cheval but as a knight’s courser: strong, swift, and bred for battle. A destrier was a specialized horse, as different from a harness animal as a Thoroughbred from a Clydesdale. It was a knight’s deadliest weapon, plunging into the fray to rear up and come down kicking with forelegs powerful enough to kill an enemy with a single blow from an iron-shod hoof. Despite their relative prosperity, Joan’s family was unlikely to have kept any but work animals. Oxen plowed; horses pulled wagons to market. Even an athletic girl who loved being outdoors and going off alone into the woods, a girl in the throes of chivalric fantasies, wouldn’t have had the means to learn to ride a warhorse.

* * *

Joan’s zeal for battle was apparent, but she knew better than to present herself to powerful men without a veneer of humility and a few words to suggest a reluctance to undertake so immodest a quest. Long before she was on trial for her life, she was careful to underscore her lack of personal ambition.

“It’s no good breaking your heart to make men understand anything,” Joan’s mother tells her in Jean Anouilh’s play The Lark. “All you can do is say ‘yes’ to whatever they think, and wait till they’ve gone out to the fields. Then you can be mistress in your house again.”

But Joan didn’t stoop to gather unacknowledged power. “If God didn’t mean me to be proud, why did He send an Archangel to see me, and saints with the light of heaven on them to speak to me?” Anouilh has her ask her inquisitor. “He only had to leave me looking after the sheep, and I don’t think pride would ever have entered my head.”

“I would much prefer to stay with my poor mother and spin,” Joan said to Jean de Metz, “for this is not my station. But I must go, and I must do it, for my Lord wishes me to perform this deed.” Once her vocation had been fulfilled, however, Joan didn’t return to the hearth but refused to relinquish her identity as a military chieftain. That she had been a child exemplary in her obedience speaks to her commitment to her voices’ direction to be good, not to her embrace of domestic routine, to which she never intended to return.

“I am a soldier,” Shaw’s Joan declares. “I do not care for the things women care for. They dream of lovers, and of money. I dream of leading a charge and of placing the big guns.”

In his film Joan the Woman, Cecil B. DeMille’s vision of his heroine’s potency is even less subtle. “If thou comest from God,” Sir Robert says to Joan, “show me what answer he would make to this!” Baudricourt rises from his throne-like chair to unsheathe and brandish his sword. Standing in profile, he points to its blade with his left hand, while with his right he holds its hilt just at the height of his pelvis; the length of it projects from his groin at an angle and rigidity suggesting tumescence. Provoked, Joan borrows a dagger-size knife from a page standing beside her and holds it up as if it were a chalice, her face tipped heavenward to receive the divine grace that infuses her little blade with miraculous power. With it she halves the much longer shaft of Sir Robert’s weapon. Immediately, Sir Robert agrees to give Joan whatever she asks, but he cannot meet her eye as he speaks; his gaze is fixed on his severed sword. “I am convinced and will send thee to thy King,” his unnecessary title card reads. If the scene provides unintended comedy for today’s audience, it remains useful for the aggressive transparency of its symbolism, its release having preceded psychology’s imposition of self-consciousness on popular culture. What could more obviously convey the nature of the fear Joan of Arc has always inspired than her unmanning her opposition with a supernaturally enhanced phallic weapon?

When she at last set out for Chinon, it was with six men, of whom at least one would admit to starting the trip contemplating her rape as a means of robbing her of the power she claimed.

* * *

The traveling party of seven included the two knights who financed the trip: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy; Bertrand’s servant, Julien; Yolande’s messenger, Colet de Vienne; Richard the Archer; and the servant he shared with Vienne, Jean de Honecourt. “They were all knights and servants of Sir Robert de Baudricourt,” Joan testified. “Sir Robert had sworn them to conduct me well and safely.”

“Go,” Robert said to Joan as she departed. “Go, and come what may.” It was hardly a benediction, but Baudricourt was obeying orders, not acting out of faith. No matter his opinion, the price of getting rid of the obstinate girl had been to provide her an escort and a formal letter of introduction to the dauphin—a bargain, as it turned out. Even had Yolande not been scheming from afar, by now the citizens of Lorraine were traveling miles to get a glimpse of their Maid, thronging around her. Were Baudricourt to refuse to promote what they believed was her God-given mission, he’d risk an uprising.

With the formal introduction she needed, Joan and her six companions set out for Chinon on the night of February 12, 1429, “to go,” as she said, “to the lord Dauphin, and for that I was born.” Her phrasing often mimicked that of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, an echo here of Christ’s admonition to those who tried to detain him from his vocation. “I was sent for this purpose.”

Joan of Arc Leaving Vaucouleurs, Jean-Jacques Scherrer’s monumental history painting, first exhibited in 1887, has insinuated itself into the origin myth of France much as Emanuel Leutze’s equally narrative Washington Crossing the Delaware has shaped the vision of countless American schoolchildren. Life-size, regal, and handsomely attired in brown tunic, cape, and leggings, her yet-to-be-shorn hair falling over her shoulders and down her back—her transformation incomplete—Joan pauses on the threshold of her magnificent and terrible fate. The Maid’s horse lifts her to a heroic height. Like George Washington towering over his seated rowers, she is more than head and shoulders above the crowd around her, a sweep of caste from beggar to courtier; “the mother of her country,” history has judged her, “the George Washington of France.” She raises her left hand in farewell, her right reaches for the symbol of her vocation: a sword, its hilt and blade divided by the hand guard, emphasizing its cruciform outline and reminding us that her war is a holy one.

Jean-Jacques Scherrer, "Joan of Arc Leaving Vaucouleurs." Image via sofi01

Jean-Jacques Scherrer, “Joan of Arc Leaving Vaucouleurs.” Image via sofi01

“No sword!” Sir Robert exclaims in Victor Fleming’s 1948 film, Joan of Arc. “Here,” he says. “Take mine!”

Scherrer’s painting has a focal point. The silver gleam of the weapon being passed from the captain to the Maid captures the eye and holds it on the critical moment, as a man of wealth and status relinquishes the symbol of his potency to a much younger woman. Just below that transaction is another reminder: painted in profile, the pommel of Joan’s armored saddle projects forward from her groin like an abbreviated phallus. Sir Robert reaches over his head and past the pommel to extend the tied scroll of a letter along with the weapon. Joan’s gaze, like Washington’s, is visionary, fixed on what she alone can see.

* * *

Chinon, about 350 miles to the west, was at the end of an eleven-day journey through English-occupied territory, the rivers in flood as they were every February, “no roads and no bridges left.” Even though they took the precaution of proceeding only under cover of night, that seven men-at-arms—or six, and one armed girl—traveled on horseback undetected and undisturbed by soldiers guarding roads and circling the towns along the way is often cited as the first miracle to demonstrate Joan’s uncanny powers. A story was told by “some soldiers who had gone to intercept her when she was on her way to find the King,” Seguin Seguin testified for the nullification proceedings. A Dominican friar who provided the sole eyewitness account of Joan’s first formal ecclesiastical examination, at Poitiers, Seguin is considered by historians to have provided the most reliable of testimony. They “had laid an ambush to capture her and rob her and her company,” he said. “But at the moment when they were about to do so, they had found themselves unable to stir from their positions; and so Joan had escaped without difficulty together with her company.” There would be other miracles, both less ambiguous and more dramatic. Still, whether it was accomplished with or without the grace of God, that so large a party eluded both enemy soldiers and the bandits spawned by anarchy was at least lucky and by no means expected. After all, Baudricourt had provided Joan a military guard for a reason.

What conflict emerged was internecine and came in the form of power struggles between Joan and those members of her escort who, like Baudricourt, were just following orders—except Sir Robert was safe within the walls of a fortified city and they were being asked to risk their lives for a girl who not only claimed she heard voices from God but dressed as a man. Husson Lemaître, a tinker from Viville, not ten miles from Domrémy, testified for the nullification that he’d “heard it said that while Joan was being taken from Vaucouleurs to the King, some of the soldiers of her escort pretended to be the enemy troops, and that those who were with her made a show of being about to take to their heels. But she said to them, ‘In the name of God, do not run away. They will do us no harm.’” And, though Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy were firm defenders of Joan’s holiness from the outset, her other companions plotted to undo the audacity of this inconvenient virgin, only to discover why it was that one of the king’s squires, Gobert Thibault, heard “Joan’s intimates say that they never had any desire for her. That is to say, that sometimes they had a carnal urge, but never dared to give way to it; and they believed that it was impossible to desire her . . . Suddenly their sexual feelings were checked.” Whether the gift betrayed heavenly or, as her enemies would attest, demonic influences, and though her apologists would hardly have characterized it in such terms, Joan was believed to have safeguarded her virginity by using supernatural powers to emasculate would-be assailants.

“I afterward heard the men who led her to the King talking,” Marguerite La Touroulde said,

and heard them say that at the outset they thought her presumptuous and that they meant to put her to the test. But once they were on the road, escorting her, they were ready to do anything that she wanted and were as anxious to bring her before the King as she was herself to get there. They could never have denied her anything that she asked. They said that . . . they wanted to make sexual advances to her, but at the moment when they were about to speak they were so ashamed that they dared not tell her their intentions or utter so much as a word.

“We escorted her to the King . . . as secretly as we could,” Jean de Metz remembered. The need for cover prevented Joan from attending Mass as regularly as she liked; given the opportunity, she went more than once a day. “If only we could hear a Mass it would be a grand thing,” Jean remembered her saying. “But, to my knowledge, we only heard the Mass twice on the way,” once on the first night, when the party of travelers reached the town of Saint-Urbain and were invited to sleep in the abbey, and again a few days later, when they passed through Auxerre and Joan attended Mass in the principal church there. On February 21 the seven travelers paused at the village of Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois, a day’s ride from Chinon, that much farther to the west. From Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois, Joan told the examiner, she’d requested permission to approach the dauphin at the castle. “I sent letters to my king telling him I had traveled a good hundred and fifty leagues to come to his aid, and I told him also that I knew many things to his advantage.”

* * *

Already, the citizens of Chinon were out milling in the streets, gossiping and waiting for a chance to see the Maid. Outside its walls were growing ranks of aspiring foot soldiers, as “French people of all ages and professions leave their homes to join the army and march towards Jeanne, like the Magi following their star.” Multitudes of mostly simple folk walking with clogs on their feet, carrying axes, pitchforks, and pikes—farm implements that provided prototypes for weapons used in hand combat—“crowds of people along every road that leads from Lorraine to Chinon” came to volunteer their lives to serve in the army of the virgin warrior who had passed unmolested “through the territory of the King’s enemies, and . . . almost miraculously, forded many rivers in order to come to the King.”

“There is something strange about this girl,” Yolande tells Charles in The Lark, “something remarkable. Or so everybody thinks, and that’s what matters.”

With Yolande overtly propping up his resolve, Charles defied the courtier La Trémoille and La Trémoille’s cadre of Burgundian spies and sympathizers and demanded that Joan be brought upstairs. The scene in which Joan at last meets the dauphin claims a prominent role in every telling of her story, identifying her immediate discovery of the dauphin, who had hidden himself among a crowd of courtiers, as her first significant miracle, the one that ignited the fuse of her messianic trajectory. After all, she’d never seen him or his likeness before—what other than her voices could have tipped her off? Predictably, the scene grew more fantastic with every telling, although in the case of Joan the religious truth embraced by hagiography can’t eclipse historical fact. The first meeting between Joan and Charles included only a handful of people. The second was a reenactment of the first and took place months later, after Joan had been thoroughly vetted by a Church tribunal.

“He came from on high,” Joan said of the angel who accompanied her on her initial visit, and he “went with me by the stairs to the king’s chamber.”

“Who entered first?” the examiner asked.

“The angel went in first. He came by Our Lord’s command.”

“How?”

“He came in through the door,” Joan said, and “from the door the angel stepped upon the ground and he walked towards my king.”

“How far was the distance between this angel and your king?”

“The space of a good lance-length,” she said, that distance being anywhere between nine and fourteen feet.

“And did anyone else see or hear this angel? Anyone other than you?”

“My king and several others heard and saw the voices which came to my aid,” Joan said, a characterization that evinces how oblique and cryptic she became when interviewed about angels and saints and their properties. No witness for the nullification claimed to have seen, or heard, her voices, though they trusted they were real. Not one of Joan’s contemporaries suggested she had ever lied about her experience of what she believed was a heavenly manifestation.

“Who were the others present?”

“Charles de Bourbon and perhaps three others”—Yolande, La Trémoille, and a handful of the dauphin’s closest advisers.

“When the King learned that she was approaching,” Simon Charles testified, “he withdrew behind the others; Joan, however, recognized him perfectly.”

Among the courtiers, the grand master of the king’s household and erstwhile crusader, Raoul de Gaucourt, remembered that Joan—he called her a “poor shepherd girl”—“appeared before His Royal Majesty in great humility and utter simplicity. I heard her speak the following words to the King: ‘Most noble Lord Dauphin, I have come and am sent by God to bring help to you and your kingdom.’”

Joan fell to her knees before the dauphin as she did before her angels and saints, Charles being one of the few mortals before whom she lowered herself in obeisance. She was wearing what she had on the journey from Vaucouleurs—“a black doublet with hose attached, a short tunic of coarse black material, black hair, cut round, and a black cap on her head.” If she was surprised by the physical appearance of the man she had imagined countless times, she didn’t betray it. Isabeau is reputed to have been beautiful in her youth, but her children, three of whom died in infancy, were an unprepossessing lot. Charles lived to be fifty-eight, longer than any of his siblings. If his official court portrait by Jean Fouquet is not of the warts-and-all school, then the dauphin must have been repellent. The lower half of his face, with its full-lipped, petulant mouth and fleshy chin, suggested sated appetites; the eyes above his bulbous nose were, as observed by his contemporaries, small and calculating. “If he can make three sous profit on any virtue you bring him he’ll sell you out, and throw you in the corner like an empty sausage skin,” Chartier observes in Maxwell Anderson’s 1946 play Joan of Lorraine. The dauphin’s arms and legs were so spindly as to shock those who saw him when he was not upholstered in ceremonial velvet and fur but wearing his everyday green tunic. An inexpensive garment that wasn’t discarded but repaired when the elbows gave out, it demonstrated well enough the poverty into which France’s court had descended. Though Joan would find herself increasingly impatient with Charles’s vacillation and what seemed like timidity, and he would sacrifice her life to his ambition, she never judged him. She saw no wrong in righteously criticizing most of the rest of the world, either collectively or one man at a time, but Charles was God’s anointed. If she believed she could budge his resistance to undertaking military maneuvers he perceived as risks and she understood as opportunities, Joan would remonstrate with him for an hour, but she regarded Charles as she did the pope, both representatives of divine will who stood outside the reach of mortal censure—as did she.

Charles VII by Jean Fouquet. Image via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_VII_by_Jean_Fouquet_1445_1450.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Charles_VII_by_Jean_Fouquet_1445_1450.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>

Charles VII by Jean Fouquet

Despite the protests of La Trémoille and Archbishop Regnault de Chartres, the dauphin agreed under pressure from Yolande to retire with Joan to a separate room. “The Maid talked with our lord the King in private,” Joan’s squire, Jean d’Aulon, wrote of the initial meeting, “and told him certain secrets that I do not know.”

“After hearing her,” Simon Charles added, “the King appeared to be joyous.” By all accounts, the chronically indecisive and ineffectual dauphin emerged from the private audience radiating optimism and confidence, suddenly appearing as a man capable of rule.

Whatever transpired between the dauphin and the Maid has fueled six centuries of curiosity. Joan refused to discuss it at all, not even to save her life.

“What sign did you bring to Charles showing him you came from God?” the examiner asked repeatedly.

“Go and ask him,” Joan said. “I have already told you that you will not drag this from my lips.”

While Joan’s testimony about her private audience with the dauphin fails to address the obvious point of her judges’ questions—just how exactly had the divine manifested itself?—there’s little sense in parsing each of her inconsistent responses to exhume a truth from their vivisection, not any more than in constructing rationales to explain the inconsistency of her comments, when Joan refused to make any other than a qualified oath to her examiner.

“You may well ask me such things, that to some I shall answer truly, and to others I shall not.” She swore to tell the truth only about what she—not her judges—considered the subject matter of her trial for heresy and witchcraft and refused to divulge her private experience of God. Why would she when, as she said, she was “more afraid of failing the voices by saying what is displeasing to them, than of not answering you”? They were welcome to call other witnesses, she told them; those of her party knew well that the voice was sent to Joan from God, and they knew this voice.

If Charles gave any account of the sign Joan gave him, it was many years after the fact, and history is left with little more than secondhand hearsay from the man Joan called her gentil dauphin. Sala, a courtier and chronicler during the reign of Charles’s son and successor, Louis XI, wrote that toward the end of his life the king had confided in his chamberlain Guillaume Gouffier, whose duties required him to sleep in Charles’s bedroom. Gouffier told Sala that Charles had made a “humble silent request in prayer to Our Lord . . . in which he begged him devoutly that if it were true that he was His heir . . . might it please God to protect and defend him.” Otherwise, he asked that God allow him to escape to the court of one of his allies, in Spain or Scotland. Joan, Charles said, had known the prayer he made, known it in enough detail to convince the dauphin of her legitimacy. As all of France understood Charles’s predicament, and suffered his indecision, any of his subjects might guess the nature of his prayers. Whether it was what Joan said, a repetition of his words so precise as to be miraculous, or the fervor with which she said it that convinced the dauphin is impossible to know. The atmosphere at court had been so long imbued with pessimism and anxiety that Joan’s passionate certainty separated her from everyone else the dauphin knew.

* * *

From the Book: JOAN OF ARC by Kathryn Harrison. Copyright © 2014 by Kathryn Harrison. Published by arrangement with Doubleday, an imprint of The Knopf Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.

Taking the Slow Road: An Interview with Author Katherine Heiny

$
0
0

Sari Botton | Longreads | February 2015 | 14 minutes (3,683 words)

 

 

Ed. note: Katherine Heiny will be in conversation with Sari Botton at McNally Jackson in New York on Wednesday, Feb. 11 at 7 p.m.

* * *

In the fall of 1992, I found myself very much affected by “How to Give the Wrong Impression,” a short story in the September 21 issue of The New Yorker about a twentysomething psych grad student who’s trying hard to seem satisfied keeping things platonic between her and her handsome roommate.

To begin with, I had a lot in common with the protagonist, more than I’d have wanted to admit at the time. I was in my twenties, too—27 to be exact—newly divorced from the second person I’d ever so much as dated, and most importantly, I was very busy trying to seem satisfied keeping things platonic with a rakish “friend.” I didn’t just recognize that young woman, I was her at that moment in my life.

But the story also appealed to me because it was written in the second person, a literary device made popular in the eighties by Pam Houston, Lorrie Moore and Jay McInerney, and subsequently overused, mostly badly, by just about every man, woman and child to enroll in a creative writing course. I was no exception. I’d just begun dabbling in MFA programs (ultimately I’d start and then drop out of two) and like my cohorts, I thought second person voice was the coolest, so much so that after reading Heiny’s piece, and having not that long ago read Houston’s second-person narrative short story “How to Talk to a Hunter,” I found myself trying my hand and producing something of an impersonation.

I hoped there’d be more to read from this new writer. Surely she had to have a story collection or novel in the works. Occasionally over the years I’d search and find nothing, then give up and find myself re-reading “How to Give The Wrong Impression” to scratch the itch.

Needless to say, when I learned recently that Heiny was at last about to publish a book, I couldn’t wait to read it. Single, Carefree, Mellow (Knopf, Feb 3.) doesn’t disappoint. It’s a collection of 11 stories, including “How to Give the Wrong Impression,” most of which had been published in literary journals in recent years. They all feature young or middle-aged women who have secrets, who are in some way having difficulty reconciling the version of themselves they present to the world with less virtuous interiors. Heiny has created women—and placed men around them—who are complex, flawed and not always likable in ways that are recognizable, sometimes wincingly so, which I find refreshing and liberating. She holds no punches, but often her subtle, wry humor softens the blows.

Heiny spoke with me, by phone, from her home in Maryland, about publishing a debut story collection more than two decades after finding herself in the spotlight with her first piece ever published in The New Yorker, about the value of an MFA, and about daring to write complex female characters.

* * *

The first time you published a story, it was in The New Yorker while you were a student in Columbia University’s MFA program in creative writing.  What happened for you is what people only dream of: Roger Angell fished “How to Give the Wrong Impression” out of the slush pile and then published it unedited. Were you just stunned by that?

It was unbelievable. I mailed it on Thursday and on Friday, the phone rang. It’s funny, because when I picked it up, and this man on the other end asked to speak to Katherine Heiny, I thought it was the landlord. We were always late with our rent, and so I said, “I’m sorry, she’s not here. Can I take a message?” And he said, “Yes, tell her Roger Angell from The New Yorker called,” and I immediately said, “No, no—wait! It’s me!”

But first you had the piece rejected 31 places. How was that for you?

Rejection letters don’t really bother me. I have nine million insecurities but I don’t take rejections personally.

What emboldened you to send it to The New Yorker after having it so widely rejected?

My friend Jennifer told me I should start there. I hadn’t known that before. I didn’t really have a master plan—I just sent stories out everywhere, all the time, to every magazine.  I don’t know why I hadn’t sent to The New Yorker—I think it honestly hadn’t occurred to me. Actually, I recently looked through a bunch of old rejection letters from that time period and lots of them were so encouraging, and  a couple even basically said that they’d take a story if I changed the ending or something, but I couldn’t read between the lines then—I was just like, “Okay,” and sent the story somewhere else.

What do you think is the prevailing wisdom these days, regarding submitting stories to magazines and journals?

I’m not sure what the prevailing wisdom these days is. Obviously I didn’t even know the prevailing wisdom in my own day. But when I taught creative writing a few years ago, it really surprised me how few of my students were sending stuff out. What’s the point of writing a story and sticking it in a drawer? Did they think elves were going to come and publish it in the night? I have never taken rejection letters personally, though—maybe if you do, it’s way harder.

Being published in The New Yorker must have opened doors for you. What kinds of opportunities arose?

I feel like it’s still opening doors for me! Though at the time, I felt like people defined me by that story–like they were saying, “Here, you write about unrequited love, that’s what you do.” But maybe I imagined that. I don’t know. I was very young and kind of clueless. But mainly, it was just this fantastic wonderful experience that fell into my lap.

Did you feel at all pressured to capitalize on the success of the story before too much time passed?

No. I knew I wasn’t ready and I didn’t want to produce something substandard. I’m kind of a perfectionist. And I didn’t have anything ready to go. That was part of it. I couldn’t say, well I’m so glad I’m getting this attention, because I have this manuscript here that I’ve been working on. I didn’t have that. It might have been a totally different story if I had.

Over the past two decades, I’ve gone back to “How to Give the Wrong Impression,” and looked for other pieces of yours, maybe finding a couple here and there. It sort of always surprised me that you didn’t have a collection of stories out there. Had you hoped to complete and publish a collection sooner?

No, not at all. The prevailing wisdom for so long was that you should publish a novel, not a story collection. A novel was going to make your career. And so I always felt like a book of short stories was not a good idea, not prudent. I really took that to heart. But I wasn’t writing a novel, I was writing short stories. In fact, when I first queried my agent and she wrote back asking to see my work, I sent her dozens of files. I wanted an agent but I didn’t look past that to a book. It surprised me more than anyone when she put it together and sold it. But if I’d known how fun it is, I would have done it years ago!

I personally take comfort in the fact that waiting didn’t mean you missed your chance. I mean, I’m in your age group, and I still haven’t managed to pull a book together for many reasons, one of which is that I’ve been riddled with fear, and procrastinating for two decades.

Ha! I know something about that.

So was procrastination a factor for you, too?

Well, yes, but there were many other factors. I mean, I had offers right when the story came out, but I thought I didn’t have that many stories, and I thought, oh my book would come out with this one sort of star story, and everything else would look really half formed. I could just see it being a disaster, so I was just like, no, no, we’re going to wait on that. I was happy to just write a short story and place it in a magazine. I waited for a long time for an idea for a really big novel. And that didn’t come. Then I wrote YA for four or five years, and that took all my creative energy. There was just nothing left to write.

What kind of YA were you writing?

It was a series of romances. None of them were under my own name. I’d had a story in Seventeen, and it had a very young protagonist, and a YA publisher called me and asked if I wanted to write books for them. At the time I was waitressing, so I was like, is it more money? Okay, I’ll do it. And I absolutely loved it. It was really fun. It taught me a lot. It was great. I’m glad I did it, but I left at the right time. I think if I would have gone on with it, I would have burned out. And then I had children. I don’t know, maybe my children are really high maintenance, or I’m really low energy. It really wasn’t until my youngest son started first grade that I could go back to writing.

Three of the stories in Single, Carefree, Mellow, including the one the book takes its title from, are about a character named Maya. I wondered whether we might see her in a novel, down the road.

I think that there will definitely be more stories about her, but maybe not a whole novel. The Maya stories were difficult for me to write because I thought [Maya’s love interest] Rhodes deserved better than Maya. She’s kind of an unsympathetic character, and that made her a little harder to write about, but she’s also interesting to me. There’s a kind of tartness to her observations that I like. So I’m kind of drawn back to her over and over again.

I really appreciate that you write women who aren’t necessarily nice, who have some hard edges. I think in almost every story, there’s a woman who is lying—to herself or others—or cheating on someone. They’ve got dirty secrets. What is it about that kind of character that compels you?

Well it’s a two-part answer. The first part is my husband is a former MI6 agent.

MI6?

It’s like James Bond, a British spy.

Did you know that when you met him? How did you meet him?

I met my husband in a bar. He was wearing a tuxedo because he’d been to some formal party and I said, “What do you do?” and he said, “What do you think I do?” and I said, “Well, you look like a Secret Service agent,” and nearly gave the poor man a heart attack. I always believed he was a British diplomat. In fact, when he told me he really worked for MI6, I was like, “What’s that?” and he said, “Well, you know, MI6,” and I said, “I just told you I don’t know what that is,” and in general it was probably a very deflating conversation for him. He can do any accent perfectly, though—we have built our whole relationship on that.

For most of our married life he was undercover, and I couldn’t tell people what he did. We had to be careful about what we said on the phone. He was under death threats some of that time. So I think that because I lived with secrets being part of my life for so long, it’s kind of second nature.

The second part [about writing complex characters] is that usually what I start to write about is kind of small and not enough for a story. Like the first Maya story I wanted to write about my dog dying, and I was like, well nobody is gonna want to read that, and so, in order to make the story sustainable, I had to add another issue and I thought, well okay, if she’s losing both her relationship and her pet, then that’s gonna be more interesting. In the final story, Andora, I really wanted to write about the relationship between Sadie and the housekeeper, who’s kind of like the voice of reason in her life, and ends up being almost like a life coach. But I thought, well, there has to be a reason that Sadie’s life is so out of control. And so I thought, well, she’s having an affair, that’s what’s out of control. So secrets and infidelity are themes I reach for to sort of bulk out a story.

Do you care at all about whether readers will find your characters likeable? That’s something women writers get asked about all the time. I remember when I was in a fiction program at City College, some guy in a workshop commented on my piece by saying, “I don’t like your characters. I wouldn’t want to be friends with them.” And I thought, well, a) that’s not what I’m here for and b) good.

I don’t think I ever cared about it. I mean, I love all my characters the way I love my children and my pets. To me, they might be flawed, but they’re loveable. And for other people to view them as unlikeable or complicated makes sense to me. It’s not like I would argue and say, no, she’s really a nice person. One of my favorite books is The Accidental Tourist (Knopf, 1985) by Ann Tyler. There’s a whole section in the middle where the main character wonders how he can be in love with somebody so unlikeable. And then he lists all the ways that she’s unlikeable, which are really funny. And that has always kind of stuck with me in that, well, she is kind of unlikeable, but we like her. I mean, it’s balanced out by other stuff. It really makes her, the character, Muriel, a real person. I’ve read The Accidental Tourist 25 times, so maybe a lot of it came from there.

Who else have you been influenced by?

Stephen King is a genius. Alice Munro is amazing. I really like Elizabeth Strout’s collection, Olive Kitteridge (Random House, 2008). I’ve read that a lot of times too. Margaret Atwood, Kate Atkinson, Lionel Shriver—all those great writers. Kate Atkinson I think writes really cool sentences.

Earlier you talked about using your experience with your dog dying, and some other autobiographic elements. In your acknowledgments you thank friends for inspiring characters in the book. How much comes from your own life, and what’s your philosophy about autobiographical elements making their way into fiction?

I think if you get involved with a writer, some details are gonna appear. But not the way they happened. The story “The Rhett Butlers” is very satisfying to me, because everything in it really happens, but not to me, and not in the way that it happens in the story. Almost every detail in that story was taken from real life, but it’s put into the framework of this girl having an illicit affair. That’s really the only time I think I’ve ever done that, that it was all real details that I could skew into having resonance in a narrative.

So, you take all these pieces that kind of exist in the world and you throw them into a situation together?

Yeah, and then they make sense in a way that they otherwise wouldn’t. In “The Rhett Butlers,” there’s this detail I’d been waiting thirty years to use. When I was growing up, there was this guy who rode his motorcycle around our court, trying to impress the girl next door to us, and her father went out and told him he was disturbing the peace and to go away. Thirty years later, I find a use for that in the story, and but it has this sinister context, that it’s this teacher riding past the teenage girl’s house. I don’t know, that was really thrilling to me as a writer.

I just heard an interview with this guy who has won 13 Moth story slams. He said he keeps an Excel sheet where every night he inputs things that have happened in his day, experiences that could become stories later one. Maybe they’re not interesting now, but down the road they might be interesting. Do you do anything like that? Does that sound crazy to you?

It sounds really nerdy! I’m not nearly organized enough to do that. I don’t even keep a notebook or a journal. I have a really good memory, so generally when I want to pull something from real life or something that happened to somebody I know, I can remember it. pretty well. Also, when I get together with my friends we have the most tedious (to everybody else) kind of conversations, where we’re like, remember when that guy, you know, told you your legs were too pale? I mean, we re-live the moments over and over, so they don’t really get lost or forgotten.

There’s a line in one of the stories about the main character taking notes on things that happen in her life to use in her writing. I reminded me of Lorrie Moore’s short story, “How to Become a Writer.” Were you influenced by Lorrie Moore?

Oh, so much. I read Self Help (Knopf, 1985) when I was around 18 and just beginning to think maybe I’d want to be a writer. It was the kind of book I read with my hair standing on end, thinking, Oh my god! I didn’t think this existed! It was electrifying. I think it’s hard to read Lorrie Moore and not be impressed and amazed and inspired.

Also, it struck me as surprising that three stories in the book are written in second person voice. It’s something you don’t really see as much as you used to, before it became old hat. How did you come to make that choice?

I think I wrote “How To Give the Wrong Impression,” in the second person because of Lorrie Moore, and probably because of Pam Houston as well. I’d loved “How to Talk to a Hunter,” a story in Cowboys Are My Weakness (W. W. Norton & Co, 1992), which was a big book that year and I really liked it.

I think that in the second person, things are often funny that wouldn’t be funny in the third person. And I will do anything for a laugh, really. I’ll set up a whole theme just if I think I can get some sort of joke in there. But then it’s also limiting sometimes, because I think it keeps the reader at a distance, which is sometimes something you want and sometimes something you don’t. But once you’ve committed to the second person, you can’t turn that around.

I think it’s really easy to overdo it, though. It’s kind of like anything—child narrators, for instance. Almost anything stylistically that you can think of is kind of good in small doses, or it’s not really sustainable.

So, in the never-ending debate over whether it’s worthwhile to pursue an MFA in creative writing, where do you stand? The programs only get more expensive, and it’s less and less viable to try and make a living as a writer. You could spend the rest of your life in debt. Many people do. Was it worthwhile for you? Do you think it’s worthwhile, generally?

It was wonderful. I loved every minute of it. Socially, I wouldn’t say it was the first time I fit in, because I had plenty of friends in high school and college, but I was like wow, everyone here is just like me. I can relate to every single person here and it’s wonderful. But I was lucky. My dad was paying for it. My poor dad, you should call my dad, I’ll give you his phone number. Ask him whether he feels it was a good investment. And it was 25 years ago. MFAs weren’t quite so ubiquitous as they are now. But I got my MFA with no plan or thought of what was going to come after, which is really amazing to me. How frustrating for my parents. I think of my own children saying that to me, and I’m thinking, let’s talk about this a little more. I wound up temping and waitressing after the program until I got the offer to write YA books, so, in terms of financial security, I’m sure I would have been better served to go to dental technician school or something. But I really did learn a lot about writing and my own writing in particular.

You never felt pressured by your parents to produce something big while you were studying and they were paying for it? Your parents weren’t like, well, okay, so what’s this going to lead to?

Well first of all my parents are like really clueless about that stuff. They’re both scientists, so I think that they had some really delusional thoughts that I would graduate and get a job with a company, that I would be the creative writer at Prell or something like that.

Would you recommend getting an MFA to someone today, who isn’t in the same position that you were in 25 years ago?

Probably not! Isn’t that awful? I guess it would depend what you’re hoping to get out of it. I hear, sometimes people say, well I’m going because I’m going to come out of it with a book, and a book contract. And I think that’s really unrealistic. But if somebody was saying, well, you know, I really want to hone my skills as a writer and I need help and structure to do that, then that’s a different question.

What’s next? Will you eventually do a novel, or have you decided you’re a short story writer?

Well, it’s funny because I did decide I was a short story writer, and then I started writing short stories that were all about the same characters, and told by the same person, the same point of view. And eventually, as I went on, I realized that each short story was sort of picking up where the other one left off. And I was like, oh they’re chapters, I get it now. So I do have a novel coming out in 2016, but I had to sort of back into it. I think, I told you I had no insecurities as a writer, that rejection letters don’t bother me. But saying, “I’m gonna write a novel,” I don’t think I could just sit down and do that. I would be seized with fear and insecurity. But to back into it that way, that was something I could do.

* * *

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

* * *

Sari Botton is a writer living in Kingston, New York. She is the editor of the award-winning anthology Goodbye to All That: Writers on Loving and Leaving New York and the New York Times Bestselling follow-up Never Can Say Goodbye: Writers on Their Unshakable Love for New York.

‘It’s Yours’: A Short History of the Horde

$
0
0

Eva Holland | Longreads | February 2015 | 10 minutes (2,458 words)

 

Ta-Nehisi Coates started blogging for The Atlantic on August 4, 2008. His first post was titled “Sullivan… McArdle… Fallows… Coates???” and it laid down his terms from the start: “My only rule, really, is simple,” he wrote. “Don’t be a jerk to people you disagree with.” He’d been hired to fill the slot left in the magazine’s roster of bloggers by Matt Yglesias, and he addressed how he’d be coming at the role differently. “Matt has a fairly amazing ability to comment, from a left perspective, on a wide range of issues… Knowing my own limits, I’ll take a different tack. On things I’m not so sure on, I’ll state my opinion rather gingerly and then hope my commenters can fill in the gaps.”

The blog would soon be widely lauded for the keenness and clarity of its ideas, the power of its language, and for its unexpected ability to host real, substantive conversations in the comments—an extreme rarity on big-name websites. Coates, then a relatively unknown writer, would go on to win a 2013 National Magazine Award for “Fear of a Black President,” an essay published in The Atlantic’s print edition, while a selection of nine posts from his blog would be named a 2014 finalist in the National Magazine Awards’ “columns and commentary” category.

So how did Coates foster a comment section in which—wonder of wonders—intelligent adults thoughtfully share ideas and knowledge, and where trolling, rudeness and bad faith aren’t tolerated? I asked Coates and other players in the blog’s success—editors, moderators and commenters—to look back on what makes it work.

* * *

Coates joined The Atlantic’s roster of bloggers in the heat of the 2008 election season, and the race between John McCain and Barack Obama was the focus of many of his early posts. Another blogger who was preoccupied with the battle was Andrew Sullivan, whose Daily Dish was still hosted by The Atlantic at the time, and many of Coates’ early commenters arrived by way of a link from his more established labelmate. Impressed by the quality of the writing and the comments, they came back again and again, enjoying not just the possibility of interacting in a sane, constructive way with each other, but with Coates too. He often appeared in the comments: clarifying his point of view, responding to criticism, and acknowledging when others had a point.

For Ta-Nehisi Coates, the nature of his forum was a deliberate choice from the outset. “I wanted a comment section that I wanted to read,” he told me. As an African American, he said, he was turned off by the naked racism that was routinely permitted to stand below most political blogs. His gaming background also played into his vision of the comments and the blog posts as a cohesive whole, an ongoing discussion. The comments, he believed, should be part of the content.

Coates discusses the anger behind "Fear of a Black President."

Coates discusses the anger behind “Fear of a Black President.”

Beyond the ongoing political coverage, Coates quickly began to establish some of the blog’s secondary themes and enthusiasms: music, poetry, football, comic books and Dungeons & Dragons. All the while, the ranks of regular commenters were growing—and they were becoming an essential part of the whole project: Coates frequently highlighted particular insights, pulling them into blog posts of their own, and, as he’d promised from the start, he increasingly turned to the commenters for information about areas he didn’t know well—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance. Blog posts sometimes consisted entirely of a request for input in the comments.

The rules of the space were evolving, too. Trolling was verboten, and commenters were discouraged from responding to people who were obviously looking to provoke; he didn’t want the discussion devolving into an un-resolvable argument. (The blog’s homegrown etiquette was later codified in what became known as the “dinner party rules.”) As the blog grew in popularity, Coates’ reminders about bad behavior became more frequent; repeat offenders were banned, and sometimes, he had to resort to closing comments on a post entirely.

But the hard line was also part of the appeal. Commenter Stephen Matlock, who initially went by the handle “BetweenTwoWorlds” before reverting to his real name, recalled: “Having an honest, adult engagement with Coates was bracing. So was the general sense that people told the truth, or were sent packing. People who came in to disrupt were reprimanded and then blocked, even banned, and their digressions deleted—along with all the people, including me, who jumped in to correct. Coates tried again and again to get us to leave the people posting in bad faith alone. I was a bad student, who took many lessons to learn, but eventually I got better.”

By late 2008, threads could stretch into hundreds of comments, and threadjacking and derailing was becoming an increasing problem (although often, the digressions were as informative and worthwhile as the on-topic comments). To compensate for keeping people strictly on task in the regular threads, Coates started posting open threads—sometimes for a specific event, like an NFL game or the Mad Men season finale, and sometimes as a pure free-for-all. Those threads were where the regulars started to really get to know each other, and develop their own shorthand, nicknames, and inside jokes. Somewhere along the way, the commenters adopted the name “Golden Horde” for themselves, while Coates, in the group vernacular, became “the Khan.”

In April 2009, the open threads were formalized into a daily event: the Open Thread at Noon, or OTAN for short. That’s when Bob Cohn, then the top digital editor and now The Atlantic’s president and COO, began to take note. “I first clued in to the real power of his platform when he began writing posts at lunchtime headlined: ‘Open Thread at Noon.’ The entire text of the post that followed was: ‘It’s yours….’ That’s all,” Cohn says. “Within minutes, the Horde began talking among themselves—about politics, about football, about hip hop, about race, about videogames, and, often, about Ta-Nehisi himself. He simply declared his comments thread open for business, and everyone flocked. He could get hundreds of comments in the first hour. That’s when I knew he had built something special.”

* * *

The best proof of the caliber of comments and commenters that Coates’ blog attracted is probably the story of Cynic. “Cynic” was the handle adopted by Yoni Appelbaum, then a PhD student at Brandeis University, when he started commenting during the 2008 election run-up. His comments were unfailingly thorough, thoughtful and respectful, and Coates often flagged his contributions in follow-up posts.

Then, as Appelbaum recalls it, Coates contacted him “because he had deduced that I was a historian,” and he had some questions that related to his own historical work. They began to keep in touch outside the comment section, and in June 2010, Coates asked Appelbaum to turn a long comment he’d posted about Ulysses S. Grant into a standalone blog post. That one post was followed by a guest-blogging stint for Appelbaum—still identified only as “Cynic.” Not too long after that, Appelbaum was recruited right out of the comment section, and given a steady role—and a proper byline—as an online contributor to The Atlantic.

“In March 2011, my phone rang. And it was Bob Cohn of The Atlantic,” Appelbaum says. “That’s not a phone call you can really turn away. So I started contributing regularly then.”

Last month, after nearly three years of writing for the site, Appelbaum got another promotion: once a pseudonymous commenter, he’s now the full-time Politics Editor for The Atlantic’s digital operation.

* * *

Throughout 2010, 2011 and 2012, the blog continued to grow in popularity and in profile. The OTANs were a fixture, and the group added other recurring items: a regular Mad Men thread, and an online book club focused on the history of the Civil War, dubbed the “Effete Liberal Book Club.” The longtime Horde members had also created a private forum for themselves elsewhere on the web; meet-ups were occurring across the country, and “meatspace”—that is, offline—relationships were being formed.

The Atlantic published Coates’ “Fear of a Black President” in the September 2012 issue, and in May 2013 the essay won a National Magazine Award. In a blog post written the day after the awards gala, Coates gave partial credit to the Horde for the piece’s development and eventual success:

“If you crawl back through the archives of early to mid 2012, you will find me writing this story, on this blog, with some assistance from you. (The Trayvon coverage, for instance.) If you crawl even further back to the summer of 2010, you can find me writing this story with some assistance from you. (The Shirley Sherrod coverage, for instance.) And if you crawl back to the archives of 2008, you will see the same thing.

“This space is my notebook. But in the borders and outside the margins you can see the added scribblings and post-its authored by The Horde.”

“Fear of a Black President” was a turning point, both for Coates’ writing career and for the comment section on his blog. “After ‘Fear of a Black President,’” Coates told me, “more people started coming, and that kind of ruined things, weirdly enough. It made it a lot harder to regulate.” His success had made him a target not just for larger numbers of people unused to minding their online manners, but to a hard core of persistent trolls who surfaced on seemingly every race-related post. In February 2013, Coates and The Atlantic brought on two longtime commenters, Sandy Young and Kathleen Bachynski, as moderators to help Coates keep the comments on track. It was an increasingly tough job.

“The experience of being a moderator was complex,” Sandy Young says now, “since Disqus [The Atlantic’s commenting system] lacks the ability to simply moderate one writer’s posts. I had the power to delete and ban site-wide. I would have preferred not to have it—but when I encountered posts that were vile—racist, sexist, or just downright threatening, I’d think ‘Aw crap. I don’t want to be that guy who tries to fix the Internet, but people I know and care about are going to see this and be insulted or hurt by it. What should I do? I have this power—should I use it or not?’”

Coates on The Colbert Report discussing "The Case for Reparations."

Coates on The Colbert Report discussing “The Case for Reparations.”

Coates, meanwhile, was blogging less and less. In contrast to the years when he posted three, four or five items daily, in 2014 he published fewer than 100 items, although many were long and heavily researched. (2014 also saw the publication, in the June issue, of “The Case For Reparations,” Coates’ monster follow-up to “Fear of a Black President.” It was a finalist in the essays and criticism category at the 2015 National Magazine Awards.)

He doesn’t sound optimistic about the future of the comment section. Instead, he sounds tired: of deleting and banning trolls, of trying to police and curb an online community’s worst—and, it often seems, most natural—instincts, all in the name of a goal he doesn’t feel he’s ever achieved. “To be honest, I can’t say how long this will go on for,” he told me, addressing the possibility that he might someday close comments entirely, like his colleague James Fallows. “It never quite became what I wanted it to be. I never really figured out how to get people from different perspectives in a place without defaulting to these usual conversations.”

Sandy Young, who’s since turned in his keys to the “ban” and “delete” buttons and stepped back from moderation, agrees that the comment section’s golden era is likely in the past. “I think ‘The Horde’ as it might describe a bunch of us actively participating in public online discussions was a rare and wonderful moment in time,” he said. “I don’t think it will continue… [and] I don’t think it can be replicated easily. [Coates] has moved on to a wider audience, which he absolutely deserves. But the Horde had already begun to become a more private place.”

For Yoni Appelbaum, there were two things that made the Horde so valuable. The first was the sheer range of backgrounds its members emerged from: the group spanned age, race, class, gender identity, occupation, education, and nearly every other variable. “So some of its value and some of the potential of any comment section was its ability to get people talking to each other who might not otherwise inhabit the same spaces, might not share the same assumptions, and to see what happens when they engage each other in good faith.” The second, he says, was the way in which Coates “made himself genuinely vulnerable. It wasn’t a selfless act… He wanted to learn everything that he could and understood that admitting the limits of his own knowledge was perhaps the best way to encourage others to engage constructively with him and with each other. That’s something I can’t do nearly as well as he does, but it may be the most valuable thing I learned there.”

Comments are still open, occasionally, on some of Coates’ blog posts, but the longtime commenters now tend to refer to the comment section in the past tense. If there’s a lesson to be taken away from the story of the Horde, it might be—depressingly—that trying to build a comment section that truly adds value to a writer’s work will inevitably become more trouble than it’s worth. For years, the Horde gave me hope for a better internet, but these days I tend to believe that comment sections are just tumors on otherwise good journalism, and that we’d all be better off without them.

Before it was undermined by its own success, though, this one helped to launch Coates as a national writer whose incisive work on race in America is built to last longer than any online community. As one commenter, Daniel Aaron Spivack, put it: “The Horde on the steppes may not be the same as they once were, but the Khan is still going strong.”

* * *

Eva Holland is a freelance writer and editor based in Canada’s Yukon Territory. She writes mainly about life in the rapidly changing North.

Edited by Katherine Laidlaw. Fact-checked by Matthew Giles.

How a Great American Theatrical Family Produced the 19th Century’s Most Notorious Assassin

$
0
0

Nora Titone | My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry Between Edwin and John Wilkes Booth That Led to an American Tragedy | The Free Press | October 2010 | 41 minutes (11,244 words)

 

Below is an excerpt from the book My Thoughts Be Bloody, by Nora Titone, as recommended by Longreads contributor Dana Snitzky, who writes: 

“This is the story of the celebrated Booth family in the final year before John Wilkes made a mad leap into historical memory that outdid in magnitude every accomplishment of his father and brothers. When the curtain rises on this chapter of Nora Titone’s book, both Edwin and John Wilkes have already staged performances for President Lincoln at Ford’s Theater; by the time it comes down, one of them will be readying to assassinate him there.” 

* * *

 

O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth.
—Hamlet, 4.4

Junius Brutus Booth, Jr., arrived by steamship in Boston on May 26, 1864, the night before his brother John Wilkes acted Ugolino in that city. These two brothers had last met in 1854, when John was fifteen years old and still grieving over their father’s death.

Now the eastward steamship journey from San Francisco to the Atlantic states was swift and easy, comparatively free of danger. A new railroad spanned the Isthmus of Panama. From Panama City on the Pacific coast to the port of Aspinwall on the Atlantic side, June Booth sped through the jungle in the comfort of a glassed-in train carriage. The weeklong trek on foot and by mule through the rain forest’s fever-ridden undergrowth was a thing of the past.

Junius must have felt like Rip Van Winkle, returning to discover that in his ten years of absence in California, the American cities he once knew had grown and changed almost beyond recognition. From Boston, Junius made his way to New York City by June 2, 1864, to take part in a family gathering at his brother Edwin’s home. The returning traveler found all the Booths transformed, but Edwin, perhaps, was the most changed. What a contrast the thirty-one-year-old star made, in the summer of 1864, to the bedraggled youth Junius once rescued in 1852. Half crazed by the news of their father’s death, Edwin had crashed through the door of his older brother’s shanty on Telegraph Hill, ill and starving after his march across the Sierra Nevada. Junius had carefully restored his younger brother to health, found him a job at a San Francisco theater, and helped the teenager start his career onstage.

Now Edwin was a renowned artist with an air of command. He was richly dressed, conscious of his standing in society, the proprietor of two great theaters, owner of a valuable town house. All his enterprises were thriving, while Junius, aged forty-two, was yet an itinerant player forced to watch every penny he spent. The cost of shipping his trunks of costumes from San Francisco alone had been almost beyond his means. Junius’s diary from this year makes a painful record of how he spent his dwindling funds on new “street clothes,” shoes, and other small items. This was an uneasy reunion, as Junius took the measure of his younger brother’s wealth and saw how far he himself now fell short.

The tension among all three brothers—Junius, Edwin, and John Wilkes—was apparent to William Stuart, longtime manager of the Winter Garden Theatre. Observing the siblings interact, Stuart concluded that Edwin’s success had poisoned his brothers against him. John Wilkes “had—indeed the two brothers had—considerable jealousy and suspicion, both, it seemed to me unwarranted, of Edwin,” Stuart later told an interviewer. He first made these observations on June 4, 1864, the day the entire Booth family made a formal tour of Edwin’s playhouse on Broadway.

Approaching the Winter Garden, visitors that summer saw advertisements for Edwin Booth everywhere. Stuart, charged with promoting the star and his new theater, papered fences and the sides of buildings along Broadway with huge posters—many of them “big enough for a circus,” one New Yorker remembered—all carrying Edwin’s name. Manhattan photography studios displaying the star’s portrait in their windows did a brisk business selling prints of his face, “shaded by dark flowing locks,” to a female clientele. “Public excitement about the actor was then at fever heat,” one journalist observed.

During the tour, Edwin showed Junius and John Wilkes the progress his teams of carpenters, set designers, and artists had made in beautifying the building for the start of the 1864 fall dramatic season. Hoping to realize his dream of staging a perfect production of Hamlet, Edwin hired the best scenic painter and the most skilled wardrobe mistress in the city to supervise preparations. The backstage area was filled with “rich stuffs,” visitors to the Winter Garden then remembered. Antique furniture, exquisite rugs, silver goblets, and candelabra packed the property rooms. In Edwin’s private dressing chamber, there were chairs, a couch, a makeup table, and a small cookstove for brewing coffee. A servant perpetually stood on hand to assist the star. Edwin’s enormous wardrobe—satin robes tailored in Paris, bejeweled crowns, dresses trimmed with “Venetian and Spanish lace”—contained several of their father’s prized possessions, including the elder Booth’s stage sword.

Stuart remembered watching that day as Junius and John Wilkes picked up some swords and began sparring on the empty stage of the Winter Garden. He approached the pair with a proposition: would they like to act with Edwin in a one-night performance of Julius Caesar? The Booth brothers could divide the principal roles, Stuart suggested, Junius playing Cassius, Edwin playing Brutus, and John Wilkes playing the part of Mark Antony. Junius agreed at once. He was planning to tour East Coast theaters that fall; early publicity generated by a Winter Garden performance could only help him. John Wilkes’s reaction to the idea, however, was initially hostile. Stuart remembered the young man showing a marked distrust of his older brother’s motives.

“Is this some trick of Edwin’s?” John Wilkes demanded, ordering Stuart to show him the script so he could read Mark Antony’s scenes.

“I brought it to him,” Stuart later testified, “and after looking it over for some ten minutes, he said grudgingly, ‘I will play that fellow.’ ”

John’s surly reaction made an impression on Stuart. The manager also was surprised at how ignorant John Wilkes was of this classic dramatic work. He later told an interviewer it was evident that “John’s early education had been entirely neglected, and he really had no conception of the character.”

In the end, the brothers agreed to bring Julius Caesar to the Winter Garden’s stage in late July or early August, after John Wilkes returned from a planned trip to Petrolia. As of June 17, 1864, Edwin wrote a friend, “My brother W[ilkes] is here for the summer, and we intend taking advantage of our thus being brought together, with nothing to do, and will, in the course of a week or two, give a performance of Julius Caesar . . . for the benefit of the statue we wish to erect in Central Park.” To commemorate the three-hundredth anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth, a fund was started to place a statue in his honor in the heart of New York City.

shakespeare-statue

The Central Park Shakespeare statue, then and now. Via Wikimedia Commons

 

In a sense, John Wilkes Booth’s instincts were correct: the Julius Caesar plan was indeed a “trick of Edwin’s.” The star knew his brothers wanted money: neither of their earnings came close to matching his own income. Yet they would not be paid for their work in Julius Caesar. Rather, all money from the joint appearance would go to the Shakespeare fund. After taking over one of the most popular theaters on Broadway, Edwin Booth would not share the opportunity with his less fortunate brothers. Going forward, they were invited to join him onstage only for the benefit of a charity. The Winter Garden and the Walnut Street Theatre would remain the exclusive domains of Edwin and his partner, Clarke. Junius and John Wilkes would have to earn their own way.

Edwin’s brothers were treated to one last proof of his high place in Manhattan society that first week of June 1864. The star took them both on a visit to the Tenth Street studio of sculptor Launt Thompson, where the artist’s workroom was decorated for a party. Vases of flowers stood on tables by pots of coffee and bowls of punch. A collection of writers, painters, journalists, and Union officers filled the space, admiring Thompson’s latest works: the bronze bust of Edwin Booth, life-size, in character as Hamlet, and a towering sculpture of General Winfield Scott in full military dress. The talk at this party, one guest remembered, concerned the war and art: soldiers and literary men discussed “the latest news from the front” while considering the merits of Thompson’s new creations.

Statue of Edwin Booth. Via Folger Shakespeare Library

Launt Thompson’s bust of Edwin Booth. Via Folger Shakespeare Library

In the short time they spent together at Edwin’s house, a friendship kindled between John Wilkes and Junius, who previously had been strangers. “June,” as his family called him, was privately dismayed at how Edwin neglected John Wilkes. The young man was obviously unhappy, Junius later would recall, and it troubled him to see his own brother “so strongly sympathizing with the Southern cause.” Knowing Edwin had forbidden John Wilkes to vent his rebel opinions in the house, Junius now made it his project to take the younger man aside and quietly, patiently, reason with him about the war.

“I felt it my duty as an elder brother,” Junius later explained, “to do all I could & prove to John that the government was doing its duty . . . I told him the Civil War was but a large family quarrel & would in a few years be made up and peace restored.” Junius begged John to stay away from the conflict for the sake of the family. He later said he received on many occasions John’s earnest “promise” that he would do so.

John Wilkes did not change his opinions after talks with Junius, but he was moved by the protective, almost fatherly concern this long-absent older brother showed for him. June Booth, a onetime speculator in California gold, was curious to learn more about John’s oil venture; the two even considered traveling together to Pennsylvania. Every time they shared such conversations, Junius later remembered, John would “express much gratitude for the interest I took in his welfare.” In the young man’s appreciative response, Junius read a record of Edwin’s coldness and lack of care. Ostensibly the head of the family, Edwin had abandoned the idea of making this younger sibling his responsibility. Having genial, even-tempered Junius pay attention to him was a new experience for John. This older brother was the mentor, perhaps,John had needed since their father’s death. No personal animosity troubled their relationship; they were not competitors.

* * *

John Wilkes Booth, via Wikimedia Commons

John Wilkes Booth, via Wikimedia Commons

The morning of June 8, 1864, found John Wilkes Booth and his friend Joseph Simonds en route by train from New York City to Franklin, Pennsylvania, erstwhile capital of Petrolia. The sea of mud that greeted the young men as they descended from their railway car, other travelers attested, was “deep and indescribably disgusting.” This sticky ooze was unique to Oil Dorado. It was a combination of rain, eroded soil, and glistening rivulets of petroleum, and would “ever be fresh,” one prospector wrote, “in the memory of those who saw and were compelled to wade through it.”

The town of Franklin was an eyesore. Its various hotels, banks, bars, houses of prostitution, and prospectors’ shanties had been built hastily and haphazardly on streets that in early summer, residents said, were “liquid lakes or lanes” of evil-smelling muck. Garbage was everywhere—food leavings, broken barrels, discarded clothing and equipment. A thin film of oil burnished the surface of the river flowing past the town; grease-coated barges and ferries crowded the wharves. Groups of men in overalls and knee-high boots could be seen puffing away at pipes and cigarillos, ignoring the “No Smoking” warnings posted near every working oil derrick. Petroleum fumes were combustible, but as locals allowed, “men will smoke, regardless of its too probable consequences.” A newspaper article describing this unlovely place acknowledged that there were more attractive corners of the United States in which to start a career, but none besides Franklin offered “a better chance to make one’s first million in, and thus start favorably on the road to comfortable affluence.”

John Wilkes had a rough start in Franklin. According to Albert Smiley, who met Booth when they were forced to share a room at the overbooked United States Hotel, the actor was “very stylish in his dress” and “cold in manner toward strangers,” qualities that did not win favor in the eyes of longtime residents. One night soon after his arrival, John donned his typically exquisite clothing to attend a dance at a local hall. Booth’s “dudish appearance” and lofty behavior, Smiley recalled, offended the rougher guests at the gathering. A sizable gang of “deckhands from the steamboats and freshwater sailors from the lumber fleets,” Smiley wrote, fell on Booth and bloodied his nose. The dandy was tossed out the door “with orders not to return.” As a parting insult, Booth’s attackers made sure his finely dressed body was smeared with some of the ubiquitous local sludge. Smiley did not escape, either, sharing Booth’s fate in the mud. Humiliated, John wanted to keep the story of the episode from spreading through the town, but he failed. “It leaked out,” Smiley recalled, “and we were often nagged by our friends.”

John would not make the same mistake again. He quickly traded his gentleman’s garments for the local uniform of “slouched hat, flannel shirt, overalls and boots,” one friend recalled, and abandoned his superior attitude. When Thomas Mears, one of Booth’s partners in the Dramatic Oil Company, took him to meet the mechanic chosen to operate their drill, the actor shook hands with the laborer energetically. Seeing his palm come away streaked with oil from the other man’s skin, John smiled and said, “Never mind, that’s what we’re after.”

Smiley remembered that just as Booth made an effort to avoid offending Petrolia’s working men, the actor concealed his passionate feelings about the war. “During the short time I knew Booth,” the young clerk later testified, “I never heard him talk a word of politics . . . or make any reference whatever to either the North or the South.” John’s partner Mears was an abolitionist. Many other oil seekers in the Allegheny River valley were vocal supporters of the Union cause. The profit-minded young actor was not going to let his pro-Southern sentiments complicate, or risk ruining, his opportunity to earn a fortune.

By June 11, 1864, Booth and Mears had settled on a piece of land and were busy acquiring the last bits of equipment necessary to raise a derrick and begin drilling. The start-up expenses were steep. After buying the land, Booth and his friends planned to sink three separate wells, each costing over a thousand dollars to build. On average, drillers expected to tunnel five hundred feet down through alternating layers of soil and rock before hitting any kind of deposit. Filled with optimism, Booth watched work begin on his site.

The site seemed promising. Part of an old farm, the property was a half mile from Franklin, a place where many wells already had struck oil. The land was bordered on one side by the Allegheny River, giving the Dramatic Oil Company easy access to water transportation—an important consideration once petroleum started spouting out of the ground. On June 11, Booth wrote a frantic letter to his third partner, John Ellsler, in Cleveland, begging him to contribute extra cash to their project. “I have as little money and as much use for that little as any man can have,” John Wilkes wrote. “We can do nothing without [your] money,” Booth urged Ellsler. “So meet it, John, it will be the last big PULL. . . . I am sure we will be pumping oil in less than a month.”

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Pennsylvania oil rigs, via Wikimedia Commons

By June 17, 1864, the actor’s mood was completely changed. On June 15, he had left his oil claim and spent two days traveling the mountains around Franklin on foot, asking questions of the oil prospectors who were working on sites at higher elevations. As John Wilkes walked for nearly fifty miles across the region, the stories of failure he encountered were alarming. His tour of the mountains revealed that hundreds of abandoned derricks littered the forest, proof of how many people, in the grip of “oil fever,” had been made to look like fools. In truth, the majority of oil prospectors who made a bid for riches ended the experiment in acute embarrassment and, often, poverty. One prospector wrote an article on the scores of men “who had taken leases and opened oil wells,” only to “retire from the trade disgusted with their enterprise” a few weeks later. These disappointed gamblers returned home to be greeted with ridicule by family and friends who demanded to know why so many thousands of dollars had been thrown away, and who blamed the hapless speculator for not realizing that his “undertaking would prove a failure.” The unlikely odds of the oil game dawned on John Wilkes during his two-day hike, leaving him with a sense of foreboding just at the moment he was making his own roll of the dice.

Gripped with panic after returning from this excursion, Booth dashed off a letter to Ellsler in Cleveland. “I want to see you here bad,” the actor wrote from Franklin on June 17, 1864. “This may be a big thing for us, or it may be nothing. . . . I must see you. I have seen all the oil regions. I got back the other day from a two days walk of 48 miles. And I know more about these things than anyone can tell me. Make it your business to come at once.” Ellsler answered the summons, arriving in Franklin to find a highly nervous Booth dressed like a mechanic and living in a shanty room bare of all furnishings except for a bed, a rifle, and “photographs of [the actor’s] family decorat[ing] the wall.”

As the days elapsed and Booth waited anxiously for news from the drilling site, he became increasingly somber. With Ellsler, he joined a circle of men who formed a club to pass the summer nights in lighthearted amusement. The members, Ellsler remembered, all “had come to Franklin to have a tussle with this new way of making fortunes.” To enliven the tedium of the oil town, they gathered nightly in a private room over a saloon, drinking, singing comic songs, telling jokes, and acting, in an amateurish way, scenes from popular plays. Though he went to the club’s meetings, Booth did not share the freewheeling, raucous mood of the rest of party. Indeed, his withdrawn, taciturn demeanor made him conspicuous at the gatherings. “[John Wilkes Booth] never indulged in a hearty laugh,” Ellsler remembered. Those belonging to the Franklin fraternity later marveled at how “nothing more than a smile could be brought to [Booth’s] face by the most amusing of actions or utterances.”

Booth had reason to be dour. Using an engine to drive an iron bit down through solid rock, the driller hired by the Dramatic Oil Company had bored to a depth of five hundred feet in two locations on the riverfront property. These wells apparently did not yield a drop of petroleum, and were pronounced dry. A third well, sunk to the unusual depth of eight hundred feet, did not gush oil, but gave forth a meager amount, around a dozen barrels per day. At ten dollars per barrel, split three ways among the partners, the profit was not worth the price of pumping such a thin stream from the ground.

John’s great speculation—the ambitious scheme to which he had devoted $5,000 of his own cash—approximately $200,000 in today’s currency—as well as six months of work, planning, and anticipation—came to nothing. The venture, freighted with so many hopes, turned out a fiasco. In a last bid for success, John Wilkes put down an additional thousand dollars on a share in a new oil claim being started by a different company outside of Franklin. This, too, proved worthless.

* * *

On July 6, 1864, his plans dashed, John Wilkes returned to Edwin’s town house at 28 East Nineteenth Street in New York City. Edwin and Junius were there, the former absorbed in supervising renovations at the Winter Garden Theatre, the latter, as he recorded in his diary, “doing nothing but loafing, reading and smoking.” John told his family not a word of his disappointments in Petrolia, giving them instead the impression that his oil investments were thriving. When Edwin wrote a letter to his friend Adam Badeau later that year, he announced what he supposed was his younger brother’s newfound career. “J. Wilkes is up to his knees in an ile well,” the actor joked. The Booths’ joint performance of Julius Caesar did not occur in July as originally planned. The renovation of the Winter Garden was not yet complete, and John Wilkes was ill. The play would be postponed until the fall season.

“I am tired and sick,” John complained in a letter to a friend on July 14, 1864. As usual when in Edwin’s house, he had to keep his political sentiments muzzled. Now he saddled himself with the extra burden of lying about his Petrolia venture. The failure of these business schemes meant the twenty-five-year-old actor now was thrown back into the life that had become hateful to him. Booth’s harrowing winter trek through Kansas and Missouri in January 1864 had drained his finances and injured his health. Future seasons of similarly hard traveling on the western theatrical circuit for little reward now loomed before him. Perhaps even more oppressive was the thought of continuing to be a petitioner for shelter and largesse from his famous older brother, the one who banished him to a career in the provinces in the first place.

Edwin Booth as Hamlet. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Edwin Booth as Hamlet. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

On July 26, 1864, John Wilkes’s prospects for the future changed. On that day, representatives from the Confederate Secret Service summoned him to a meeting at a hotel in Boston, the Parker House. According to Louisiana resident Ed Curtis, John Wilkes Booth had “kept up a correspondence with [George W.] Miller”—his Confederate landlord in New Orleans—“for some time” after leaving that city. It may be the case that either Miller or Booth’s other New Orleans connection, the blockade-runner Hiram Martin, brought John Wilkes to the attention of Richmond authorities, identifying him as a promising recruit for conspiracy. However he found his way to the meeting, John discovered that an entirely new kind of speculation was open to him. A job—not that of actor or oilman, but of conspirator against the Lincoln administration—appears to have been offered to Booth on this occasion, and he accepted it.

Years before, at Richmond, Virginia, in November 1859, John had run out of the Marshall Theatre and talked his way onto a train bearing volunteer militiamen to Charlestown, the site of John Brown’s hanging. For two weeks he wore the uniform of the Richmond Grays, reveled in his temporary association with that respected group, and performed guard and sentry duties mandated by the governor of Virginia. The Grays conferred on John Wilkes, so long an outsider, the gratifying feeling of belonging, and—perhaps for the first time in his life—the sense of fulfilling an important duty. Now, on July 26, 1864, John Wilkes Booth appears to have been given the chance to trade his membership in the brotherhood of actors and the world of the theater—sources to him of so little comparative success and so much frustration—for a vital mission on behalf of the Southern cause he loved. He joined a new brotherhood: the network of active conspirators against the Lincoln administration.

On August 1, less than a week after meeting with Confederate agents, John Wilkes met Edwin, June, and other members of his family at a summer cottage on Long Island Sound, acting as if nothing had changed. “Fine time sunning and rowing,” Junius observed in his diary. John would have no trouble concealing his new employment from the Booth family. Whatever traveling this work entailed, or whatever income it accrued, John would ascribe to “my coal and oil lands [that] I have bought near Cleveland.” The failed Petrolia enterprise provided a helpful cover for the novice agent. Yet there was one thing John Wilkes could not hide. Contact with rebel authorities and involvement in their cause seem to have freed him from feeling a need to acknowledge Edwin Booth’s authority. After his July 26 meeting in Boston, John Wilkes began making gestures of defiance toward his Union-sympathizing family, his hostility bursting out forcefully. August 1864 opened a volatile chapter in the record of the brothers’ relationships.

On the surface, life in the Booth family had never been better. “Dear mother is happy with her children about her, thank God!” Edwin wrote at this time. Though Mary Ann Booth yearned for her youngest son, Joe, who now was living in San Francisco, it was a joy for her to have her oldest son, Junius, with her for the first time in a decade. The Booth matriarch had all her grandchildren with her as well: besides Edwin’s daughter little Edwina and Asia Booth Clarke’s two young children in Philadelphia, Junius had brought his ten-year-old daughter, Molly, with him from California, a girl whom Asia described as “the wildest hoyden that ever skipped.” The family finances were booming. The Winter Garden and Walnut Street theaters poured record profits into John Sleeper Clarke’s and Edwin Booth’s bank accounts. Private carriages, vacations by the seaside, sumptuous clothes, and elegantly furnished homes now were regular features of Mary Ann and Asia’s everyday lives. The privations this mother and daughter had endured during their hungry years in the 1850s were a long way away.

Edwin and Clarke were busy throughout August readying their two theaters for grand openings in the fall. “I’ve been in the scene-room and wardrobe night and day lately,” Edwin said to a friend. “Everything looks fair and prosperous for the coming season.” The star was planning another revival of Hamlet, this time with backdrops, costumes, and furniture perfectly reproducing the interior of a tenth-century castle in Denmark. “Every scene, every dress, every chair and table and nearly all the actors will be new,” Edwin said. His promoter, William Stuart, hoping to build public excitement, invited reporters to daily lunches at the Winter Garden to watch scene painters at work and see actors in rehearsals. Junius was occupied as well. “Busy getting my phys[ique] ready,” the forty-two-year-old actor announced in his diary, referring to the fencing and stage-fighting techniques he must practice prior to barnstorming theaters in Boston, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., in the fall.

John Wilkes Booth’s anger intruded on this hum of theatrical preparation, reminding his family of the war still being fought beyond the footlights. One memorable episode most likely occurred August 7, 1864, when their brother-in-law John Sleeper Clarke, Edwin, and John Wilkes rode the cars together from New York City to Philadelphia. On this train ride, Clarke apparently referred to Jefferson Davis in an insulting manner. The instant Clarke spoke, John dove for him, seizing him by the neck and choking him. “He swung [me] from side to side with maniac strength while his grip tightened,” Clarke later remembered. John’s face, he said, appeared “twisted with rage.” Witnesses shouted and made attempts to stop the attack, but John Wilkes ended it himself, shoving Clarke back into his seat with the words, “Never, if you value your life . . . speak in that way to me again of a man and a cause I hold sacred.”

Stunned by this display of aggression, the Booth family seems to have construed John’s behavior as a temporary derangement brought on by high fever. The twenty-six-year-old returned to Edwin’s house in New York, where he collapsed. For the next three weeks, John was confined to a sickroom, his right arm inflamed with erysipelas, a streptococcal infection of the skin. In the days before penicillin, the condition could be fatal. Sufferers were racked with nausea, chills, headaches, exhaustion, and pain as their bodies battled the disease. A doctor visited John Wilkes, who remained bedridden through the final days of August.

President Lincoln’s standing in the North, and Republican morale in general, had never been lower than at the end of this month in 1864. Union forces appeared to be at a standstill. General Grant was halted outside Richmond; Sherman’s divisions were massed around Atlanta, their progress, for the moment, obstructed. Feeding off Northern frustration, a resurgent Democratic Party castigated Lincoln for his emancipation policy and called for an immediate end to the war and the restoration of the Union with slavery intact. When Democrats convened in Chicago that summer, they nominated former general George B. McClellan to challenge Lincoln in the November presidential elections. Campaign posters for the Democratic candidate warned voters that reelecting Lincoln would not only bring on the horrors of “Universal Anarchy and Ultimate RUIN!” but also the threats of “Negro Equality, More Debt, Harder Times and another Draft.” A McClellan victory, on the other hand, promised to “defeat Negro equality, restore prosperity, and re-establish the Union in an honorable, permanent and happy peace.” Abraham Lincoln gauged the mood of his war-weary countrymen and predicted a grim electoral future. “I am going to be beaten,” the president said, “and unless some great change takes place, badly beaten.”

Sick as he was, John Wilkes could not resist arguing politics with his brother Edwin. On August 29, a shouting match broke out between them that even Junius, always eager to smooth over family quarrels, called “severe.” The specific words the two brothers traded are unknown, but Adam Badeau later testified that Edwin, in a terrible voice, at the end of a “long and violent” exchange with his brother, threatened to expel John Wilkes from the Booth home. After John had ranted and stormed, “wish[ing],” Badeau reported, “for the success of the Rebellion,” Edwin shot back that “he should go elsewhere to make such sentiments known; that he was not at liberty to express them in the house of a Union man.”

This was not an insignificant warning. Whatever differences divided the clan, their commitment to protecting Mary Ann Booth’s happiness had always been paramount. These sons “were greatly attached to their mother,” a Booth family friend observed. Keeping the family united was a goal to which all the Booth children dedicated themselves. The point was not only to spare their long-suffering mother any further sadness, but to guard their privacy, to advance their professional reputation, and to raise their social standing. A split in this family’s famously united front would be noticed by the press. The suggestion that politics had broken the Booth brothers apart would be news indeed.

Asia Booth Clarke later credited Edwin and John’s argument to the dangerous topic of Abraham Lincoln. She notes in her memoir that John Wilkes was obsessed with the president’s reelection, spouting dire predictions that the Republican was planning on “making himself a king” come November. “His success, I tell you—will be a reign!” John thundered at Asia. He said Lincoln was trying “to crush out slavery” with foul play, resorting to “robbery, rapine, slaughter and bought armies” to achieve his ends. With somewhat confused logic, Wilkes held that Lincoln’s tactics were shameful compared to the liberating crusade “of old John Brown . . . that rugged old hero.” “Great God!” John Wilkes cried, “John Brown was a man inspired, the grandest character of the century.” Next to Brown, the young actor said, Lincoln was “coarse,” “vulgar,” and “a disgrace.” Listening to her brother’s words, Asia worried his mind had been strained by his recent illness and too much hard work.

Edwin Booth afterward referred to his fight with John Wilkes as “a disgusting quarrel.” The argument gave him “the blues,” he said. When it was over, Edwin composed a letter to Adam Badeau, then stationed outside Richmond with General Grant. Edwin asked his friend to “send me Jeff Davis’s head” as a present, and talked about his plans to support President Lincoln in the fall elections. “I go in for cursing every damned rebel out and waving the old ‘stars and stripes’ all over,” he told Badeau. Lincoln “is what is called right.” A second term in office for the Republican leader would be “glorious.” Edwin had marked the celebrations of the third anniversary of Lincoln’s inaugural with a command performance for the president. Badeau was at Grant’s side as that general besieged the Confederate capital, Richmond. Edwin counted Secretary of State William H. Seward among his friends. Thus Edwin Booth’s loyalty to the Lincoln administration was more than abstract patriotism—it was personal.

Fortunately for the sake of family peace—and particularly for the feelings of Mary Ann Booth, who was distressed by any strife among her children—Edwin, Edwina, and Junius packed their bags for Philadelphia on September 1, where Edwin was due to perform at the Walnut Street Theatre. A day after his departure, Atlanta fell to General Sherman’s army. This long-sought victory turned the fortunes of war in Lincoln’s favor at last. The public mood in Northern cities was jubilant. Patriotic demonstrations celebrated Sherman’s advance through Georgia. From September 2 onward, Lincoln’s reelection seemed assured.

“Whenever I would mention any success of the federal arms,” Junius later recalled, John Wilkes “would say that he had not heard it—or that it was a false report & and soon would be corrected.” There was no denying, however, that bluecoats had captured Atlanta, the city the New York Times referred to as a “rebel stronghold.” This news compounded John Wilkes’s already powerful feelings of anger and alienation. He was ready to drop all association with his clan; it was only his attachment to his mother and sister that kept him within the family’s orbit. John declared to Asia, “if it were not for mother I would not enter Edwin’s house.” The young man added, “I would never darken [Clarke’s] door, but for you.”

Edwin Booth put all thoughts of John Wilkes behind. Family troubles were easily forgotten in the adulation greeting the star at the start of his new season. “My trade,” Edwin announced to Colonel Badeau in September 1864, “has been great in every sense.” Money poured into the ticket office of the Walnut Street Theatre: “If no crashes come, I shall make out to have a snug little home to leave behind me,” the actor crowed.

The people of Philadelphia even presented the star “with a fine portrait of my father,” Edwin noted, as a token of their admiration. “The face is beautiful,” he informed Badeau, “it was taken when he was 30. I think more of it than of the fame and money I have made during this engagement.” Yet Booth had a further ambition in view. The anticipation for his Julius Caesar, scheduled for November 25, was surpassed only by the news that the actor, on the night following his joint performance with his brothers, would debut a new production of Hamlet and proceed to play the part for one hundred nights running, a feat never before attempted by any actor, even in Shakespeare’s time.

John Wilkes Booth left New York City after the infection in his arm had cleared. In the last week of September, he made a final visit to Franklin, Pennsylvania, where he filed documents officially ending his stake in the failed claim of the Dramatic Oil Company. With the help of his friend Joe Simonds, John transferred ownership of the nonproductive oil wells to his brother Junius. Though the property itself was virtually worthless, John’s gesture acknowledged the one male member of the Booth family he held to be his friend.

Franklin’s streets were alive with talk of the approaching elections. People were animated as well by reports of General Philip Sheridan’s string of victories in northern Virginia. The Army of the Shenandoah was sweeping the gray-coats southward. As they crossed the landscape, United States soldiers either burned or commandeered the rich produce of Virginia’s autumn harvest: crops, the contents of storehouses, and livestock fell alike into their hands. On orders from Ulysses S. Grant, Sheridan had vowed to render “the Shenandoah Valley a barren waste.”

Whether it was because of the news of the rebel defeats in Virginia, or the sting of contemplating his own losses in Petrolia, John Wilkes spent most of his time in Franklin drinking, witnesses said, the “strongest brandy.” On more than one occasion he was seen weaving his way through town, “as drunk as he could possibly get,” once even stopping on the sidewalk in a half stupor, roaring out a monologue from Richard III while slashing the air before him with a tree branch instead of with a sword.

It is likely John Wilkes was drunk for most of his stay in Franklin, for on at least two occasions the actor threatened unarmed men in the town with a loaded gun. Only the quick action of bystanders prevented bloodshed. James Lawson, a local barber, reported that Booth almost shot a man while waiting his turn for a haircut. The trouble started when Caleb Marshall, a black resident of Franklin, entered the shop and “began to rejoice loudly over the news of a great victory for the Union army.” Booth challenged Marshall to be silent, “pointing his finger” and saying in a threatening voice, “Is that the way you talk among gentlemen, and with your hat on, too?”

Marshall stood his ground, calmly replying that he only removed his hat when entering a parlor where ladies were present. “When I go into a barroom or a barber shop or any other public place,” Marshall said, “I keep my hat on.”

At this juncture, Lawson recalled, “Booth’s face turned white” and his hand gripped the butt of the pistol he carried in his coat pocket. Men sitting next to Booth grabbed him by the arms and shoulders, immobilizing his upper body and dragging him out the door and down the street before the situation turned violent.

Another episode—one that mirrored John Wilkes’s earlier attempt to choke his brother-in-law Clarke on a train car—occurred while Booth was riding the ferryboat from Franklin. He took offense when a man on board disparaged Southerners and spoke admiringly of Abraham Lincoln. John disagreed vehemently, brandishing his pistol. The Lincoln supporter—a carpenter—countered by thrusting a steel-tipped barge pike at John’s face and threatening to “run him through.” Fellow passengers restrained the men, and peace was restored.

Booth left Franklin at the end of September, planning never to return. He spent the early part of October in New York City, once again staying in Edwin’s house. The two managed to get along this time without an explosion. On October 14, Edwin penned a peaceful letter to Adam Badeau, remarking that as he wrote John Wilkes “is on the sofa at this juncture in t’other room.”

During this visit, John told Edwin and their friends in the theater world that he had grown wealthy by his investment in oil. Fellow actors later reported that John said he had no intention of returning to work onstage, “petroleum,” he bragged, “being more profitable than the profession.” Booth claimed his oil wells “netted within six months between $50,000 and $75,000,” a sum resembling Edwin and Clarke’s profits from their New York and Philadelphia theaters. As this description of his oil riches spread through acting circles, John’s longtime friend Joe Simonds sounded a note of warning. “I hardly know what to make of you,” Simonds wrote. “Don’t get offended with me John but . . . you must not tell such extravagant stories.” Simonds knew better than anyone how much cash Booth had lost on his risky Petrolia speculation. He admonished the actor for telling lies. “We have not got rich yet, John,” he said. Simonds probably believed John spread the falsehoods to escape being teased as a failure. He had no knowledge of the actor’s real reason for using Petrolia as a smoke screen.

John Wilkes traveled to Montreal, in the third week of October 1864. Here he attended a meeting of high-ranking Confederate spies who outlined in greater detail their plans for the abduction of President Lincoln. Booth apparently received a large sum of money from these agents—in excess of $1,500—with which to launch the conspiracy.

In the clearest sign yet that John had committed himself fully to this fateful course of action, he carried with him into Canada the trunk of costumes that once had belonged to his father. An actor’s wardrobe was his passport. Without the requisite garments in which to play Macbeth, Richard III, Hamlet, or Romeo, a traveling actor could not work. In Montreal, Booth entrusted these precious tools of his profession to a man named Martin. John Wilkes later told a friend that Martin would bring the trunk on board his vessel when he ran the Union blockade of Southern ports. This was a drastic measure. By shipping his best means of earning a living across Southern lines, John was turning his back on any future as an actor he might have had in the North and West. John’s action indicated he was preparing to leave his home and his family permanently behind.

Booth stayed in Montreal through October 27, when he left for Washington, D.C. In that city, one week after President Abraham Lincoln won reelection to a second term by a landslide of four hundred thousand votes over George B. McClellan, John Wilkes Booth deposited the operating funds paid him by Confederate authorities in a local bank.

* * *

“I wish you [would] send me stirring news of what’s going on in the world,” Edwin pleaded in a letter to Colonel Badeau during that election season. “I never read the papers,” he confessed. The star felt like a prisoner of the stage. “I live in a world bounded by a few painted tents and trees, outside of which I know nothing,” he explained. “Isn’t my life a strange one? I only just begin to realize its unreality.”

For all his protests of ignorance, Edwin Booth paid enough attention to the world beyond his theater’s walls to make his way to a polling station on November 8 to vote for Abraham Lincoln. “The first vote I ever cast,” he cried. For this son of Junius Brutus Booth, who always had followed his father’s example of staying clear of political affiliations, Edwin’s gesture was significant. “I suppose I am now an American citizen all over,” he mused, “as I have ever been in heart.”

Edwin Booth might only have skimmed the headlines for war news, but he read all theatrical notices avidly. Rave reviews following his brother Junius’s performances at John T. Ford’s theaters in Baltimore and Washington, D.C., filled Edwin with trepidation. After carefully positioning himself as the reigning Booth in New York City, Edwin did not wish to be outshone on his own stage the night Julius Caesar came to the Winter Garden. “According to the papers,” Edwin wrote to a friend, “he [Junius] is the Booth of the family; so I must brush up, or lose my laurels.” For Edwin to feel threatened by Junius seems almost absurd. At this stage in Edwin’s career, Junius was hardly a rival. A competitive edge was ever present in the relationships among the brothers.

Junius Booth in costume. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Junius Brutus Booth, Sr., in costume. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

* * *

Junius, Edwin, and John Wilkes gathered in New York City on November 23, 1864, to rehearse for Julius Caesar. Promoter William Stuart had done his publicity work well. Posters in the streets and advertisements in newspapers invited audiences to see the three sons of the great booth walk the same stage together. Edwin’s team of carpenters and artists had exerted themselves to produce gorgeous backdrops that evoked the interior and exterior scenes of ancient Rome and its stately Forum.

While Edwin and Junius, playing Brutus and Cassius, respectively, would wear togas that swept to their ankles, Mrs. Bohmer, wardrobe mistress at the Winter Garden, fitted John Wilkes in a different costume. He donned a pair of white hose, an embroidered tunic cut above the knee to show his muscular legs, and leather sandals whose straps wound tightly up his calves. She apparently ordered John to shave his face clean before the performance: Mark Antony could not sport a drooping mustache.

The audience that promenaded through the wrought-iron gates of the Winter Garden on Friday, November 25, was spectacular both in size and distinction. Every private box was filled, the balcony level was densely packed, and every seat in the orchestra had been taken. “The theater was crowded to suffocation,” Asia remembered, “people standing in every available place. The greatest excitement prevailed.” Mary Ann Booth, in her handsomest dress, sat beside Asia in a private box. John Sleeper Clarke and eleven-year-old Molly, Junius’s daughter, were with them. The next morning, the New York Herald cataloged those present in the glittering assembly as “Boothites, Shakespeare men, artists, authors, actors, the men of taste in the city generally, and Bohemians, of course, without number.”

The curtain rose, and the audience waited breathlessly for the opening of the play’s second scene, the moment when Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Antony make their first entrance. The sight of the Booth brothers dashing onstage in a group, one witness remembered, “fairly carried the house by storm.” Applause and roars of approbation greeted the actors—Junius was the tallest and broadest of the three; John Wilkes, the youngest, had the most perfect features; Edwin, the smallest, nonetheless commanded the most attention. As the characters began to speak, the audience saw the unequal distribution of talent and training in the Booth family. Edwin’s superiority was evident. Stuart later recalled that while John Wilkes “was physically the handsomest,” Edwin “was head and shoulders, as an actor, above the other two.” Drama critics taking notes that night agreed. One asserted after the show that “as an actor, J. Wilkes could not compare with either of his brothers, although his resemblance to them in form, feature, voice and manner was remarkable.” The New York Herald was kinder to John. After heaping praise on Edwin and Junius, the Herald reviewer stated that if the audience noticed the youngest Booth brought “less of a real personality to Mark Antony, the fault was rather in the part than in the actor.”

At the moment the second act began, the doors leading into the auditorium burst open and firefighters poured into the theater dragging hoses, and a small fire engine behind them. The audience leaped out of their seats, ready to run for an exit. It had been almost half a century since the Richmond Theatre burned to the ground during a performance, killing nearly a hundred people, but the memory of that death trap lingered in the popular mind. Edwin and William Stuart were able to calm the crowd. As it turned out, no smoke or flames had touched the Winter Garden. A fire at the LaFarge Hotel next door, soon extinguished, was responsible for the interruption. The firefighters departed, the doors closed behind them, and the play continued to its end, when the three brothers were called onstage “side by side, again and again,” Asia remembered, “to receive the lavish applause of the audience, mingled with waving handkerchiefs and every mark of enthusiasm.”

The box office at the Winter Garden sold $3,500 worth of tickets that night—the approximate equivalent of $140,000 in modern currency. As Edwin had decreed, the entire sum would be given to benefit the Shakespeare fund. A repetition of this kind of performance, with profits divided three ways among the Booth brothers, would have made every difference in the cash-strapped lives of Junius and John Wilkes. Edwin never offered to make such an arrangement, however, and his siblings never brought themselves to ask.

No one could doubt who owned the lion’s share of genius in the Booth family. The attention of the city now was trained on the Winter Garden as Edwin prepared to unveil the greatest achievement of his career. On Saturday, November 26, he would walk onstage, this time alone, to begin a record-breaking marathon—acting Hamlet one hundred nights in a row “with a magnificence,” critics would enthuse, “unknown in the history of the American stage.”

* * *

On the morning of November 26, Asia and her husband, Clarke, returned to their home in Philadelphia by train, taking Junius’s daughter, Molly, with them. Edwin hastened to the Winter Garden, where he rehearsed with his stock company for the night’s gala opening of Hamlet. It was not until Sunday, November 27, that Mary Ann, Junius, Edwin, and John Wilkes were able to gather around the breakfast table to discuss the terrifying report that was sending waves of shock through the residents of the metropolis. At exactly nine o’clock on Friday night, a network of Confederate conspirators, stationed at points across Manhattan, set fire to major buildings. Their goal was to touch off a massive fire, burning the city to the ground. The firefighters who had burst into the Winter Garden as the Booth brothers started the second act of Julius Caesar were responding to a blaze Confederates had lit inside the LaFarge Hotel next door.

Newspapers passed on the intelligence that this “Vast Rebel Conspiracy” was inspired in part by the work of arsonists during the Draft Riots the previous summer, when fires, proliferating across the city, had thrown New York into confusion and chaos. “The original plan of the marauders,” the New York Herald reported, “was to have simultaneously fired the hotels at the lower and upper part of the city, and while the Fire Department and Police had their attention distracted to these remote portions of New York, to fire the hotels and other public buildings in the central points.”

Investigators quickly discovered that dozens of Confederate agents—many of them “importations from Richmond and Canada,” the Herald informed its readers—had descended on the city Friday morning, carrying carpetbags filled with jars of turpentine and phosphorus. These men had checked into rooms at the Metropolitan, the St. James, the Gramercy Park, the LaFarge, and other hotels, where they soaked the beds and blankets with turpentine. At the stroke of nine o’clock, the agents then broke open their jars of phosphorus and hurled the contents around the rooms.

The quick response by teams of volunteer fire companies foiled the scheme. None of the blazes set by Confederate arsonists ever reached the point of raging out of control. New York, however, had been given a reminder of the horrifying days of the Draft Riots. Fire alarms sounding across the city, more than a year later, still had the power to fill residents with special dread.

The Draft Riots. Image via Wikimedia Commons

The Draft Riots. Image via Wikimedia Commons

The Confederate motive for launching this incendiary attack, the New York Herald reported, “was retaliation for General Sheridan’s operations in the Shenandoah Valley.” As Union armies carried the war to Southern civilians, rebel conspirators now sought “to carry destruction into our Northern cities.” A lead editorial suggested the attack was evidence the South had realized it was losing the war. Richmond’s leaders were “steeped to their necks in blood,” the Herald accused; their only wish now was “to inflict vengeance upon us for their disappointments.”

The Booths, like nearly every other newspaper-reading household in the city, could not avoid talking about this startling development. As might be imagined, the discussion among the brothers turned ugly. Junius seems to have touched off the argument. He was furious that the rebel arsonists now in custody would receive due process of law. After a long residence in California, this oldest Booth brother was attracted to frontier-style vigilante justice. Had the same attack been made against the city of San Francisco, June cried, “the whole pack of incendiaries would have been caught and hanged from the window of the Vigilante headquarters on Sacramento Street.”

John Wilkes disagreed. He apparently defended the arsonists, describing their work as a legitimate “act of war,” honorable payback for General Sheridan’s wanton destruction of civilian property in Virginia. Confederate agents had no choice but to wage war on the people of New York, he said.

Listening to John Wilkes’s words, Edwin lost control. He had experienced, as John Wilkes also had, the lawlessness of the Draft Riots. During that bloody week in 1863 both brothers had lived in fear that violent gangs would break into their house, discover the Union officer—Edwin’s friend Badeau—and the black man concealed within it, and burn the place in retaliation. The lives of their mother, their sister Rosalie, and Edwin’s daughter, Edwina, had been in peril. For John Booth now to advocate acts of terror against the city where the Booth family made its home, Edwin decided, was going too far.

In a towering rage, one witness later recalled, Edwin shouted that John was “a rank secessionist.” He ordered his brother “to cease his treasonable language, telling him he could not stay in the house if he persisted.” John refused to back down. At this point, the witness said, Edwin “peremptorily expelled his brother from his residence,” no doubt seizing John and forcing him out the front door and into the street.

John was enraged and humiliated. Once again, as during his last fight with Edwin in August, he was suffering from a physical illness. One side of John’s neck, Junius noted in his diary, had erupted in large, painful “boils,” or “carbuncles.” On November 28, Junius, ever the peacemaker, helped “the rank secessionist” pack his bags. Too sick to stay in a hotel, John Wilkes was compelled to seek shelter under Asia’s roof in Philadelphia. Junius accompanied his brother there on the train, where Asia put John to bed and summoned a doctor to drain the abscesses on his neck.

Scholars of Lincoln’s assassination agree that it was at the home of his sister Asia in the month of November 1864 that John Wilkes Booth composed two important letters. In these rambling, emotional screeds, he attempts to explain first to his mother and then to a national audience his firm resolve to plot against the president of the United States.

The first missive is addressed to “Dearest beloved Mother.” Mary Ann Booth, having borne ten illegitimate children by Junius, Sr., before he finally acquired a divorce from his first wife, had lived with social ostracism for decades. Now, just as she was achieving a measure of peace and security, the deed John Wilkes planned to commit would renew her misery. The son justified his action to the mother by reminding her of the strife troubling their family since the war began. “For four years I have lived (I may say) A slave in the north,” John writes, “not daring to express my thoughts or sentiments, even in my own home. Constantly hearing every principle, dear to my heart, denounced as treasonable . . . For four years I have borne it mostly for your dear sake . . . but it seems that uncontrollable fate, moving me for its ends, takes me from you, dear Mother, to do what work I can.”

In his second letter, addressed “To Whom It May Concern” and no doubt intended for publication in national newspapers, John Wilkes acknowledges “how foolish I shall be deemed, for undertaking such a step as this.” He describes the North as his home, the place, he writes, where “I have many friends, and everything to make me happy.” With some exaggeration, John claims that in the North “my profession alone has gained me an income of more than twenty thousand dollars a year. And where my great personal ambition in my profession has such a great field of labor.”

Booth grants that it “seems insane . . . to give up” this comfortable Northern world in favor of “the South . . . where I have no friends . . . a place, where I must either become a private soldier or a beggar.” Yet, he declares, it is the abject oppression of the Southern people by the armies and government of the North that has won him over to their side. His last lines in the letter: “My love (as things stand today) is for the South alone. They say she has found that ‘last ditch’ which the North have . . . been endeavoring to force her in, forgetting they are our brothers, and that it is impolitic to goad an enemy to madness. Should I reach her in safety and find it true, I will proudly beg permission to triumph or die in that same ‘ditch’ by her side.”

In early December, John Wilkes Booth went to Washington, D.C. His family was relieved to see the troublesome young man depart. John Sleeper Clarke abominated Wilkes and did not care to have him stay long in Philadelphia. Junius, engaged to star in Boston theaters for the entire month, was too busy to devote much attention to him. Edwin had thrown John Wilkes out of his house. The conspirator took his leave without fanfare, speeding onward toward his then inscrutable purpose. As Junius Booth later testified to a federal investigator, John Wilkes told them on his departure that “he was forming an oil co. in Washington & could do better by it than acting & we all believed him.”

* * *

Edwin Booth’s one hundred consecutive performances of Hamlet at the Winter Garden Theatre between November 26, 1864, and March 22, 1865, was a feat never attempted before that date. In this marathon of artistic endurance, the star gave the people of New York an astonishing display of his virtuosity. Endlessly inventive, ever improvising, the actor managed to make each successive performance seem somehow different from the one before. He dug deep into himself, layering fresh inflections on Shakespeare’s language, finding new interpretations of familiar passages. William Stuart, the Winter Garden’s seasoned showman, knew the stunt was box office gold. When Edwin’s energies flagged, and he felt “heartily sick and wearied of the monotonous work,” he begged his manager to end the run. Stuart always refused, urging the star onward with the words “No, not at all, my dear boy! Keep it up, keep it up! If it goes a year, keep it up!”

The critics of New York were transfixed by Edwin’s feat, and so was the nation as a whole. Decades later, the episode was remembered for how it took up space on the pages of newspapers that otherwise would have been devoted to General Grant as he closed in on Richmond. Part of Edwin’s genius, the New York Sun marveled, was his ability to “challenge attention even in the midst of the trouble, excitements and anxieties of the war.”

On March 27, 1865, Adam Badeau was stationed with General Grant at his headquarters in City Point, Virginia. The president and Mrs. Lincoln were also present, having made a special visit to the front. It was not an easy period for Badeau. Mrs. Lincoln was his special charge, and her easily wounded temper and unrestrained outbursts made her presence at Grant’s headquarters difficult and upsetting for everyone.

Badeau, who had read the newspaper accounts of his old friend’s latest success, took time away from his duties playing host to the first lady to write a word of congratulation to Edwin Booth. “Your triumph has realized all I ever hoped you would accomplish,” he exclaimed, “and will certainly be historical in the annals of your art.” Badeau informed Edwin that Grant was preparing to march on Richmond immediately. “We start tomorrow night or early next morning, according to present orders.” Drawing a parallel between the soldier’s life and the actor’s, Badeau joked, “Just as your campaign is over, ours begins. I hope we shall be as successful as you have been.” At the close of this letter, Badeau mentioned “Generals Sherman and Sheridan are both here in person today. Also the President.”

Laurence Olivier, a twentieth-century actor who spent a great deal of his time playing Hamlet, noted that after a certain number of nights the performance of this character becomes a self-portrait of the actor who is playing him. “Hamlet,” Olivier said, “has to be you in all the facets you can muster.” Edwin Booth brought the experiences of his own life to bear on his work that season—his understanding of a son’s relationship to his father and his mother; the uneasy boundary that exists between genius and madness; the lure of fame; when it is best to take bold action, and when it is better simply to “let be.” Audiences thought they perceived a special intensity in the scenes Edwin played with the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Every night, the actor wore a medallion portrait of his own parent, Junius Brutus Booth, on a heavy gold chain around his neck, an integral part of his costume.

While Edwin’s hundred nights were drawing to a close, the Century Club made plans to honor the record-breaking star. A committee of distinguished men, including the governor of New York and the assistant secretary of war, Charles A. Dana, wished to present Booth with a “Hamlet Medal,” an oval, cast in solid gold, designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany. Tiffany announced that his creation would bear “in the center, Booth’s head as Hamlet, surrounded by a serpent, the skull of Yorick, two foils crossed and a raven.” The inscription on the opposite side would read, “To Edwin Booth, in commemoration of the unprecedented run of Hamlet as enacted by him in New-York City for one hundred nights.”

In February 1864, the president of the United States and his secretary of state both had honored Edwin Booth with proofs of their sincere regard. After he completed one hundred nights of Hamlet in March 1865, Booth would arrive at yet another pinnacle of his career. Any greater laurel an actor might receive beyond these rewards would be difficult to imagine.

But that did not stop Edwin Booth from trying. Though “the terrible success of ‘Hamlet’ seems to swallow up everything,” Edwin confessed he was preoccupied with thoughts of how to “follow it up with something still better done, if it can be, in the way of costumes and scenery.” One idea was to summon his brothers, John Wilkes and Junius, back to the Winter Garden on the next anniversary of Shakespeare’s birthday—April 23, 1865—for another charity performance. This time, Edwin thought, the brothers could share the leading parts in Romeo and Juliet: Edwin taking Mercutio; Junius, Friar Lawrence; and John Wilkes, Romeo. Looking ahead to winning his next accolade, Edwin said, “keeps me far off in fairy-land, day and night, in my dreams and in my days.”

John Wilkes rarely replied to the mail his family sent him that winter. His visits to New York were infrequent: Edwin’s antipathy made brotherly meetings difficult. Finally, on January 17, 1865, in answer to an anxious letter from Junius demanding to know what John was doing in Washington and why he refused to write, the twenty-six-year-old sent this response: “You ask me what I am doing. Well a thousand things. Yet no more, hardly than what I could attend to if I was at home. But dear brother you must not think me childish when I say that the old feeling aroused by our loving brother has not yet died out. I am sure he thinks I live upon him. And its only for dear Mother that I have gone there at all when in New York, and as I cannot live in that city without him at home and as this season I would be home all the time, I thought it best not to be in the City at all, and as I like this place next, and my bus[iness] at present calls me here. I thought I would here make my stand.”

Onstage with Edwin Booth throughout the marathon run of Hamlet was a man who did have an idea of what kind of stand John Wilkes Booth was planning to make. Samuel Knapp Chester was a member of the Winter Garden’s stock company, listed on playbills as S. K. Chester. He acted Claudius to Edwin’s Hamlet during the hundred-night run, and his wife played a supporting role in the production. Beginning in November 1864, Chester had been the recipient of a number of disturbing visits and letters from Edwin Booth’s younger brother.

Chester had known John Wilkes for years, and shared the stage with him on November 25, 1864, during Julius Caesar. It was in rehearsals for this performance that John first intimated he had a scheme afoot in Washington. As Chester later told a federal court, he overheard some Winter Garden actors teasing John Wilkes “about his oil speculations,” questioning whether his profits were as big as he represented them to be. After the men departed, Booth whispered to Chester “he had a better speculation than that on hand, and one they wouldn’t laugh at.”

A month later, Chester claimed, in late December 1864, Booth appeared at his door in Manhattan one cold night and asked Chester to go for a walk. On a deserted stretch of Fourth Street, where there were few other pedestrians, Chester recalled, Booth spilled the entirety of his plot against the Lincoln administration. “He stopped and told me he was in a large conspiracy to capture the heads of the Government, including the President, and take them to Richmond,” Chester reported. Chester was terrified, and his fear increased when Booth demanded he join him in the plan.

“I told him I could not do it; that it was an impossibility; and asked him to think of my family,” Chester remembered, but Booth refused to accept this answer and began badgering him, promising several thousand dollars in payment to Chester’s wife if anything should happen to the actor.

“He told me the affair was to take place at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, and the part he wished me to play in carrying out this conspiracy, was to open the back door of the theater at a signal.”

When the actor still declined to help, Booth became angry, threatening to “ruin” Chester and to send Confederate agents after him, who would “hunt [him] down through life.” Trembling and protesting, Chester begged to be left alone. Finally, Booth relented and took his leave, muttering that if Chester breathed a word of the affair to anyone, Booth would punish him.

For three months, while John Wilkes continued to hound him with letters and demands to join the conspiracy, Samuel Chester acted in Hamlet at the Winter Garden with Edwin Booth, divulging nothing of the secret plot to his employer and co-star. Chester seemed sincerely to believe John Wilkes Booth’s threats to kill him.

* * *

Even at the peak of his fame, Edwin Booth had the pricking feeling that bad luck would soon befall him. This sense of impending disaster often troubled him, Edwin admitted, perhaps a legacy from his early years of traveling with the chaotic and unpredictable Junius Brutus Booth. This anxious tendency was exacerbated by the shock of his wife Mary’s sudden demise.

“All my life has been passed on picket duty, as it were,” the actor wrote. “I have been on guard, on the look-out, for disasters—for which, when they come, I am prepared. Therefore, I have seemed, to those who do not really know me, callous to the many blows that have been dealt me. Why do you not look at this miserable little life, with all its ups and downs, as I do? At the very worst, tis but a scratch, a temporary ill, soon to be cured by that dear old doctor, Death.”

Edwin’s words, as bitter as they seem, were an echo of Hamlet’s austere philosophy. It is a philosophy perfectly expressed in the moment before the play’s bloody denouement. Throughout his life, Edwin Booth would refer to these lines, ones Hamlet delivers in the last act, as his favorite in all of Shakespeare:

There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, tis not to come;
If it be not to come, it will be now;
If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all.

* * *

From My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry Between Edwin and John Wilkes Booth that Led to an American Tragedy by Nora Titone. Copyright © 2010 by Nora Titone. Reprinted by permission of Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Glamorous Crossing: How Pan Am Airways Dominated International Travel in the 1930s

$
0
0

Meredith Hindley | Longreads | February 2015 | 18 minutes (4,383 words)

 

In August 1936, Americans retreated from the summer heat into movie theaters to watch China Clipper, the newest action-adventure from Warner Brothers. The film starred Pat O’Brien as an airline executive obsessed with opening the first airplane route across the Pacific Ocean. An up-and-coming Humphrey Bogart played a grizzled pilot full of common sense and derring-do.

The real star of the film, however, was the China Clipper, a gleaming four-engine silver Martin M-130. As the Clipper makes its maiden flight in the film, the flying boat cuts a white wake into the waters off San Francisco before soaring in the air and passing over a half-constructed Golden Gate Bridge. As it crosses the Pacific, cutting through the clouds and battling a typhoon, a team of radiomen and navigators follow its course on the ground, relaying updated weather information. The plane arrives in Macao to a harbor packed with cheering spectators and beaming government officials.

The film trailer touted it as “the most heroic adventure of the 20th century” and that’s exactly how Juan Terry Trippe, the founder of Pan American Airways, wanted the American public to think of flying. It was under Trippe’s guidance that Pan Am became the first commercial airline to fly across the Pacific in 1935. When Warner Brothers approached Pan Am about fictionalizing its precedent-setting flight, Trippe naturally agreed.

The movie gave American audiences a front-row seat to a story unfolding since 1928, when Trippe secured his first international route. Over the next decade, Pan Am and its fleet of Clippers became symbols of American ingenuity and glamour as Pan Am made it possible for Americans to cross oceans in days rather than weeks. Passengers dined on four-course meals and slipped between sheets when it was time to go to bed. In an age of TSA checkpoints that force passengers to undress in public, battles over legroom, and shrinking seat sizes, the idea of flying as a decadent adventure seems a bit fantastic. But in the 1930s, when the airline industry was in its infancy, international travel was precisely that.

Pan Am's China Clipper over San Francisco in 1936. Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-111417

Pan Am’s China Clipper over San Francisco in 1936. Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-111417

Dreaming Big

On May 20, 1927, Trippe stood among the sea of people gathered at Roosevelt Field on Long Island, watching through the early morning drizzle as Charles Lindbergh piloted the Spirit of St. Louis into the air and toward Paris. Lindbergh was attempting to become the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic. Thirty-three hours, 29 minutes, and 30 seconds later, his monoplane touched down at Paris’s Le Bourget airfield. The flight captured the imagination of the world, and it turned Lindbergh into an international hero. After the landmark flight, everybody wanted a piece of Lindbergh, to pitch their product, to headline their event, to shake their hand. Trippe was no different. He wanted Lindbergh to serve as the technical advisor to his fledgling airline.

Juan Terry Trippe. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Juan Terry Trippe. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Like the others gathered on that misty field, Trippe was crazy for airplanes and had been since the age of 10 when he watched Wilbur Wright barnstorm over a New York harbor. During World War I, he abandoned his studies at Yale to train as a Navy pilot. Ensign Trippe, however, never saw combat, as the war ended before he finished his training. After completing his degree, he tried his luck on Wall Street, selling bonds by day, and making the social rounds at night.

In 1923, Trippe convinced his New York Social Register pals—men with names like Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Whitney—to invest in a small commuter airline to ferry the rich between New York City and the Hamptons. The airline faltered, but Trippe’s next plan struck gold. In 1925, the U.S. Post Office put domestic airmail routes up for bid. Trippe won the lucrative contract to transport mail between New York and Boston. Not content with the eastern seaboard, he began looking south, towards Cuba. His ambition, however, conflicted with his investors’ desire to turn a profit before expanding further. Trippe resigned after losing a struggle for control of the company.

Despite the setback, Trippe kept eyeing the map beyond the United States and seeing opportunity. In March 1928, the Post Office began accepting bids for international mail service. Trippe immediately understood that if he won a contract—and the steady revenue it provided—he could experiment with building passenger service along the same route. As Trippe made the rounds in Washington and New York, lobbying for the contract, Lindbergh was at his side. Trippe’s understated sales pitch had won over Lindbergh, who saw in Trippe a fellow pilot interested in pushing the boundaries of flight. Along with star power, Trippe possessed something else his competitors lacked: landing rights in Cuba.

Charles Lindbergh. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Charles Lindbergh. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Pan Am won two contracts. Foreign Mail Route No. 5 spanned seven countries, swinging 2,074 miles from Miami to Panama. Foreign Mail Route No. 6 went from Florida to Cuba, over to Haiti and the Dominican Republic and on to Trinidad for a total of 1,930 miles. Pan Am received $2 a mile to transport 800 pounds of mail twice a week, making the contracts worth $2.5 million a year. The contracts shored up the finances of Trippe’s new airline, which would henceforth be called Pan American Airways, a name he borrowed from a losing competitor.

Shortly after dawn on February 4, 1929, the first plane flying Foreign Mail Route No. 5 departed Miami. Behind the controls of the Sikorsky S-38 was Charles Lindbergh, ensuring the press would follow every takeoff and landing along the route—and make Pan Am a household name in the process.

The mail routes provided the foundation for Pan Am’s push into the Caribbean and Central America.  Over the next few years Trippe built up Pan Am’s routes in the region, along with South America, systematically acquiring local airlines or cutting deals with the ones who wouldn’t sell in order to ensure Pan Am’s supremacy. The expansion was aided by Wall Street, which was keen to invest in the region, and businessmen, who didn’t mind paying more to spend less time traveling between home and Latin and South American capitals.

The State Department also came to see Pan Am as a way to promote its own Latin American policy. “Keenly aware that his company needed Washington’s support, Trippe became a skilled lobbyist who secured government favors for Pan Am by branding it as an agent of the national interest,” writes Jenifer Van Vleck in Empire of the Air. Indeed, Trippe regularly reminded the State Department that by aiding Pan Am’s expansion, the U.S. government would help keep the Europeans from encroaching on American interests.

Pan Am forged routes to countries that lacked runways, let alone concrete runways that could hold up in all kinds of weather conditions. That led Trippe to build Pan Am around seaplanes and amphibians, which could land wherever there was a stretch of water, preferably calm. Toward the end of 1928, Trippe began to think about how to use seaplanes beyond transporting goods and mail. The Cunard Line turned sea travel into a decadent experience for those who could afford it. Could Trippe do the same for air travel?

“He had been fascinated then, and was fascinated still, by the Cunard mystique, by the romance of shipboard life, and his ambition now became to run Pan American as a kind of nautical airline,” writes Robert Daley in An American Saga: Juan Trippe and His Pan Am Empire.

Trippe found a co-conspirator in Igor Sikorsky, an aeronautical engineer who escaped Revolutionary Russia and built an airplane factory in Stratford, Connecticut. Sikorsky’s company made the S-38, a sturdy seaplane used by Pan Am, the U.S. Navy, and others. But the Russian also shared Trippe’s vision of a plane with a lavish interior that would transport passengers in style. In early 1929, Trippe and Sikorsky reached an agreement to construct the S-40, a four-engine seaplane with a cruising speed of 100 miles per hour and accommodations for up to 38 passengers.

In homage to the sleek, fast sailing clipper ships of the mid-19th century, Trippe dubbed the new plane “Clipper.” He clothed the crew in crisp uniforms that made them look like they just stepped off an ocean liner. The maritime theme, along with a heavy dose of art deco sensibility, extended to the décor. The walls were inlaid with mahogany polished to a shine. The wood obscured the extra insulation used to limit the noise and vibration from the engines. Passengers could make use of full-sized lavatories with hot and cold running water.

Passengers boarding a Clipper. Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-93421

Passengers boarding a Clipper. Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-93421

The maiden flight of the American Clipper, complete with paying passengers, departed Miami on November 19, 1931 bound for Cristobal, Panama. Lindbergh was once again at the controls. While en route to the first stop in Cuba, passengers dined on the very first hot meal prepared in an airplane sailing over water. Sikorsky also was on board, and as they made their way south, Lindbergh and Sikorsky talked about the next step. Lindbergh sketched on menus, envisioning something sleek that could fly 2,500 miles nonstop. The drawings became the S-42.

On August 16, 1934, the plane envisioned by Lindbergh and Sikorsky, dubbed Brazilian Clipper, left Miami bound for Buenos Aires. The flight was hailed both for its luxury and for its time saving. If the schedule could be maintained, the journey by air from Florida to Argentina could be reduced from eight days to six days. The flight, however, took eight days after an impenetrable fog bank forced the Clipper to land in semi-darkness off the Brazilian coast short of its intended port of Rio de Janeiro. “Never before had water looked so good to any of us,” wrote John N. Wheeler, who chronicled the journey for The New York Times.

The itinerary change forced the passengers to miss the lavish party planned for them by Rio’s movers and shakers. Instead of checking into swanky hotel suites, they spent the night on the plane. The delay, however, reinforced in a very public fashion Trippe’s insistence that Pan Am put “safety first.” When the Clipper landed in Rio, the city threw a two-day party. The festivities were so engrossing that two of the passengers arrived at the dock the next morning minutes before the plane took off breathless and still wearing their evening clothes.

Trippe’s attention to luxury paid off. In 1933, 85 percent of Pan Am’s passengers traveled on business. By 1940, businessmen accounted for only 45 percent. The rest were tourists flying south on holiday.

Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-55443

To cross the Pacific, Pan Am set up facilities on Midway, Wake Island, and Guam. Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-55443

The Problem of Distance

With the Caribbean and South American routes up and running, Trippe grudgingly turned his attention to the Pacific. He really wanted to start a service to Europe, but despite his best efforts, he couldn’t manage to overcome the political hurdles. The British and French jealously guarded their airline industries and looked askance at Pan Am’s efforts to obtain landing rights. The Pacific, however, remained for the taking if the problem of distance could be solved. Seven thousand miles of sparsely populated water lay between San Francisco and Manila. The trip could be broken down into shorter flights, hopping from island to island, but Pan Am still needed a plane that could fly between San Francisco to Honolulu (2,400 miles).

This time, the winning design emerged not from Sikorsky, but from the Baltimore-based Glenn L. Martin Company, the precursor to Lockheed Martin. The Martin M-130 had a range of 3,200 miles and a cruising speed of 157 miles per hour. Four Pratt and Whitney engines pushed the 51,000-lb. plane into the air, where it could fly as high as 10,000 feet.

On November 22, 1935, the China Clipper took off from Alameda, California, embarking on the first transpacific air mail flight. Stashed into its cargo bay were 115,000 letters weighing almost two tons. As the plane approached Hawaii, a squadron of sixty U.S. Army and Navy airplanes joined it, providing a ceremonial escort to Pearl Harbor.

The China Clipper was manned by a crew of a six, who received support from 42 men on the ground.  “It is one thing to navigate a surface vessel moving a mile every two minutes with a wealth of navigational aids at the command of the mariner,” wrote Clipper Captain Edwin C. Musick in a newspaper article filed during the flight. “It is quite another to guide an air liner racing a mile every twenty-four seconds, enshrouded by clouds or above them, with endless horizon of open sea below, with the goal even from high altitude visible under best conditions scarcely twenty miles.”

Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-61986

The flight deck of the China Clipper (l to r): navigator, captain at the controls, first officer, radio officer, and flight engineer. Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-61986

From Hawaii, the China Clipper continued on to Midway (1,323 miles) and Wake Island (1,191 miles). Before Pan Am built a refueling station, Wake Island had been deserted. Now, this trip delivered nine more employees, along with additional supplies. Next came Guam (1,536 miles), before finally touching down in Manila, Philippines, on November 29, 1935.  Pan Am turned a two-week or more crossing by boat into an eight-day journey by air.

A few months later, as planned, the mail route also became a passenger route. Trippe’s fascination with maritime habits continued. “Clipper is a ship, not a plane. Time is marked by bells, the crew’s watches are set at Greenwich mean time, and everything on board moves according to the best merchant marine practice,” wrote Lauren Lyman, who flew on the inaugural passenger flight. As with ships, a steward oversaw the passenger cabin, helping with customs and immigration forms, and organizing luggage. He kept smokers stocked with a steady supply of gum to help them cope with the “no smoking” rule. He served the meals, which were prepared in advance and stored in insulated containers to keep them hot. Along with lunch and dinner, which consisted of four courses, there were regular snacks and tea. Alcohol, however, had to be imbibed on the ground.

If passengers needed help entertaining themselves, magazines, cards, and games were available. The view, of course, offered its own entertainment: lonely ships traversing the vast stretch of ocean below, a cavalcade of cloud formations, and spectacular sunrises and sunsets. At night, the moon played on the ocean while constellations danced across the sky.

Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91091

Passenger berths aboard the China Clipper. Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91091

The long flights necessitated sleeping accommodations. Trippe wanted space for fifty passengers, but had to settle for sleeping berths for eighteen. A Pullman curtain divided the main lounge into separate dressing rooms for men and women. After putting on their pajamas, the passengers could retreat to one of the sleeping berths, which were the size of a camp cot. The early morning departures and constantly changing time zones led many passengers to retreat to their berths after takeoff and reemerge for lunch.

By 1939, Pan Am’s routes in Asia and the Pacific expanded to include Macao, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand.

Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-61987

The main lounge of the Clipper was designed for comfort and socializing. Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-61987

The Mighty Atlantic

While Pan Am’s transpacific service got underway, Trippe continued to work on the problem of crossing the Atlantic. The obstacle wasn’t technology—a trip across the Atlantic was half the distance of the Pacific—but politics. The Europeans had no intention of letting Pan Am monopolize routes as it had in Central and South America.

In 1935, Pan Am and the British Imperial Line reached an understanding that service across the Atlantic would not begin until it could be done as a joint venture. In June 1937, the duo introduced service between New York and Bermuda, offering two flights a week in both directions. The service proved so popular that by the end of August the number climbed to four.

That summer also brought the disconcerting sight of a seaplane with a swastika painted on its tail floating in the Long Island Sound. Nazi Germany was testing its own transatlantic airmail and passenger service. Unlike Pan Am’s seaplanes, which could take off on their own, the German plane needed to be catapulted from a steamship, which then rendezvoused with the plane days later.

Over the next two years, Pan Am conducted headline-grabbing test and inspection flights of the southern route (Bermuda-Azores-Lisbon-Marseille) and the northern route (Newfoundland-Greenland-Foynes-Southampton). But the main delay in opening the route came in Trippe’s decision to use the Boeing 314, which offered a substantial increase in cargo and passenger capacity—and eventually profits. Trippe ordered six of the planes and Boeing promised to deliver them at the end of 1937. In mid-1938, Boeing was still conducting test flights.

In a little more than a decade, Trippe had built the largest airline in the world, employing 5,000 people supporting 126 planes flying 54,072 route miles. Pan Am was also mired in debt. It struggled to turn a profit in the Pacific while making large capital investments to launch the Atlantic routes. Newspaper headlines and record-setting flights didn’t necessarily translate to healthy balance sheets.

Over the years, Pan Am’s board had tolerated Trippe’s free-spending ways and his secretive tendencies—he rarely informed them of his plans until the deal was done—but they had finally had enough. In March 1939, Pan Am’s board of directors ousted Trippe as chief executive officer and replaced him with Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, a man known more for paternity suits and horse racing than business acumen. Whitney had been one of the original backers of Trippe’s New England airmail scheme, the seed from which Pan Am grew. And in his role as chairman of the board, Whitney had consistently supported Trippe’s expansion plans. Now Whitney would serve as CEO, while Trippe, swallowing his pride, continued to manage Pan Am’s operations as its president.

During Whitney’s tenure as CEO, Trippe’s plans for the transatlantic route came to fruition. On May 20, 1939, the Yankee Clipper left New York on its inaugural transatlantic airmail flight, 12 years to the day after Lindbergh flew the Spirit of Saint Louis. When it touched down in the Azores, the planned two-and-a-half-hour layover had to be extended to six hours while the crew waited for the local post office to stamp the 23,000 pieces of mail collectors had sent as souvenirs.

When Pan Am announced transatlantic passenger service to Marseille would begin at the end of June 1939, it immediately received 500 requests for tickets. The flight to Marseille, which included an overnight stay in Lisbon, could take up to 44 hours, while the return trip might run as along as 52 hours because of headwinds across the Atlantic. Tickets for the twice-a-week service were available for $375 one-way and $675 for a round trip. (In today’s money, that’s $6,242 one-way and $11,236 round trip.)

At 2:30 p.m. on June 28, 1939, a bell rang prompting 22 passengers to queue up, show their tickets, and have their luggage weighed. Before boarding the Dixie Clipper, the passengers posed for pictures, flashblubs popping, in front of the scrum of reporters and photographers assembled at Pan Am’s departure terminal in Port Washington, Long Island. The town declared a semi-holiday in honor of the record-setting flight. The local high school band serenaded the swell of people gathered on the shoreline, while brightly decorated boats floated on the murky water of Manhasset Bay.

A half-hour later, with passengers, crew, and mail stowed away, the Clipper’s four propellers spun to life, filling the harbor with the buzzing of its four Wright Twin Cyclone engines. The plane surged forward, churning a white wake behind it, before breaking the surface and climbing into the clear afternoon sky. In 22 hours, the Dixie Clipper would land in Lisbon. While en route, passengers dined on four-course meals served on china, accompanied by silver place settings and linen tablecloths. They slept on beds with sheets and did their ablutions in a full-sized bathroom.  After spending the night in Lisbon, it was only another six hours to Marseille. If they timed it right, the Clipper’s passengers could be in Paris for dinner.

Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91148

Passengers play a game aboard the China Clipper, 1936. Clyde H. Sunderland / Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91148

The following month, Pan Am launched its northern transatlantic route, which flew to Southampton in around 27 hours. The inaugural flight again became a celebration, and people jockeyed to obtain seats so they could claim bragging rights to being on the first Clipper flight to Britain. American Express begged Pan Am to make room on the flight for Guido Coen, a businessman from Florence who needed to get home to see his dying son. Pan Am gave him a seat—and reaped the dividends of press coverage about how the new Clipper service helped reunite a family in a time of crisis.  “When I get to Paris, I hope there will be a message from my wife letting me know how Luciano is,” Coen told reporters. “I can’t bear to think of his suffering. I pray I may not be too late.”

Pan Am Goes to War

President Franklin D. Roosevelt celebrates his 61st birthday on the Dixie Clipper while flying from Trinidad to Miami. Photo via the White House.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt celebrates his 61st birthday on the Dixie Clipper while flying from Trinidad to Miami. Photo via the White House.

After years of planning and scheming to open Pan Am’s transatlantic routes, World War II intervened two months later. The first Clipper to arrive in New York after Nazi Germany invaded Poland carried passengers with harrowing tales of their travels. “I’ve never seen a prettier sight than the Clipper. And when I stepped aboard, I felt just as if I were home,” said Justin D. Bowersock, the aviation editor for the Kansas City Star. Unable to board the Clipper in Marseille, Bowersock and 13 others commandeered an ancient bus to take them to Biarritz on the French Atlantic coast. From there, they took a train to Lisbon, where they boarded the Clipper.

The war in Europe led to the termination of the northern route at Foynes, Ireland, before being suspended entirely. The southern route, however, did booming business as refugees made their way first to Marseille and then to Lisbon. In Asia, Pan Am withdrew from China and pulled back routes as the Japanese advanced in the region.

The war also saw the triumphant return of Trippe as the head of Pan Am. Over the course of 1939, Whitney failed to display the executive touch, his floundering aided by Trippe’s refusal to share basic details about Pan Am’s operations. To make matters worse for Whitney, the company posted a record year-end profit of $1.98 million, all of which was attributed to Trippe’s unwavering vision. At the beginning of 1940, the board put control of Pan Am in back in Trippe’s hands.

Trippe’s triumphant return also coincided with a concerted attempt to break Pan Am’s monopoly on overseas airline routes. Despite the best efforts of American Export Airlines and its supporters in the State Department, Post Office, War and Navy Departments, and the White House, Pan Am maintained control of its routes thanks to Congress. Pan Am’s congressional supporters squashed provisions that would have allowed American Export Airlines to carry mail overseas, effectively grounding the fledgling airline.

Even while official Washington groused about Pan Am’s monopoly, the U.S. Army enlisted its services to build a series of air bases in Latin and Central America to bolster American defensive capabilities in the Western Hemisphere. American diplomats, in an early form of shuttle diplomacy, logged tens of thousands of miles traveling back and forth across the Atlantic on Pan Am’s Clipper service. Pan Am was also recruited to ferry planes from the United States to British forces in Khartoum, Sudan, as part of the Lend-Lease Act. In Latin America, Trippe used his standing interest in SCADTA, the German-run airline that operated routes adjacent to the Panama Canal, to stage a management takeover. All German personnel were purged in order to quell concerns about possible sabotage attempts on the canal.

As a sign of how enmeshed Pan Am was in the unofficial American war effort, LIFE magazine subtitled its October 1941 profile of Trippe: “Pan American Airways Young Chief Helps Run a Branch of U.S. Defense.” The profile is also notable for its focus on Trippe as its subject. Throughout Pan Am’s rise, Trippe preferred to remain in the background, letting Pan Am’s planes and accomplishments generate excitement. There isn’t a single direct quote from Trippe in the entire piece.

Cover of LIFE, 1941

Cover of LIFE, 1941

When the United States joined the Allies in the wake of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Pan Am’s Clipper fleet went to war as well, ferrying American military personnel around the globe under the auspices of the U.S. Army Transport Command. Pan Am crews continued to pilot the planes, which received the military designation C-98.

The Clippers transported some of the most valuable cargo of the war. In January 1942, the RMS Berwick, a Clipper bought from Pan Am by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, carried Prime Minister Winston Churchill across the Atlantic, making him the first head of state to cross the ocean by air. Churchill had journeyed to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Franklin Roosevelt following Pearl Harbor. Instead of spending a week at sea to return home, Churchill decided to risk the 18-hour flight from Bermuda to Plymouth. Germany scrambled a Luftwaffe squadron to hunt the plane, but its efforts failed. In January 1943, under an elaborate veil of secrecy, the Dixie Clipper carried President Franklin Roosevelt across the Atlantic to attend the Casablanca Conference in French Morocco.

End of an Era

Before World War II, Pan Am boasted that it alone possessed the expertise to fly international routes. The war changed that as American planes dispersed across the globe. In the postwar era, despite its best efforts, Pan Am lost its monopoly on overseas routes. The war also spelled the end of the Clipper. Four Boeing 314s survived the war, but they were taken out of service at the beginning of 1946 in favor of Douglas DC-4 and Lockheed L-049 Constellation. Both planes could cover long distances and land on runways, which had sprouted as a result of wartime building programs.

Despite its short life, the Clipper helped usher in a new era of international travel and allowed Pan Am to become an aviation force around the world. Pan Am again became synonymous with glamour when the jet age led to another transformation of commercial air travel. In October 1958, Pan Am began transatlantic jet service between New York and Paris. The Boeing 707 carried 141 first and economy class passengers and logged a cruising speed of 607 miles per hour. It traveled almost four times as fast the Clipper and carried six times as many passengers.

The man who convinced Trippe to invest in jet engines? Charles Lindbergh.

* * *

Meredith Hindley is a writer and historian living in Washington, D.C. Her work has appeared in Humanities, The New York Times, Salon, Christian Science Monitor, Lapham’s Quarterly Roundtable, and Barnes and Noble Review. She is currently writing a book about Casablanca during World War II for Public Affairs Books.

* * *

Editor: Mark Armstrong; Fact-checker: Brendan O’Connor

Giving Visibility to the Invisible: An Interview With Photographer Ruddy Roye

$
0
0

Lucy McKeon | Longreads | February 2015 | 18 minutes (4,489 words)

 

With over 100,000 Instagram followers, photographer Ruddy Roye came of age in Jamaica, and has lived in New York City since 2001. He has photographed dancehall musicians and fans, sapeurs of the Congo, the Caribbean Carnival J’ouvert, recent protests in Ferguson and in New York, and the faces of the many people he meets and observes every day. Roye is perhaps best known for his portraits taken around his neighborhood in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn—pictures of the homeless, the disenfranchised, and those who Roye believes aren’t often fully seen.

In Roye’s Instagram profile, he describes himself as an “Instagram Humanist/Activist,” and when looking at his portraits, the phrase that comes to mind is “up close.” Roye is closer to his subjects—who he calls his “collaborators”—than is typical in street photography, in terms of actual proximity as well as identification. Each picture, he says, contains a piece of him. With this closeness, Roye creates images that can be harrowing, disturbing, joyful and striking. If they are sometimes difficult to look at, one has more trouble looking away.

* * *

How did you begin taking photographs? Maybe you could start by describing your first experience with a camera.

My first experience with a camera. I was in Ritz Camera in Washington, D.C. on 16th St. I went back to the window to look at cameras—I’d never used a camera before—and I remember looking outside the window and watching this guy walk into the frame [of the viewfinder] and I snapped and then he walked out of the frame. I realized at that moment that I could stop the story. Before and after really didn’t matter, the fact that I could stop him in frame—a light bulb went off in my head.

Like you stopped time for a second.

Yes. And I was at a crossroads in my life where I was told by immigration to go home [to Jamaica], and I was also looking for something to do. Something that I could use as school, because my mind was still in college. I’m not going to say where—I never want to talk about them. [Grins]

Fair enough. But you had come to the U.S. for school?

Yes, I was in school in Baltimore. I came here [from Jamaica] when I was 20 years old, and I came here to go to college. I was accepted at Kansas University, but when I went on campus it was just too cold—too much of a shock. So I matriculated for a year, went to California, tried to figure out what I was going to do with my life. And I decided that I would try to go to school on the East Coast. So I came back to the East.

And what were you doing in Washington, D.C. when you had that first experience with a camera?

I was actually working. I was working at a bar trying to figure out how I was going to go back to Jamaica, because I had to do my papers all over again. I was in school, but I was told by immigration that I could no longer continue the next semester—that I had to go home [to Jamaica] and do my paperwork all over again.

July 9, 2014. "The Harvard Man"

July 9, 2014. “The Harvard Man” | Says Donald Wallace: “God sent me to Harvard for a reason, maybe I lost my way but now I can tell these kids how to blaze a trail to the top colleges in America.”

After that first moment with a camera, how did you begin taking photos regularly? I know of your project walking along the railroads [from Montego Bay to Kingston, Jamaica] as one of your first projects.

That was the beginning. I went back to Jamaica and I was given an assignment by the newspaper. Before I came to the States I was a reporter at a small tabloid. I went back and instead of writing, I decided I wanted to take pictures. And I was given an assignment to cover a family that was living in a defunct train station on the train line. They wanted me to photograph how the family was living, so I went there and I just—I took a couple pictures of them and brought them back. And when the newspaper article came out, I said to myself, “This is a story I really want to do. I want to walk the entire train line and photograph the people that are living along it in the train stations.” So I did.

And how long did it take to walk the train line, from Montego Bay to Kingston?

It took 21 days, 10 miles a day.

I don’t think I had realized how far you were walking each day. That’s a lot.

It is. It hurt!

Did those photographs get published, or exhibited?

The train line images were never published. I had one exhibition when I moved to the USA but never really wanted to show it because it felt tainted and unfinished. I was using Nikon film cameras at the time. I started with a Nikon N90s and then I graduated to an F5.

So what happened after that?

It took me three years to get my paperwork finished. And in those three years, I did sports in Jamaica, I did commercial work, I worked [as a photographer] for the Rotary Club, I worked for the Jamaica Film Festival, and then I moved to New York.

What year was that?

2001, I think.

You’re known now for your work on Instagram, but you must have been doing editorial work in New York for years before Instagram was a thing.

I did a lot of things before Instagram, none of which I was known for. I worked for the AP, I worked for USA Today, I worked for Ebony, Jet, Essence, I assisted this good friend of mine for Vogue magazine. And I did a lot of shows—I did about five or six exhibitions in New York before Instagram. But I was like an apple in the pile, according to Robert Frost.

What sort of photographs were you exhibiting?

I’ve been working on this book on dancehall for the past five-six years. I did a major show at the Bruce Silverstein Gallery. I also photograph J’ouvert [the annual Caribbean street Carnival] and I’ve done a couple shows, two at Nathan Cummings Foundation, at Calumet, and at the Open Society Institute. Calumet used to be a photo retail store that housed an exhibition space in its building. Luckily I was able to be a part of two shows there before Calumet closed.

When did you start taking pictures with your phone?

It took a while before I actually jumped into phone photography. I was at a crossroads, just like today, thinking, “How do I move forward?” And a friend of mine took a picture of me and my boys [9-year-old Mosijah (“Mosi”) and 6-year-old Iyeoshujah (“Yoshi”)] and said that she was going to post it on Instagram, and I was like, “What is Instagram?” I looked to see what that image did on Instagram and I was immediately attracted to the fact that there was an audience. And I started to take portraits—just little portraits around [my home in] Bed-Stuy. And then [Hurricane] Sandy happened. And again, I was also at a point where I wasn’t really photographing much. I didn’t really feel like taking out my camera. But during Sandy, I grabbed my iPhone and I went to Coney Island. And the next day, The New Yorker called me to take over their Instagram feed. That was the beginning.

You went on to cover the New York Marathon 2013, as well as Black History Month last year for the same feed. How did that feel, getting a call from The New Yorker?

It’s hard to describe because, like today, a part of me believed that I should be working. A part of me cannot understand why I’m not working. A part of me had claimed that maybe I’m not marketing myself properly. But I also know that a part of it is the fact that a lot of minority artists do not get jobs in the industry. And that the doors don’t open as widely as they do for other folks. So I was very grateful, but very frustrated at the same time. It’s like I’ve been carrying this bag for the last 10 years. I knock on doors and I get used once [for an assignment]. And maybe I’m a terrible shooter…

Do you feel the reception of your work is different, from people in positions of institutional power and from the bulk of your followers on Instagram?

The followers on Instagram follow because there’s a certain—and I have to put this is quotes—”truth” that they’re attracted to. I put truth in quotes because a picture is just a part of a story, a part of the truth, it’s not the whole truth. And what I present is a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle. So I understand that those pictures have limitations. But I also made up my mind that I’d shoot whatever I felt like shooting—that it won’t be strained or vetted or censored. I’m going to talk about things the way I see them. And if they’re accepted, then [shrugs shoulders].

December 12, 2014 | "A Humanist's Eye" | Triptych 1/3 | "Twenty year old Robert Scott strutted across the low grassy field and stopped to ask me if I was ok."

December 12, 2014 | “A Humanist’s Eye” | Triptych 1/3 | “Twenty year old Robert Scott strutted across the low grassy field and stopped to ask me if I was ok.”

And that’s one benefit of social media platforms like Instagram, right? It gives the artist total creative control.

Right, like if I want to write about racism I can write about racism without a magazine saying, “That doesn’t go with our policies or reflect our editors.” I just write and take pictures.

Let’s talk about that—your writing. Your captions on Instagram are often long and sometimes lyrical. What role do your words play in relation to your images?

My captions are an invitation into my world. Throughout the history of black imaging, our photographs carry the burden of being taken out of context. Our women are sexualized and our men are pimps, or brutes, or, depending who it is, thugs. The only acceptable images are of athletes or musicians. I try to introduce each face I photograph to an audience who is interested in knowing them. My stories are about stripping away all the stereotypes and leaving the portrait with who is being portrayed in the most beautiful way. I want to introduce white America to people who they might never have met, and I want them to fall in love, too.

I think the first time we spoke, about a year ago, you described the people you were most interested in photographing as those who go “unseen”—who are often invisible?

The disenfranchised. When I started taking pictures in Bed-Stuy, I started to photograph everything. Any portrait that I could photograph. And one of the photographers that I read, Eugene Smith, said that photographs should have purpose. And I also read somewhere, another photographer said [something like], “You know, there are enough photographers photographing the pretty things, and not enough photographing the things that aren’t as pretty.” And I began to look around my community of Bed-Stuy and I saw a lot of not-so-pretty things. And a lot of it does not get printed or the stories are not told. So I just started to photograph can-collectors and homeless people, and people who live in shelters—people who have a story that doesn’t often get covered. I just wanted to talk to them, talk about them. It doesn’t mean that that’s where I want to stay. It means that I’m attracted to that right now.

And you knew these people, to the extent that you were seeing them every day?

I saw can collectors everyday. And the funny thing is, as Bed-Stuy gentrifies, there’s an increasing number of can collectors in the neighborhood. There are more cans, there are more beers. And so, every week there was this new group. At one time it was this group of guys from a shelter nearby who were the can collectors. All of a sudden there were Hispanics, there were white folks, coming in collecting cans. And I found that intriguing. First I questioned, “Why are they here?” And then I realized there were more college students in the neighborhood, more hipsters, more beers in the neighborhood, more bottles and cans to collect. I started to photograph it. People who were in the shelters, those people started to change. And then the neighborhood started to change. There was a lot more to photograph, so I just stayed photographing.

"The Changing Face of Brooklyn" | "Sometimes change is embraced by those who feel like fighting is futile."

“The Changing Face of Brooklyn” | “Sometimes change is embraced by those who feel like fighting is futile.”

What are your thoughts about the risk or complexity involved in photographing disenfranchised people?

The word is—it can be conceived of as exploitative. One of the things that has to be stressed is every image that I put up on Instagram has a piece of me in it. There’s a part of me that I’m trying to tell. To be invisible is something that I’ve felt in the past 10 years. I have felt invisible as a photographer. So for me, it’s very easy to sit down beside a guy who’s begging and have a conversation with him and feel some sense of kinship with him, because part of me understands that feeling of invisibility. I do not totally understand what it means to live on the street. I’ve tried it—I followed a couple on the street for a week and after two-three hours, I was miserable. So I have no understanding as to why somebody—or how somebody can sleep on the street. But it’s very easy for me to walk over to somebody and engage that person in a conversation about invisibility because I feel some level of invisibility.

A drunken person is my dad, somebody that I scorned for a long time in my life. Somebody that I didn’t get a chance to say goodbye to. He died while I was here. And so, sometimes I feel like by going over and engaging in conversation, I’m trying to make amends to a part of [my] world. I have a part in being brutal and vicious and unfeeling and unforgiving. So that’s a part of me mending a relationship that I could not mend. The man is dead. I’m trying to tell stories that come from me, I’m not trying to be exploitative. Those are the easy ones.

Recently I was coming from B&H [Photography]—I had just bought a strap for my new camera—and I saw this guy by Taco Bell on Eighth Avenue, by 34th St. He asked me for some money, and I asked him if he was hungry. And he said yes, so I walked him into Taco Bell and told him to order some food, and his food came up to like $5-something. And I gave the guy $10, and told him he could keep the change. For me, I didn’t need to take that picture. It was enough that I fed him and I asked what his name was—his name was Ray. I didn’t feel the need to sit down and get into [deep conversation], “Oh, so why are you on the street?” No. There are so many moments when I’ve done that and we’ll sit down and have a conversation over coffee and I’ll feel like I want to tell that person’s story because it’s interesting and I want to share it. And I share these stories because I want people to understand that these lives…matter. These lives are out there, they’re not invisible, they’re humans. On Facebook I keep putting up homeless people who are talented. People who are found through the shelter system to be old musicians or people with amazing talents.

In other words, it’s not always an exchange—a picture for a meal, a story for—but whatever interaction you’re feeling as a human in that moment.

That’s it.

August 23, 2014. "The Stripes We Wear" | Lawrence McNair stands on Florissant Street without uttering a word.

August 23, 2014. “The Stripes We Wear” | Lawrence McNair stands on Florissant Street without uttering a word.

I wanted to ask you about Ferguson. You went down there, didn’t you? What did you think of being there and documenting that specific event?

I actually just came back from Mississippi and Memphis, in what I would call rural sections of the South. And I was just speechless as to the level of—I don’t want to use these terms but, bondage; people who were still shackled by social constructs. I spoke to this one lady who couldn’t get health insurance because she has a felony. So her life, for as long as she’s alive, is going to be lived with her unable to take care of herself.

It was sad to go to Ferguson and see people living what I would call a second class citizenship. I’ve always admired the black experience, because happy or sad, what you see is laughter and happiness. I don’t know what kind of resolve black folks have, but we do whatever we can to survive.

Going to Ferguson and watching people march and for me, march in a space that was helpless, I didn’t see them getting any resolve. I didn’t see what would become of this march—the march just felt like marshmallows or cotton candy. It was airy. It lacked push and force. I covered both the white demonstrators and the black demonstrators. The white demonstrators were unmoved, unfeeling, unremorseful, the black demonstrators were angry. And it took two days when I was there to be doused. After the funeral it was dead, like dead dead dead dead.

For me, there’s one word, and that is sad—the black experience is a sad experience. And the videos that came out as a result of Mike Brown’s shooting, videos of shootings everywhere, speak to the fact that black lives don’t matter. I’m raising two boys with the thought that their lives don’t really matter. And so it’s scary to me.

December 19, 2014. "Life After | Legacy Series 2/3"

December 19, 2014. “Life After | Legacy Series 2/3″ | Because of her prison conviction, Janice Marie Spears does not qualify for a number of government assistance programs.

You said the other day, you feel like we should still be protesting.

Yes. I followed these protestors in New York, and again, it felt empty. The marches need to be organized, they need to have an agenda. One of the beautiful things about Selma is it showed that the marches had a focus. The marches were rigidly organized. They weren’t just, “Let’s go march down and block a street and disrupt.” Of course a part of the marches was about disrupting businesses, but there was a purpose behind disrupting this or that business. The protests should disrupt businesses that support black boys being killed.

I live in Bed-Stuy, I listen to people, I go to the corners and I hear men talking about, “We will not talk to officers, we will not help officers, we will not be compliant.” And I don’t think that is what we need to do as black men in the neighborhood. I don’t think we should necessarily be compliant, but we should have a relationship with officers in the neighborhood. But I think for now, as long as blue stays blue, the rest of the neighborhood will fight and resist anything that comes from that section.

I also believe that there should be officers who come out and say, “What some of our fellow officers do is wrong.” That would actually win a lot of community over to the NYPD. If you don’t do that, you set up a “we against them” scenario. I think if there is no accountability, the system in itself looks corrupt—feels corrupt.

I thought your photographs of protests in New York in the wake of the grand jury non-indictments conveyed a real sense of urgency and emotion. You call yourself an Instagram Humanist/Activist. Talking about protest strategy, what do you see as your role, as an artist/activist, and its relation to political activism and organizing?

I would say that I am a conscientious observer. I am an agitator. I am a dissident sometimes, and my hope is that my images instigate conversations that will compel the viewer to think differently about a subject matter. I am hoping that my images can achieve some form of social change and by definition that is the job of an activist.

I am not saying we shouldn’t march but what marching meant in the ’60s is not what it means now. Back in the ’60s we couldn’t march, we weren’t allowed, so marching in itself was activism. We need to understand that protests have agendas. That it is not just about disrupting traffic or just walking, the marches should have a greater purpose. For instance, every night that there was a march late last year, members of the NYPD [out on the streets] were getting paid overtime. That seemed counterproductive to me. Awareness is just not enough.

Your recent trip down south, was that in order to speak to people about what was going on around the deaths of Brown and Garner?

It was actually to work, with a friend of mine, David Holloway. Doing a commercial actually, on how to insure the places in the South that are uninsurable. It was sad to be in neighborhoods where the majority of the neighborhood doesn’t have [health] insurance, and there hasn’t even been the thought to get insurance. It’s a luxury.

August 27, 2014 | "Who is our Black Leader" | "I watched this young man walk up to the make shift shrine where Michael Brown was killed, with a portrait of Malcolm X tucked under his arm."

August 27, 2014 | “Who is our Black Leader” | “I watched this young man walk up to the make shift shrine where Michael Brown was killed, with a portrait of Malcolm X tucked under his arm.”

What are you currently working on?

I want to do the same stories I do on Instagram, on video. Instead of me writing, instead of me editorializing I guess, it would allow somebody to tell his or her own story. I think that would have more impact. We’ll see.

Have you started working on this video project?

I haven’t started. I’m still trying to figure out how to do me. How to stay afloat, how to pay rent. Stuff like that.

Do you bring your sons when you photograph?

Sometimes. The idea is—I mean I remember walking by this homeless guy, maybe a couple of months ago, we were going to play football [my sons and I] and this man, his legs were hurting. And he said he needed icy hot or something, and I didn’t bring any money because I was going to play football, and my son immediately said, “I can go home and break my piggy bank for him.” And that felt good. It felt good that, at nine years old, he had the heart to understand what it meant to help, or to offer help. So that feels good to me.

I do everything for them. It’s my legacy to them. I want them to see and experience the world the way I see the world before they start thinking about the world themselves. I want to give them a foundation.

You have a picture from Thanksgiving with—

Thanksgiving with Gladys! It’s been two years in a row. My sons asked me for her this year, but we couldn’t find her this year. I actually went out looking for her.

Where did you first meet her?

Penn Station. We were just talking, and she said something about, do I follow up with the people whose stories I tell? Do you ever see them again? I said yes, sometimes. I asked if she would like to come to dinner on Thanksgiving and she was like—she thought I was joking. And I said no no no no, let’s go to Thanksgiving dinner. I was so surprised. [On Thanksgiving] Gladys was nicely dressed, Gladys put on some new sneakers—they weren’t new, but different sneakers. My sons sat beside her the entire time, rubbing their heads on her, I was like, okay this is good.

And you found her again the next year, in the same spot?

They’re all in Penn Station. There’s a world there. If you actually go there and spend enough time you understand how that world works. Every space that has heat is a coveted space. And people know how to negotiate the spaces. You’re also not supposed to be lying down so people sleep standing up, some sleep standing up with sunglasses on so that nobody sees that their eyes are closed. It’s a different world, and if you stay there long enough you’d understand it.

You go there, to Penn Station, on New Year’s Eve, is that right?

Yes, there’s always this great melding of people—of revelers and homeless, of drunk and…drunk. Party-goers, and—for me it’s fun to watch the gumbo. The coming together, the melding of different worlds. You can’t tell who is who, they’re all mixed up. And they’re all drunk.

The great equalizer. These days do you photograph primarily with your phone, or do you still use cameras, and what kind?

I use both iPhone and mirrorless cameras. I use whatever is in my hand when I see a picture that I must take.

Is there someone who you’ve photographed in the last few weeks, months, who particularly sticks out to you—who stays with you?

[Looking through his Instagram feed] It would have to be in Mississippi. This dude, Damion Portis. I was in a restaurant and I wanted to carry Eric Garner, Michael Brown, with me. And while I was there I would just ask people on the street how they felt about these deaths. I did this because it was a job I had to take, but I was so involved in the protests here that I felt so disjointed, like I was tearing myself away from the protests. So I brought the protest with me. And everybody that I met [while I was down south on this job] I would ask them their thoughts about Eric Garner, Michael Brown—if they’d even heard about Eric Garner or Michael Brown. And I met this father and son—should I read it? [reads aloud text from his post on December 13, 2014]

"Deeply Torn" | A Legacy Series

“Deeply Torn” | A Legacy Series

Dad and son walked into the Japanese restaurant. Senior and junior strolled in confidently to the pick up line.
It was an early Saturday night and I was desperate to find food that was not labeled pork and a pint.
It was a balmy evening, the brisk wind reminded me that it was still winter but the night felt comfortable. Damion Portis senior looked at me and nodded in the customary way; nose pushing upwards before dipping down.
I walked over to ask him about Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
“In the case of Michael Brown and the officer, they were both wrong.
In my life I have dealt with a lot of white cops. The thing that help me is understanding that I was born in a world that is not fair.
My elders raised me to play chess and not checkers.
You have to navigate the path that is given to you,
You have to finesse the relationship you foster with the police. As a young black man I have to perfect that for my own survival — it’s essential.
It’s not about education it’s about elevating in your thoughts. You have to rise above the board and see all the pieces. A soft answer turneth away wrath. You can’t disrespect an officer just because he violates your rights, we have to be wiser than that.
Look at this, James Craig Anderson was run over by white teenagers in 2011, and no one, not our leaders or our communities lifted a finger until CNN did a story, this is what is here in Mississippi. We are alone so we live by our wits.”

I think he echoed what I felt, what I had been feeling about, not just life in the deep south, but the way officers see black youth. If we’re found—if we’re caught in a situation where we’re potentially in the wrong, we’re immediately seen as criminals. And the conversation, the relationship, that space we enter into starts from that place. I’m not seen as a man, I’m not seen as a black man—I’m seen as a criminal first. I think that needs to change. He [Damion] echoed the things that I know are similar to other stories across the United States. He was so intelligent, so eloquent, but he was like—you know, that doesn’t matter. To these officers we’re criminals. And so, we have to be playing chess, we can’t be playing checkers. That was beautiful.

* * *

Lucy McKeon is a writer in New York.

* * *

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.


The House Made of Sugar

$
0
0

Silvina Ocampo | The House Made of Sugar: a short story from the collection Thus Were Their Faces | NYRB Classics | January 2015 | 13 minutes (3,235 words)

 

Our latest Longreads Exclusive is a newly translated short story from Thus Were Their Faces, a collection by Silvina Ocampo, as recommended by Longreads contributor A. N. Devers, who writes: 

“Long before ‘Real Housewives of New Jersey’ castmember (and Danbury Federal Correctional Institution Inmate) Teresa Giudice infamously stated, ‘I don’t want to live in somebody else’s house. That’s gross,’ the late Argentinian writer Silvina Ocampo wrote “The House Made of Sugar,” a story about a woman named Cristina who is too superstitious to live in a house that had been previously occupied. Her husband deceives her and when they move into their dream home based upon his lie, strange and worrisome things start to happen that suggest Cristina’s fears were warranted. Newly translated into English by Daniel Balderston, with a preface by Borges, Ocampo’s stories are unsettling and off-kilter, revelatory and readable. Novelist Helen Oyeyemi writes in the collection’s introduction, ‘Love is as fearsome in an Ocampo story as it is in Wuthering Heights; emotion has a way of sealing us into a charmed circle that makes us incomprehensible to everyone who stands outside it.'”

 * * *

Superstitions kept Cristina from living. A coin with a blurry face, a spot of ink, the moon seen through two panes of glass, the initials of her name carved by chance on the trunk of a cedar: all these would make her mad with fear. The day we met she was wearing a green dress; she kept wearing it until it fell apart, since she said it brought her good luck and that as soon as she wore another, a blue one that fit her better, we would no longer see each other. I tried to combat these absurd manias. I made her see that she had a broken mirror in her room, yet she insisted on keeping it, no matter how I insisted that it was better to throw broken mirrors into water on a moonlit night to get rid of bad luck. She was never afraid if the lamps in the house went out all of a sudden; despite the fact that it was definitely an omen of death, she would light any number of candles without thinking twice. She always left her hat on the bed, a mistake nobody else made. Her fears were more personal. She inflicted real privations on herself; for instance, she could not eat strawberries in the summer, or hear certain pieces of music, or adorn her house with goldfish, although she liked them a lot. There were certain streets we couldn’t cross, certain people we couldn’t see, certain movie theaters we couldn’t go to. Early in our relationship, these superstitions seemed charming to me, but later they began to annoy and even seriously worry me. When we got engaged we had to look for a brand-new apartment because, according to her, the fate of the previous occupants would influence her life. (She at no point mentioned my life, as if the danger threatened only hers and our lives were not joined by love.) We visited all of the neighborhoods in the city; we went to even the most distant suburbs in search of an apartment where no one had ever lived, but they had all been rented or sold. Finally I found a little house on Montes de Oca Street that looked as if it were made of sugar. Its whiteness gleamed with extraordinary brilliance. It had a phone inside and a tiny garden in front. I thought the house was newly built, but discovered that a family had occupied it in 1930 and that later, to rent it out, the owner had remodeled it. I had to make Cristina believe no one had lived in the house and that it was the ideal place, the house of our dreams. When Cristina saw it, she cried out, “How different it is from the apartments we have seen! Here it smells clean. Nobody will be able to influence our lives or soil them with thoughts that corrupt the air.”

A few days later we got married and moved in. My in-laws gave us a bedroom set, and my parents a dining-room table and chairs. We would furnish the rest of the house little by little. I was afraid Cristina would find out about my lie from the neighbors, but luckily she did her shopping away from the neighborhood and never talked to them. We were happy, so happy that it sometimes frightened me. It seemed our tranquility would never be broken in that house of sugar, until a phone call destroyed my illusion. Luckily Cristina didn’t answer it, but she might have on some other occasion. The person who called asked for Mrs. Violeta: she was no doubt the previous tenant. If Cristina found out that I had deceived her, our happiness would surely come to an end. She wouldn’t ever speak to me again, would ask for a divorce, and even in the best possible case we would have to leave the house and go live, perhaps, in Villa Urquiza, or in Quilmes, as tenants in one of the houses where they promised to give us some space to build a bedroom and a kitchen. But with what? (Impossible: we didn’t have enough money for good building materials.) At night I was careful to take the phone off the hook, so that no inopportune call would wake us up. I put a mailbox by the gate on the street; I was the only possessor of the key, the distributor of the letters.

Early one morning there was a knock on the door and someone left a package. From my room I heard my wife protesting; then I heard the sound of paper being ripped open. I went downstairs and found Cristina with a velvet dress in her arms.

“They just brought me this dress,” she said with enthusiasm.

She ran upstairs and put on the dress, which fit her very tight. “When did you order it?”

“Some time ago. Does it fit well? I could wear it when we go to the theater, don’t you think?”

“How did you pay for it?”

“Mother gave me a few pesos.”

That seemed strange to me, but I didn’t say anything so as not to offend her.

We loved each other madly. But my uneasiness began to bother me, even when I embraced Cristina at night. I noticed that her character had changed: her happiness turned to sadness, her communicativeness to reserve, her calm to nervousness. She lost her appetite. She no longer made those rich, rather heavy desserts out of whipped cream and chocolate that I so enjoyed, nor did she adorn the house from time to time with nylon ruffles, covering the toilet seat or the shelves in the dining room or the chests of drawers or other places in the house, as had been her custom. She would no longer surprise me at teatime with vanilla wafers, and never felt like going to the theater or the movies at night, not even when we could get free tickets. One afternoon a dog entered the garden and lay down, howling, on the front doorstep. Cristina gave him some meat and something to drink; after a bath that changed the color of its hair, she announced that she would keep it and name it Love, because it had come to our house at a moment of real love. The dog had a black mouth, a sign of good pedigree.

Another afternoon I arrived home unexpectedly. I stopped at the gate because I saw a bicycle lying in the yard. I entered quietly, then hid behind a door and heard Cristina’s voice.

“What do you want?” she repeated twice.

“I’ve come to get my dog,” a young woman’s voice said. “He’s passed by this house so many times that he’s become fond of it. This house looks as if it’s made of sugar. Since they painted it, everyone has noticed it. But I liked it better before, when it was the romantic pink color of old houses. This house has always been very mysterious to me. I like everything about it: the birdbath where the little birds came to drink, the vines with flowers like yellow trumpets, the orange tree. Ever since I was eight I’ve wanted to meet you, ever since that day we talked on the phone, do you remember? You promised you would give me a kite.”

“Kites are for boys.”

“Toys are sexless. I like kites because they resemble huge birds; I imagine flying on their wings. For you it was just an idle game promising me that kite; I didn’t sleep all night. We met in the bakery, but you were facing in the other direction and I didn’t see your face. Ever since that day I’ve thought of nothing but you, of what your face looked like, your soul, your lying gestures. You never gave me the kite. The trees spoke to me of your lies. Then we went to live in Morón with my parents. Now I’ve only been back here a week.”

“I’ve lived in this house for just three months, and before that I never visited this neighborhood. You must be mistaken.”

“I imagined you exactly the way you are. I imagined you so many times! By some strange coincidence, my husband used to be engaged to you.”

“I was never engaged to anyone except my husband. What’s this dog’s name?”

“Bruto.”

“Take him away, please, before I grow fond of him.”

“Violeta, listen. If I take the dog to my house, he’ll die. I can’t take care of him. We live in a very tiny apartment. My husband and I both work and there isn’t anyone to take him out for a walk.”

“My name isn’t Violeta. How old is he?”

“Bruto? Two years old. Do you want to keep him? I’ll visit him from time to time, because I’m very fond of him.”

“My husband doesn’t like strangers in our house and wouldn’t want me to accept a dog as a present.”

“Don’t tell him, then. I’ll wait for you every Monday at seven in the evening in Colombia Square. Do you know where it is? In front of Santa Felicitas Church, or if you prefer I can wait for you wherever and whenever you like: for instance, on the bridge behind Constitution Station or in Lezama Park. I’ll be happy just to see Bruto’s eyes. Will you do me the favor of keeping him?”

“All right. I’ll keep him.”

“Thank you, Violeta.”

“My name isn’t Violeta.”

“Did you change your name? For us you’ll always be Violeta. Always the same mysterious Violeta.”

I heard the dull sound of the door and Cristina’s steps as she went upstairs. I waited a little before coming out of my hiding place and pretending I had just come in. Though I had witnessed the innocence of the dialogue, some muffled suspicion began gnawing at me. It seemed to me that I had watched a theatrical rehearsal and that the reality of the situation was something else. I didn’t confess to Cristina that I had witnessed the young woman’s visit. I awaited further developments, always afraid that Cristina would discover my lie and lament that we had moved to this neighborhood.

Every afternoon I passed the square in front of Santa Felicitas Church to see whether Cristina would keep the appointment. Cristina seemed not to notice my uneasiness. Sometimes I even came to believe that I had dreamed it all. Hugging the dog one day, Cristina asked me, “Would you like my name to be Violeta?”

“I don’t like names based on flowers.”

“But Violeta is pretty. It’s a color.”

“I like your name better.”

One Saturday, at sunset, I ran into her on the bridge behind Constitution Station, leaning over the iron railing. I approached her and she showed no sign of surprise.

“What are you doing here?”

“Just looking around. I like looking down at the tracks.”

“It’s a very gloomy place and I don’t like you wandering around here by yourself.”

“It doesn’t seem so gloomy to me. And why shouldn’t I wander around by myself?”

“Do you like the black smoke of the locomotives?”

“I like transportation. Dreaming about trips. Leaving without ever leaving. Leaving and staying and by staying leaving.”

We returned home. Mad with jealousy (jealousy of what? of everything), I hardly spoke to her on the way.

“Perhaps we could buy a little house in San Isidro or Olivos; this neighborhood is so unpleasant,” I said, pretending that I had the means to buy a house in one of those places.

“You’re mistaken. We have Lezama Park very nearby here.”

“It’s desolate. The statues are broken, the fountains empty, the trees diseased. Beggars, old men, and cripples go there with sacks to throw out garbage or to pick it up.”

“I don’t notice such things.”

“Before, you didn’t even like sitting on a bench where someone had eaten tangerines or bread.”

“I’ve changed a lot.”

“No matter how much you’ve changed, you can’t like a park like that one. Yes, I know it has a museum with marble lions guarding the entrance and that you played there when you were a girl, but all of that doesn’t mean anything.”

“I don’t understand you,” Cristina answered. And I felt she disliked me, with a dislike that could easily turn to hatred.

For days that seemed like years I watched her, trying to hide my anxiety. Every afternoon I passed the square by the church and on Saturdays went to the horrible black bridge at Constitution Station. One day I ventured to say to Cristina, “If we were to discover that this house was once inhabited by other people, what would you do, Cristina? Would you move away?”

“If other people lived in this house, they must have been like those sugar figurines on desserts, or birthday cakes: sweet as sugar. This house makes me feel secure. Is it the little garden by the entrance that makes me feel so calm? I don’t know! I wouldn’t move for all the money in the world. Besides, we don’t have anywhere to go. You yourself said that some time ago.”

I didn’t insist, because it was so hopeless. To reconcile myself to the idea, I thought about how time would put things back as they had been.

One morning the doorbell rang. I was shaving and could hear Cristina’s voice. When I finished shaving my wife was talking to the intruder. I spied on them through the crack in the door. The stranger had a deep voice and such enormous feet that I burst out laughing.

“If you see Daniel again you’ll pay dearly, Violeta.”

“I don’t know who Daniel is and my name isn’t Violeta,” my wife answered.

“You’re lying.”

“I don’t lie. I have nothing to do with Daniel.”

“I want you to know how things are.”

“I don’t want to listen to you.”

Cristina covered her ears with her hands. I rushed to the door and told the intruder to get out. I could now closely see her feet, hands, and neck. I realized that it was a man dressed as a woman. I didn’t have time to think what I should do; like a flash of lightning, he disappeared, leaving the door half open behind him.

Cristina and I never commented on the episode, though why I’ll never know; it was as if our lips were sealed except for nervous, frustrated kisses, or useless words.

It was around that time, which was such an unhappy time for me, that Cristina suddenly started to sing spontaneously. Her voice was pleasant, but it exasperated me, being part of that secret world which drew her away from me. She had never sung before, so why did she sing now, day and night, as she dressed, bathed, cooked, or closed the blinds?

One day I heard Cristina say the enigmatic words, “I suspect I am inheriting someone’s life, her joys and sorrows, mistakes and successes. I’m bewitched.” I pretended not to have heard her tormented words. Nevertheless, I started, God knows why, to learn what I could in the neighborhood about who Violeta was, where she was, and all the details of her life.

Half a block from our house there was a shop where they sold postcards, paper, notebooks, pencils, erasers, and toys. For my purposes the shop clerk seemed like the best person: she was talkative, curious, and susceptible to flattery. Under the pretext of buying a notebook and pencils, I went to talk to her one afternoon. I complimented her eyes, hands, hair. I didn’t venture to pronounce the word Violeta. I explained that we were neighbors. I finally asked her who had lived in our house. I said shyly, “Didn’t someone named Violeta live there?”

She answered vaguely, which made me feel ever more uneasy. The next day I tried to find out some other details at the grocery store. They told me that Violeta was in a mental hospital and gave me the address.

“I sing with a voice that is not my own,” Cristina told me, mysteriously once again. “Before, it would have upset me, but now I enjoy it. I’m someone else, perhaps someone happier than I.”

Once more I pretended not to have heard her. I was reading the newspaper.

I confess I didn’t pay much attention to Cristina, since I spent so much time and energy finding out details about Violeta’s life. I went to the mental hospital, which was located in Flores. There I asked after Violeta and they gave me the address of Arsenia López, her voice teacher.

I had to take the train from Retiro Station to Olivos. On the way some dirt flew into my eyes, so that when I arrived at Arsenia López’s house, tears were pouring out as if I were crying. From the front door I could hear women’s voices singing scales, accompanied by a piano that sounded more like an organ.

Tall, thin, terrifying, Arsenia appeared at the end of a hallway, pencil in hand. I told her timidly that I had come for news of Violeta. “You’re her husband?”

“No, a relative,” I answered, wiping my tears with a handkerchief.

“You must be one of her countless admirers,” she told me, half closing her eyes and taking my hand. “You must have come for what they all want to know: What were Violeta’s last days like? Please sit down. There’s no reason to imagine that a dead person was necessarily pure, faithful, and good.”

“You want to console me,” I told her.

She pressed my hand with her moist hand and replied, “Yes, I want to console you. Violeta was not just my student; she was also my best friend. If she got angry with me, it was perhaps because she had confided too much in me and because she could no longer deceive me. The last days I saw her she complained bitterly about her fate. She died of envy. She repeated constantly, ‘Somebody has stolen my life from me, but she’ll pay for it. I will no longer have my velvet dress; she’ll have it. Bruto will be hers; men will no longer disguise themselves as women to enter my house; I’ll lose my voice, and it will pass to that unworthy throat; Daniel and I will no longer embrace on the bridge behind Constitution Station, imagining an impossible love, leaning over the iron railing as we used to, watching the trains go away.’”

Arsenia López looked me in the eyes and said, “Don’t worry. You’ll meet many other women who are more loyal. We both know she was beautiful, but is beauty the only good in the world?”

Speechless, horrified, I left that house without revealing my name to Arsenia López; when she said goodbye, she tried to hug me, to show her sympathy for me.

From then on, Cristina had become Violeta, at least as far as I was concerned. I tried following her day and night to find her in the arms of her lovers. I became so estranged from her that I viewed her as a complete stranger. One winter night she fled. I searched for her until dawn. I don’t know who was the victim of whom in that house made of sugar, which now stands empty.

* * *

From Thus Their Were Faces by Silvina Ocampo. Copyright © NYREV, Inc. Reprinted by permission of NYRB Claussics.

 

 

A Resourceful Woman

$
0
0

Jeff Sharlet | Longreads | February 2015 | 24 minutes (5,994 words)

 

  1. Mary Mazur, 61, set off near midnight to buy her Thanksgiving turkey. She took her plant with her. “He doesn’t like to be left alone,” she later explained. The plant rode in a white cart, Mary in her wheelchair. With only one hand to wheel herself, the other on the cart, she’d push the left wheel forward, switch hands, push the right. Left, right, cursing, until a sweet girl found her, and wheeled her into Crown Fried Chicken. “Do not forget my plant!” she shouted at the girl. I held the door. // “I have a problem with my foot,” she said—the left one, a scabbed stump, purple in the cold. Her slipper wouldn’t stay on. // Mary wore purple. Purple sweats, purple fleece. 30 degrees. “I bet you have a coat,” she said. Not asking, just observing. Measuring the distance. Between us. Between her and her turkey. Miles away. “You’ll freeze,” I said. “I’ll starve,” she said. I offered her chicken. “I have to have my turkey!” Also, a microwave. Her motel didn’t have one. // “Nobody will help you,” she said. “Not even if you’re bleeding from your two eyes.” // Two paramedics from the fire department. Two cops. An ambulance, two EMTs. “I didn’t call you!” she shouted. “I don’t care who called me,” said one of the cops. One of the paramedics put on blue latex gloves. “She won’t go without this—this friggin’ plant,” he said. “You’ll go,” said the cop. “You’re not my husband!” said Mary. The cop laughed. “Thank god,” he said. The whole gang laughed. One of them said maybe her plant was her husband. That made them laugh, too. “I’m not going!” said Mary. “Your plant is going,” said the cop. Mary caved. Stood on one foot. “Don’t touch me!” They lowered her onto the stretcher. “Let me hold it,” she said. “What?” said the EMT. “The plant,” said the cop. He lifted it out of the cart. “Be careful!” she shouted. He smirked but he was. “Thank you,” she rasped, her shouting all gone. Mary Mazur, 61, shrank into the blankets, muttering into the leaves, whispering to her only friend.

Processed with VSCOcam with b4 preset

  1. After the ambulance took Mary, I walked down State Street to her motel. The Scottish Chalet. 24-hour surveillance, front desk behind glass. Ashok Patel runs it. Small man with a smooth round head, smooth round body. He knew Mary. DSS. Department of Social Services. Good business. “They always pay,” he said. $60 a night. Six weeks so far. $3600. “Until they find a bed in a shelter.” He thought they gave her food. At the beginning. “Cans.” She ate them cold. “We worried,” said Patel’s wife. “We called her every day,” said Patel. They didn’t want her to die at the Scottish Chalet. // The cans were empty. Her stomach was empty. So she put on all her clothes, her purple sweats, purple fleece, purple slippers that would not stay on the foot covered in scabs. She hoisted herself into the wheelchair she got from Social Services in Albany, after the police broke her last one, the last time they took her to the hospital. She put her plant in her white cart. All she had. Where she went, he went. For six weeks she had gone nowhere. Hadn’t left her room once. But she’d run out of choices. She’d even called the police. They wouldn’t take her to the grocery. “I have food stamps,” she’d told them. “I’m not poor.” But they wouldn’t listen. There were no more choices. Together, they wheeled into the darkness. They would have their turkey or they would freeze. Mary Mazur, 61, was not going to die in a motel room.

Processed with VSCOcam with c1 preset

  1. Next day I called the hospital. I wanted to know if Mary Mazur would have her turkey. A Thanksgiving dinner for the patients? Yes, there would be something. For the patients. But not for Mary Mazur, who’d checked herself out into the blizzard. // I called her motel. Mary Mazur had returned. And she’d gone again. “Into the snow,” said Mrs. Patel. To buy a turkey. “I try to stop her.” She’d called the police, but they wouldn’t come. They’d had enough of Mary Mazur. Her right to freeze if she wanted to. // I called a number Mary Mazur had given me. Social Services. A woman asked me to spell my name. DOB. SS #. “I’m not the client,” I said. “All the same,” she said. // “With whom am I speaking?” I asked. // “Emergency Call,” she said. Mary Mazur, I said, 61, hospitalized, now likely lost again in the snow. “You need Adult Protective Services,” she said. “I work in Child Protective Services.” But there’d be nothing “Adult” could do. // “A danger to herself,” I said. “That’s hard to prove,” said Emergency Call. // I drove into the blizzard. Empty roads, room to slide, but no Mary Mazur. // I went to the motel. NO PETS / NO CHECKS / NO REFUND / NO PARTY… ONE BED / TWO BED / KING… IN GOD WE TRUST / LIMITED TIME. // A man came in from the cold. A younger Patel, weight in the chest, the shoulders. The son. “What do you want?” he asked. “I’m looking for a woman,” I began. “Crackhead?” he said. “Sixty-one,” I said. “Mary Mazur, wheelchair.” Her. “She went out into the snow. I tried to stop her.” Until she screamed. Then he held the door. “What choice did I have?” None. “What do you want?” he said. He stepped closer. “What are we supposed to do?” Chin to chin. “Should be Social Services,” I said. He agreed. “Leave us out of it,” he said. “It’s not our fault.” He stepped back. “I’ve been here since I was 6 years old.” He stepped back again. “We’re just a motel.” He turned away. “This place is a joke.” He left me standing there.

Processed with VSCOcam with c2 preset

  1. “It’s ok,” Kayla whispered to her husband, reaching out the door. “He’s a reporter.” She turned and smiled. We were talking about Mary. Kayla saw her last. // “I immediately seen she wasn’t right.” It wasn’t the wheelchair or the foot or going out in a storm in nothing but a hoodie. It was the plant, its leaves. Mary had taped ripped ones together. // “I told her the bus don’t run for 20 minutes,” said Kayla. “I told her why not wait inside.” She hoped the cops might get there in time. But the cops weren’t coming, and Mary was going. “Pushing that lady cart thing,” said Kayla. So she put Mary’s hood up and wheeled her into the storm. // “Your plant’s gonna die in this cold,” Kayla told her. “My plant,” said Mary, “will die inside.” Plants need light. Mrs. Patel, claimed Mary, turned hers off. // “It is not true,” said Mrs. Patel. “It isn’t,” agreed Kayla. “It is on a sensor,” said Mrs. Patel. “She don’t move.” Mrs. Patel checks on her every day. They speak through the door. “Because she don’t wear the clothes.” // A red-faced man staggered up. He grabbed Mrs. Patel. “Excuse me!” she said. “You’re warm,” he said. “Is he a cop?” “I’m a writer,” I said. “Just asking about an old lady.” He looked at Kayla. “You?” Kayla pulled her hood up. “Do I look like an old lady, bro?” He stared. “You look really young,” he said. “You wanna hang?” He put both hands on Mrs. Patel. “Excuse me, sir!” “You live here, bro?” Kayla asked. Her door cracked open. Inside, her children, 3 and 5. They live here. “She asked you three times not to touch her,” Kayla said, stepping forward. The man wobbled. Forward, back, away. “122,” he said. “If you wanna hang.” // “The problem is the plant,” said Kayla. “She’s a germaphobe.” Mary’s afraid it’ll be contaminated if she leaves. Afraid she’ll starve if she stays. // Kayla thought she got on the bus. “When I looked, she was gone.” Kayla knew the buses. “She could ride for hours. // I left at 10:30. This morning, I called. Mary had returned. “Yes, yes,” said Mr. Patel. “With a bag of groceries.” Something to eat—yes, yes—a cold can, in the dark, naked, talking with the leaves.

* * *

Part Two

IMG_7062

  1. At first she’ll speak only through a crack in the door. She is not, she explains, wearing pants. “You want to interview me?” she says. “Why? I don’t have any power!” She slams the door. Opens it an inch. “What’s in it for a little old lady like me?” She asks for three forms of ID. “Wait,” she says. “I have to wash my hands.” Half an hour later, she opens the door. “You can come in. But you might not like me.”

Processed with VSCOcam with b1 preset

  1. “I bounce around,” says Mary. An apartment here, a shelter there, nights beneath a bridge in between. She’s lived in the Scottish Chalet, State and Route 7, six weeks now. “Bugs,” she whispers. She doesn’t want Mrs. Patel, the owner’s wife, to hear. Not out of kindness; she’s afraid she’ll be evicted. “They try to say you brought them.” Not Mary. “I’m a germaphobe,” she says. That’s why I can’t sit down. That’s why there’s newsprint—pages neatly torn from free copies of Auto Trader—folded around the door handle. That’s why, she says, she’s ashamed. “I-I-I-”—Mary has a stutter, it comes out when she discusses her mother, her children, her condition—“I am,” she says, gathering her voice up like an infant to be stilled, “n-n-n. Not as clean as I would like to be.” She crooks her finger. Whispers. “Come closer,” she says. She stands on one foot, the other hardly a foot at all, wounds festering years now, the scabrous skin that remains red and purple and orange and flaking like ash. She gestures at her body. Her arms are very long. Graceful. “Do I—?” she asks. She wrinkles her nose. // “I was pretty,” she says. She was. Look closer. The eyes, what’s left of her cheekbones. She’s wearing lipstick. Mary Mazur, 61, most of her days in the dark in this room, half naked, will prepare for a visitor. // Mary Mazur at 21, 1974: her first year on welfare, her first year without her mother. “C-c-c-cancer,” she says. / Mary Mazur at 19, 1972: a mother the first time. “Jerry,” she says. She gave him up when he was—“well, he was walking,” is what she remembers. / Mary Mazur at 13, her father finally gone. “Nursing home,” she says. “Three strokes.” She does not stutter when she says his name. “The temper,” she says. // Mary, 13, just Mary and her mother. “Sh-sh-sh-sh-sh.” She stops, twists her toothless jaw, and with her long graceful arms waves away invisible things. Her brow lifts, her lips purse, and she says what she wants to say. A voice like a young woman’s: “She was my friend.” She says, “Her name was.” She stops. She won’t stutter. “Her name was Anna May.”

Processed with VSCOcam with b6 preset

  1. #A_Resourceful_Woman. “Maybe you better not use that word,” says Mary. She means “c—-,” rhymes with daisy. I’d quoted one of the cops who’d declared her “a danger to herself” a few nights before: “C—- old lady,” he’d said, nervous about touching her. Mary shakes her head. That’s not what she is. “I’m one tough bitch. I’m not what they peg me to be.” They: cops, Social Services, Adult Protective Services, forty years of ER nurses and landlords and the managers who ban her from grocery stores. And maybe—she won’t say it—her mother. When Mary quit school her mother sent her to a stepbrother, across the country. “She said otherwise they’d put me in a home.” They might have. They do things, they really do. The “they” who put her in the motel, the “they” who put on rubber gloves to shovel her into squad cars, the “they” she met in bars, the “they” who took her to rooms, the “they” who used to give her rides—“truckers,” she says, “the truckers,” nothing really bad ever happened, “I never got killed”—the they who took her three children. They put them in homes. They are, Mary says, right about some things. Her children? “I don’t have children,” she snaps. “I had children.” Jerry and ______ and _____. She doesn’t remember their names. // She’s made some bad decisions. “But they’re mine.” She puts up an open palm: “No” to that word I’m not to say. “I am not,” she says, “a whackadoodle.” Her real problem is upstairs. “These people right here.” She points up. Three brothers. “Certifiable ding-dongs.” They harass her. Mock her, follow her, try to make her fall down. Nobody stops them. “Not their nanny, I’ll tell you that!” Mary says. Their nanny? How old are these boys? She does the math. “They showed up in ’94.” At the last good apartment Mary had. Every place since. They move with her. Always above. “Like cockroaches.” She thinks they’re spies. From Welfare. “The question is: Why?” It’s the double standard that kills her. “They slide through life, and I’m the one who gets treated like a nut.” She sighs. “I know it makes me sound—” We won’t say that word. There are other concerns: Footsteps above. “Listen!” she says. “They’re here.”

IMG_7197

  1. “They think I can’t do nothing,” says Mary. “But they don’t know.” They: The three brothers she says live upstairs, the three ding dongs, she calls them. Her three children—rather, she insists, the children she bore—gone, but some ghosts never leave. “They turn off my lights, they change my channels.” She makes her hands into fists. Grins. Stands on her one good foot. “Psychos!” she says. “They don’t know I’m a fighter.” She hops to her TV. Taps it on with a knuckle. Bumps through channels, looking for static. “Snow!” she says, she hits the volume, loud as it goes. Upstairs there’s stomping. She grins at her TV. “Hear that?” she shouts—to me, to them, to anybody. // Mary loves her television. She likes Raymond, she likes Don Knotts. She likes horror. “My scary movies,” she says. She likes slashers. “Michael and Jason.” Halloween and Friday the 13th. She keeps her stars in pairs, and above them all: Clint & Burt. Burt is the light, the one who makes her laugh, Smokey and Hooper. “And that one where everybody thinks he’s crazy just because he’s trying to kill himself?” The End, with Dom Deluise. Clint is the dark, the one who makes her feels strong. She holds out her palms, a star in each hand, and clasps them together, the joke and the revenge. “Fistful of Dollars,” she says. “The Good, the Bad. High Plains Drifter. Pale Rider.” She pauses. “Unforgiven?” I ask. She nods. She likes the end. After Clint has given up his children, after he’s accepted what he is, after his partner has been killed. “Morgan Freeman,” I say. She’s not listening. “They whipped him,” she says. “Actually whipped him. And when Clint finds out from one of the hookers, the whores, he goes into town. And it’s raining. And he rides through the rain. And, ohhh…” Her hands over her eyes. The rain, the torches, the friend’s body on the porch of the saloon. She hears Clint cock his shotgun. “First he shoots the bartender. And Gene Hackman says, ‘You shot an unarmed man.’ Clint says, ‘Well, he shouldda armed himself.’ Clint says—” She opens her eyes, black and wide: “Any man don’t want to get killed better clear on out the back.” They run. Clear on out. “It’s beautiful,” says Mary.

IMG_7232

  1. PAUSE. || I forgot something important. Mary told that particular story in pairs—Clint and Burt, her favorite stars, Pale Rider and Unforgiven, the darkest and most doubting of Eastwood’s westerns. And her recollection, her reconstruction, of Unforgiven came as a pair, too. I gave one half, the finale, Clint as death, unforgiven, unforgiving, unforgiveable. “Beautiful,” said Mary. But that’s not all she told me. “And I like it when all three of them”—Clint, Morgan Freeman, and the Schofield Kid—“are out there on their horses. That part’s good.” A gentle scene, sunlight and soft music and the Kid, he’s the comedy, can’t shoot straight, a braggart, never really shot a man. And maybe he won’t have to. That’s the promise of those scenes on the prairie, the three friends riding together. I think that’s what Mary likes about them: the possibility that it won’t all end in sorrow, even if you’ve seen this movie before.

IMG_7243

  1. We’ve been talking for hours and Mary’s thirsty. She hops on her good foot over to her refrigerator, which is the space between the screen and the glass. “I need my sugar,” she says. Nesquik or A&W. “If I’m going to die, I’ll drink water.” She doesn’t like going outside. “I’m a TV bug.” She watches and she sleeps and she eats her food stamp groceries. She tries to eat healthy. Cans. Lasagna. Frozen seafood. “Thaws in a day.” Eats it all room temp. Keeps watching. The Nesquik dries up, then the root beer. Then Mary. “Just my throat,” she says. “Gets raspy, you know?” Then—only then—water. “Because I still have my cookies.” Her cookies, her movies, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds. No love stories; “sickening.” Then she eats her last cookie. Keeps watching. “I’m just a bug, a TV bug, a bug.” // This is how it began, she says. 1982, ’83, she can’t remember. Not long after the last of the three children she bore was taken. “’82, ’83, that’s when I got in the system.” Adult Protective Services. “It’s not too good what I did.” She looks sad. “You won’t think good of me.” Her hands fall into her lap, her face goes still. For a moment she’s one kind of lovely. Then she flicks back her hair, sends her hands aloft, and she is Mary Mazur, 61, her own woman. “I don’t care if I make bad choices!” Her hands whirl, point, shake, conduct. “I don’t care a rat’s spit!” she says. “I’m not like everybody else!” She wouldn’t want to be. “It’s my brain,” she says. “I’ll do what I want with it.” Watch TV as long as she wants to, all goddamn night if she wants to, weeks if she wants to. That’s what she did after her children were gone. Watched, ate, slept, drank her sugar, lived on water, water alone. Then they took her away, too. Just like the children. It’s been the same ever since. Watch, eat, sleep, starve. She was seven days hungry when I first met her. “I screw myself,” she says. Says it with pride, her wrinkles returning, her creases and folds, wrapping around a caved-in grin, one dark eye glaring—the knot she has tied, the only thing that can’t be taken. It’s what she owns.

Processed with VSCOcam with a9 preset

  1. Pumpkin pies, Mary’s Thanksgiving after the fact, the tub her pantry. “Of course, I can’t get clean,” she says of her tub’s other function. She doesn’t like the way she smells. “I’m not stupid,” she says. “I know how I’m perceived.” Every day the motel owner’s wife knocks on her door. “To see if I’m alive.” Once Mrs. Patel opened it. “Afraid of me dying.” Mary was asleep. Naked, on top of the covers. “Just because someone’s in their bed doesn’t mean you’re dead.” Mary’s not dead. Just dirty, and that’s not a permanent condition. She could be clean. She could be pretty. There’s a certain store, she knows, with a blue suede coat, “down to your toes!” She caresses her cheek, imagining how it’ll feel. She’ll wash her hair when she’s ready to wear blue suede. She’ll put her lipstick on, she’ll buy shoes. She has just the one right now, a single grey sneaker. She’ll buy shoes in which she can stand, shoes in which she can walk out of here. To hell with her pies. She’ll leave them behind, she’ll quit her wheelchair. She’ll walk out of this dump on her own, robed in blue suede. “Pretty as the rain!” She’ll rent her own apartment. She’ll have a refrigerator. She’ll never have to ask the front desk for toilet paper again. Blue suede, faux fur lining. On sale, $170. She says she put $12 down. Gave it to a girl in the store. Told the girl she was coming back with more. // I wonder who took that $12? What did she buy with Mary’s money?

Processed with VSCOcam with b4 preset

  1. We’re going to Walmart. To buy a microwave. With what money? Mary has a gift card. “$150.” From who? “My money,” she says. “Social Services, that’s how they give it to you.” The problem’s getting there. “You’ll drive me?” she asks. I will. “And Bandit?” she says. He’s been sitting quietly on the bed while we’ve been talking. Her best friend. They watch TV together. Mary under the covers, Bandit sitting right up by the screen. “Well,” says Mary, “Bandit doesn’t watch.” Bandit doesn’t have eyes. “But he listens.” You can tell, she says, because when the volume’s too loud, he turns his away his leaves. // Mary’s had a lot of pets over the years. “I’m a bird girl,” she says. Parakeets, couple of cockatiels. It’s not easy on the street, wheeling yourself around with a birdcage. “But you gotta love something.” Now the birds are gone. // For a while she was alone. Then she found Bandit. Or, rather, the plant he was clipped from. At St. Peter’s. “You could see it from the hallway,” she says. “Very handsome.” When Mary left, a social worker gave her a piece, and some soil. “She was kind,” Mary says. “Very kind.” // Mary doesn’t go anywhere without him. “He doesn’t like to be alone.” // She knows he’s not a person. “It’s a PLANT,” she says. She knows that. She does. // “You can’t touch him!” I’m trying to help lift Bandit from the center of her bed, where he’s surrounded by the remains of her last haul of groceries. She doesn’t want Bandit to be contaminated by me. He’s sick. His leaves are broken. She’s been bandaging them. He needs attention. He can’t be left alone. // I prop the door open with my foot. That’s okay. Just not my hands. I pull them back into my sleeves. Now Mary can hold onto my arm. No skin. “I know, I know,” she says. She does. She knows how it sounds. // “Bandit,” I say as together we hobble. “As in Smokey and?” One of her favorite movies. “No,” she says. “He’s named after one of my birds.” A bird named Bandit. Coincidence? “No, she says. “The bird, he was named after Burt.” Reynolds, she means. “Bandit”—she smiles into the leaves—“he’s named after the bird.”

Processed with VSCOcam with b4 preset

  1. Lost in the dark with Mary and Bandit, searching for Walmart on a cold highway. Snow in the headlights. Mary moans. She doesn’t like dark roads. Bad memories. Truck stop days. She pushes her face into Bandit’s leaves. I try to distract her. “Everybody Loves Raymond,” I say. One of her shows. “What’s your favorite episode?” She thinks. “I don’t really remember those so good,” she says. “Now horror, though.” We’re on the wrong road. “Ask me about horror,” she says. Michael and Jason, Halloween and Friday the 13th. “They both wear masks,” she observes. I slow down, pull a U-turn. “What do you like about them?” I ask. “You like being scared?” She looks up from the leaves. “No.” Her voice gone sharp. “I’m not a little girl! I’m not the one who’s scared.” She likes being the one who’s not scared. She likes being the one who scares. Scary Mary. // “Oh, it’s dark out here,” she says. “You ever been out alone on a really dark highway?” I have. “I mean really dark?” Sure. “Like so dark you have to take any ride you get?” No. “I have,” she says. California. Florida. “Georgia.” She shudders. We’re on the right road now. Walmart, glowing blue and white, parking lot near empty. “Bring me in close,” says Mary.

Processed with VSCOcam with b6 preset

  1. Right up to the door. She has her choice of motorized shopping carts. She carries the plant, Bandit, with one hand and hangs on to my arm and hops on her good foot from cart to cart, studying seats, until she picks the right one. Bandit up front. She wishes there was a seat belt. There isn’t, so he’d better hold on—because Mary is off. Full speed. Laps round the lobby. Like the original Bandit, like Burt in his black and gold Trans Am. Nobody can catch him. Nothing can slow Mary down. There’s a speed bump at the help desk—the Walmart gift card through which her case worker keeps her on a leash is worth $50, not $150—but Mary keeps cruising. She has food stamps. The card will get her what she needs. A microwave! She used to have one. She’ll have one again. Tonight’s the night. She has the card, she has me to carry the machine. “Let’s go check them out,” I say. “We will,” she answers. No rush. So much to see. “I like the light here,” she says. She likes the space. “Room,” she says. She stretches her arms condor-wide. Warming up. Grips the handles. Ready to roll. Past the jewelry, beaming like it’s hers. Past the Christmas sweaters—“looks great,” she says of a blue one with two snowmen. Past a stock clerk who fails to answer her questions about chocolate milk. “Nice boy,” she says, but he doesn’t get it. Here, Mary chooses. There’s no case worker, no motel lady, no stalker ding dongs. No ghosts. Here her money—stamp, card, cash—is as good as yours, and she’s as good as you. Maybe better. “I’m a shopper,” she says. Here—with a thousand constraints—she sets the terms.

Processed with VSCOcam with b3 preset

  1. Mary’s microwave brand is Sunbeam. That’s what she’s looking for. A big one, big enough for her frozen lasagna. “They’re all big enough for lasagna,” I say. “No,” she snaps. The microwave she’s looking for must be just so. White. “Here’s a white one,” I say. No. It must have a clock, too. “They all have clocks, Mary.” No. Not like the clock she’s looking for. And big buttons, too. “I know what I want,” she says. She does. I can’t tell her otherwise. “This one’s $55,” I say. “I’ll spot you $5 if you want it.” “No,” she says. “You can give me $5 if you want, but I’m not taking that microwave.” She flags a stock clerk. “Sunbeam,” she says. He smiles. She frowns. She doesn’t mean him. Not a very bright man, thinks Mary. “S-S-S,” she says. The first time I’ve heard her stutter in hours. “Sunbeam,” she says. The one that belongs to her. The one she’s thinking of. “You’re supposed to have everything,” she says. // “I don’t think we have a Sunbeam,” says the clerk. He pauses. Takes in the fullness of Mary Mazur. The plant riding along. The plant’s bandages. The slick shine of her hair. Her foot. The wounds. The smell. It’s rich, the smell. As complicated as her condition. Sweat and shit and dust and, yes, lasagna. Frozen food thawed at room temperature over days, and the smell of what remains in the ring of cans in which Mary sits in darkness, and flies, maggots if she’s too tired to clean. It’s always hot in her room, must be over 80, but Mary smells cold, too. What does cold smell like? Like Mary Mazur. // The clerk takes a big breath—that’s what I did, too, the first time, it’s what we do when we encounter a human being around whom the veil of the world is very thin—and he does not turn away. He does not turn away. He doesn’t smile, either. Maybe he’s not so dumb after all. “I get it,” he says. “You gotta have your Sunbeam.” He doesn’t offer to find it for her. He can’t. They don’t have one. He’s not selling. This isn’t his store. He just works here. She just shops here. We’re just three bodies amidst the things, and there’s nothing we can do now about the choices that aren’t offered.

IMG_9192

  1. I take Mary Mazur to Walmart late Sunday evening, and leave her there after midnight with cab fare. As she wishes. Bright lights, warm air, nobody making decisions for her. For almost 24 hours she glides down aisles on her motorized cart, selecting and discarding and asking questions, dispatching clerks in search of her needs and desires. When we speak next I ask her what she bought. “You’ll never believe!” A coat? “An aquarium!” // A fish tank, plus ten fish, calico fantails, $2.39 or $2.49 per, she can’t remember. Pinky, Cleopatra, and Beauty. Ten fish, three names. “That’s all I have.” Namewise, she means. “It’s all I want,” she says. They’re gold and black and silver, “and orange and red and blue, and oh, I’ve never seen colors like these! D-d-do you want to see them?” Her stutter, so far reserved for talk of her dead mother and her long gone children. It’s big, inviting someone over to see your aquarium. Especially when you’ve spent most of the money you had in the world to buy it, and you can’t afford all the supplies, and one fish has already died—“she wouldn’t eat!”—and the water is murky, and you love these fish as much as you’ve loved anything outside of a television screen in years. As much as you loved your three parakeets, who were named Cleopatra, Beauty, and Blue Jay, because Pinky is no name for a bird. And the fish are named for your three little parakeets, who died because you did something you shouldn’t have. It takes you awhile to say it, eyes downcast—“I fed them pasta,” you whisper, dry pasta, it expands, “I didn’t know”—and there were three parakeets, so there are three names. The parakeets are named for—“I don’t know where the names begin,” you say. Three fish, three birds, three children. // “I’m saving her,” Mary says of her dead fish when I arrive. “I’m not ready to let go.” Bandit, the plant with its bandaged leaves; a fish that no longer shares the name Beauty, dead in a box for days. “I don’t let go so easily anymore.” Take a picture, says Mary.

Processed with VSCOcam with b1 preset

  1. So I take a picture, the fish and Mary Mazur, 62, Christmas was her birthday. It was a Thursday, and she was hungry, because by then all her food was gone, and her fish food was gone. “If you don’t eat, you’re going to be starving.” Two more days before she could go shopping, and that might be why her fish died. She doesn’t know. She can’t remember its name. She sprinkles the body with water when she feels sad. // “I do stupid things,” she says. “What I did was wrong.” We’re talking about the birds, now. Not the parakeets, the cockatiel: Bandit, for whom her injured plant is named. What Mary did was ask someone to take care of him. A woman who seemed kind, who took her to a different Walmart, and returned her to a different motel, two motels before this one. When that motel told Mary to leave, she asked the kind woman to take her bird. It would be cold where Mary was going. The kind woman took the bird, but she did not take care of him, and Bandit died. “It’s my fault,” says Mary. // “I was in the street,” she says. “I didn’t have anything.” She’s not talking about Bandit now. She’s talking about Jerry, her baby boy. He was wanted. She was going to keep him warm. 1973, ’74, she can’t remember. A boarding house, but Mary was leaving. Why doesn’t matter. She was leaving, and the baby was in the carriage, and the landlady—“that fat bitch!”—called somebody, “the cops, I guess,” and then Jerry was gone. “I was the mother!” She can’t remember how old he was. She remembers herself, standing alone, she remembers the empty carriage. // They brought him to see her once. Knocked on her door. Mary didn’t answer. “I didn’t know who was there,” she says. “It could’ve been anybody.” // He’d be 42 now. “Like you,” she tells me. I’m not her son, though. She knows that. She does. She knows that he’s gone. Jerry and the two she can’t name, the two they took from her before she left the hospital. “My children,” she says. The first time she’s called them her own. She should not have let them take her babies. “I didn’t know,” she says. “I didn’t know. I wasn’t as smart then as I am now.”

Processed with VSCOcam with b6 preset

  1. The first time Mary was raped, she was 13. “A punk,” she says. “Sandy-haired.” After that? She counts on her fingers. There was her uncle, of course. “He nearly killed me.” She was 17. And the truckstops. Her fingers unfurl, one hand then the other. But the number she settles on is three. That seems right, she says. Something like that. She’s lucky, she says. She’s heard there are some women, they get raped, they never recover. // “Let me ask you,” I say. “I don’t know. Maybe I’m just seeing something that’s not there. Well, there’s three kids.” Mary nods. “Three,” she agrees. “There’s three parakeets,” I say. A grin spreads across her face. And three Bandits: Burt, the bird, the plant with the bandaged leaves. Mary giggles. It’s girlish, this sound. There are the three names for the nine fish that remain. “And there are three people upstairs who haunt you.” She stares. Her mouth splits open. The heat within her seems to be escaping. I can smell it. We listen to the fish tank bubble. Three ghosts. Three fish. Three birds. Three rapes. Three children. // She composes herself. She’s smarter now than she was then. “I see what you mean,” she says. “The curse of three.” It should be six, she says. “Like the devil. Three sixes.” She stops. Three sixes. “There’s still three!” She gestures up with her eyes. “Yeah,” she says, “there’s three of them.” The three brothers she believes stalk her. “Well, four, with the bitch.” The woman who takes care of them. “Well, there were three kids I had,” she continues, then stops: Four, with the mother. // We watch the fish. Cleo, Pinky, and Beauty. “I’m a tough bitch,” Mary says. Twice. First to herself. Then to me. “I’m a tough bitch,” she says. // She tells me to stand in the corner. “Face the wall.” She’s going to get up. She doesn’t have pants. She’s wearing a plastic bag. “You’re not my boyfriend,” she says. I stare at the wall. She has a job for me. The trash. I’m to put it in the lobby. “Turn around,” she says. She’s arranged it in three piles. The maggots are contained. Easy to carry. “Are you sure you’re ready?” she asks. “I am,” I say. “Take it away,” Mary tells me.

Processed with VSCOcam with h1 preset

One last picture for Mary. “Oh, I know a little something about fish,” she says as I peer into her tank. “And I’ve never seen colors like these.” I show her this picture. “Oh, that’s Beauty,” she says. Could be. “She’s special.” Mary’s right: she is.

* * *

Jeff Sharlet’s books include The FamilyC Street, and Sweet Heaven When I Die. He’s an associate professor of creative writing at Dartmouth College, and he recently was honored with a National Magazine Award for his GQ story, “Inside the Iron Closet.” Read more of his Instagram essays at http://instagram.com/jeffsharlet

Think of This as a Window: Remembering the Life and Work of Maggie Estep

$
0
0

Sari Botton | Longreads | February 2015

 

A year ago this month the world lost an incredible talent. Maggie Estep, a great writer—and before that, slam poet/performance artist—died suddenly, a month shy of 51.

The loss has hit me hard, even though I had been just getting to know Maggie personally. She was someone I’d idolized from the time we were both in our twenties, she a couple of years older than I. I’d see her stomping around the East Village, where I lived, too, in a black dress with fishnets and a combat boots, utterly self-possessed and unconcerned with what you thought of her.

Before I knew who she was, I sensed she was someone, and I was right. I started freelancing for MTV News in the mid-nineties and quickly got the lowdown on her: She was an outspoken, transgressive feminist star of the slam poetry scene, appearing often at the Nuyorican Poet’s Café and on HBO’s Def Poetry Jam. She made records.

I laughed and cried at “Hey, Baby”—her hilarious spoken-word MTV video. It’s a cut off her No More Mister Nice Girl record, where she takes a lewd, crotch-grabbing catcaller completely off guard with a brilliantly absurd response—basically, saying, “Sure, that sounds good, let’s go back to my place . . .” I’m embarrassed to admit that before seeing that video, it hadn’t occurred to me to feel anything but flattered and validated when men on the street catcalled.

Maggie was all kinds of cool. She recorded a cover of Lou Reed’s “Vicious.” Steve Buscemi directed her in a music video for it—in which Reed makes a cameo appearance, because he thought it seemed cool. (Reed passed away just months before Maggie, and she blogged about it. Then Buscemi eulogized Maggie at a memorial for her in Hudson, New York.

Maggie went on to write seven critically acclaimed novels, but when the publishing industry took a dive a few years ago, she was forced to buck up and get her real estate license, like so many writers in our age group. It bummed me out, and I wrote about it for The Billfold.

Before she set up shop in the Halstead office in Hudson, N.Y., where she’d moved a few years after leaving New York City, she came to read at a story slam hosted by TMI Project, a nonprofit I work for. I couldn’t believe that the Maggie Estep, slam icon, was showing up for that, but she did.

That was the first time she and I were properly introduced, and I invited her to contribute an essay to my collection, Goodbye to All That: Writers on Loving & Leaving New York, which she did.

Maggie Estep and Chloe Caldwell. Photo by Dana Kinstler

Maggie Estep and Chloe Caldwell. Photo by Dana Kinstler

She read at an event for the book on Friday, February 7th, with two other contributors, Chloe Caldwell and Dana Kinstler, at Oblong Books in Rhinebeck. Just a few days later, Maggie was suddenly gone.

I dedicated the follow-up collection, Never Can Say Goodbye: Writers on Their Unshakable Love For New York, to her. Chloe Caldwell, who had become close to Maggie in the last year of her life, dedicated her novella, Women, to Maggie, too. Chloe has just published this moving tribute to Maggie at Vice.

On the anniversary of Maggie’s passing, here is her brilliant essay from Goodbye to All That.

 

* * *

Think of This as a Window

Maggie Estep | Goodbye to All That | 2013 | 13 minutes (3,176 words)

 

 

I fell in love with New York City one day in 1971, when I saw dozens of people blithely stepping over a dead body on a sidewalk. I was seven years old, walking in Midtown with my grandfather. It was summer. The air smelled like rotting fruit. Steam rose from food vendor carts. There were snarls of traffic, bleating horns, women in cheap knee-length skirts. And that dead body. On the sidewalk. It was probably a drunk, very much alive, just unconscious, but I didn’t know that then. I thought that this city was a place where people lay rotting in the street and no one noticed.

I looked to my grandfather’s face, then to the faces of the other passersby. Everyone was completely ignoring that dead body. I gave my grandfather’s sleeve a tug, but he didn’t feel it or maybe didn’t want to explain what that body was doing there. Even though it would have been excellent evidence in the case he was constantly building against the city that, to him, was a dirty, dangerous place filled with thieves, hippies, runaways, con men, and hookers. He only lived there because my grandmother was ill and needed to be close to good hospitals.

I lived elsewhere, with my nomadic horse trainer parents. We moved a lot. I was always the new kid in town, the one that favored black clothes and smelled like horses.

As I watched people stepping over that body, I felt relief. If the people of New York didn’t bother looking at a dead body, then they weren’t going to bother looking at me. I had found the only place where I was not out of place, where looking vaguely Mediterranean wasn’t a cause for staring.

I moved to Lower Manhattan ten years later, when I was seventeen. The only things I cared about were books and music. I got a job as a receptionist at a record company on West 57th Street and rented the only apartment anyone would rent me, a slanted-floor two-room hovel on Ludlow Street. I knew nothing of the neighborhood’s venerable past as the overcrowded home to thousands of immigrants, gang members, shysters, corrupt politicians, and would-be presidential assassins. It was just a cheap place to live. The building superintendent, a Haitian man named Mike who wore talisman necklaces and had a lot of facial scarring, gladly took my security deposit and handed me the key. “You call if you need anything,” he said, “anything at all.” He failed to give me his phone number, and anyway, I didn’t get a phone installed.

There was a pay phone at the corner of Ludlow and Stanton. Every month or so, I’d get a fistful of change and call my mother to tell her I was alive. She was suspicious about the song of the Mister Softee truck in the background. It didn’t matter what time of day it was, or even which season. The Mister Softee truck was always around, and its insane circus song always playing. One day, I saw a guy with a sawed-off shotgun inside the Mister Softee truck. Probably a lookout for the heroin trade that was the chief industry of the Lower East Side in the early 1980s. The guy saw me staring at him and smiled. That was the thing: I was like a rat or a pigeon, blending in perfectly in this neighborhood. No one bothered me or was bothered by me.

Down the hall lived a man named Jody who was very beautiful. He often shot heroin and sometimes wore women’s clothing. He told me that Taylor Mead, the writer and performer of Warhol fame, lived on the top floor of our building, across from She-Bear, the woman with a hundred cats. Jody said if you stood in the hall at certain times of day, you’d hear Taylor Mead clanging around up there, recording himself talking. But I didn’t like standing in the hall. I had moved to New York to be near lots of people without actually having to interact with them.

Sometimes, I went to nightclubs with my lone friend, Bliss, a big-breasted blonde. We would dance all night with beautiful men. Most of these men were gay, but that was fine; we were more interested in dancing and getting drunk than in having sex. One night, at the Mudd Club, we were dancing so violently to James Chance and his band that a man who had been staring at us all night came over and asked if we were being paid by the band.

When the clubs closed, I’d walk home through a silence so deep I could hear packs of rats moving through garbage bags. Many of the buildings were vacant, holes in their sides where windows had been. Over a bricked-in window someone had spray-painted THINK OF THIS AS A WINDOW.

When the end of the world came, this is what it would be like. And I’d be ready.

I was a loner, but there were people I saw so often that talking to them was unavoidable. There was the pasty guy with dyed black hair who waited for the F train in the same spot I did every morning. I went on a date with him and, a few days later, moved in with him over on Suffolk Street. Two doors down was an empty building with a thriving heroin trade, its entrance guarded by Tina, a tiny Puerto Rican girl. Tina sat on a milk crate in front of the building, tugging at the hem of her miniskirt, speaking in rapid-fire Spanglish to customers and loudly calling out “Agua, agua,” or some equally arbitrary word, when a police cruiser drifted by, as if the cops would have no idea what the touts were doing when they suddenly started crying out “Water!” at the top of their lungs.

Tina usually had a brown paper bag in her lap. I always figured she had a sandwich in there. One day, she opened the bag and showed me a tiny black pistol. “Is that real?” I asked. Tina grinned. She was missing a tooth.

Tina vanished at some point, and eventually, the wide-open drug emporium did too, pushed from the Lower East Side over into Brooklyn and up into Harlem before eventually disappearing entirely as beepers took the place of people like Tina, and investors bought up all the abandoned buildings.

I broke up with the guy from the subway, got fired from my record company job, and then left the Lower East Side for a few years, living in Colorado and belatedly going to college. When I came back to the city, it was different. Avenue A was dotted with boutiques. There were new restaurants that were not Polish diners.

I moved into a room in a rent-controlled apartment on Avenue C. There were rats. I would hear them at night, knocking things over. I’d put boots on, walk into the kitchen, flick the lights on, and find the rats nonchalantly snacking on dry goods, like a bunch of old people at an early-bird buffet. They wouldn’t budge until I swung a broom at them. Sometimes, they rose onto their haunches and hissed at me.

This was exactly the New York my grandfather had railed against when I was a little kid. It was squalid. Probably more squalid than anything he’d seen in his years living there. He was now in Princeton, New Jersey, in a clean, contemporary house that I was afraid to visit for fear I’d dirty anything I touched. It wasn’t just the city that was squalid now. I was too. I lived in the margins, as did most of the people I knew. I wore outfits cobbled together from hand-me-downs from my friend Tom, a struggling filmmaker who stocked up on clothing from dumpsters and thrift shops in Ohio. I lived on very little money. Which isn’t to say I felt deprived in any way. If I wanted to partake of that alternate New York, the one above 14th Street, the New York of dinner parties and polite society and elegant cocktail dresses, I could clean up pretty good. But the New York I loved was down here. The New York I loved was a lawless, exhilarating place where anything was possible.

My fortunes improved by the early 1990s, when I graduated from a long succession of odd jobs to earning money as a writer and performer. I rented a vermin-free garden-facing apartment on East 5th Street. It was by no means luxurious, but it was clean, and very quiet for a New York apartment. Except sometimes at 3 AM. I had an upstairs neighbor who woke in the middle of the night to play his keyboard and croon in an eerie low voice that wasn’t without beauty. The songs he played over and over were so unusual that I didn’t really mind being woken.

One day, my kitchen ceiling started leaking. Water poured from the apartment above, where the Crooner lived. I went up and knocked. I could hear him in there running water, but it took my knocking several times before a small nervous man in a bath towel opened the door a few inches and peered out at me. I explained that something from his apartment was leaking and pouring down into my kitchen.

“Sorry,” he mumbled before shutting the door. That was my lone interaction with him until one day, when I opened the Village Voice to the music section and found a picture of the Crooner. He was, it turned out, Stephin Merritt of the Magnetic Fields. In the same issue of the Voice was a review of one of my books, and apparently he saw it: a few days later, I passed him in the hall and we both stopped short and, for the first time, said hello. That was it. Just eye contact and a hello. An acknowledgment. Oh, so you’re that person.

By the late 1990s my beloved Lower East Side wasn’t squalid anymore. The once-vacant buildings had been scrubbed, the people selling books and bicycle parts from blankets spread on the sidewalk were replaced by sandwich boards hawking gourmet foods. The Key Foods on Avenue A no longer required the full-time services of rent-a-cops to stop the shoplifting junkies. There were no junkies. They had all died or moved, migrating to the outer boroughs or to cities that were still sordid, like Baltimore or Philadelphia. Tompkins Square Park was now a clean, safe place where white women with small children gathered and purebred dogs frolicked in the dog park.

I hated it.

I decamped to Brooklyn, to an apartment in the tiny cobblestoned Vinegar Hill neighborhood just north of Dumbo, where brothels had once thrived in the still-intact storefronts along Hudson Avenue. Two blocks away from my new digs were the Farragut Houses, a housing project that, for a while at least, deterred developers. After moving to Vinegar Hill, I learned that my novelist friend Donald Antrim had lived in that very apartment a few years earlier. The city had a way of entwining us around one another, throwing us all together, stacking us one on top of the other, shuffling us, making us begin friendships or collaborations or romances. Or sometimes we just noticed each other, nodded once in recognition, moved on.

From the window of my home office, I could see one of the towers of the World Trade Center. That morning, my then-boyfriend John and I heard a sort of muffled boom. A few minutes later, a neighbor came and told us the World Trade Center was on fire. We walked to the nearby Brooklyn Bridge, went up onto the walkway, and saw hundreds of people pouring across the bridge, fleeing Lower Manhattan. Some were covered in ash. Everyone kept looking back, eyes wide, at the burning towers. Then the first tower collapsed. A wail rose from the crowd. People started screaming prayers up to the smoke-filled sky.


That night, Lower Manhattan, blanketed in debris, smoky, silent, lightless, looked like a disaster movie set. John and I had ridden our bikes over the Manhattan Bridge. It was so soon after the collapse that barricades had not yet been erected. I didn’t even know that a firefighter friend was dead, that another had survived, that my friend Judy had been ten minutes late for work at Morgan Stanley and thus not in the building when it was hit.

The streets surrounding the giant pile of death were empty and quieter than any quiet I had ever heard in New York. People in hazmat suits were tromping around in a daze. The air was smoky, and there was a thick coating of ash over everything. It didn’t occur to us that we were breathing in dead people, including some that we knew and cared about.

In the ensuing weeks, I imagined that New York would go wild again, that the rich would flee, infrastructure would crumble, the populace would grow restless, manic, and inspired. Graffiti would come back; punk would be born all over again. Quite the opposite happened. For the few tired souls who did leave after 9/11, replacements arrived, buying real estate, spreading the gentrification so that soon much of Brooklyn was overcrowded and expensive and large parts of Queens too.

Around this time, I started taking longer and longer bike rides, pushing into the far reaches of the outer boroughs, looking for still-untamed pockets of my city. I was location scouting. For books I was writing or would write. For images of the city to burn into my heart. I didn’t know it yet, but I was starting the long process of breaking up with New York.

Luc Sante, inspired chronicler of New York’s underbelly, wrote, “The more I felt I was losing my city the more preoccupied I became with it.”

That was it exactly.

I came to know every crevice of New York. I rode to the northernmost tip of Manhattan, to the then-end of the bike path, past the George Washington Bridge, and then across town to the Triboro Bridge where I rode over crack pipe shards and bird shit, down into Randall’s Island.

I rode my bike to Aqueduct Racetrack, where I would lose myself in the grandstands. Just a few thousand souls wandered the cavernous, faded facility that had been built to hold many more. Almost all these characters, of wildly varied economic and ethnic backgrounds, were men. I was a novelty. No one bothered me, but they noticed me. A man named Mohammed, who was allegedly a diplomat, thought that by virtue of my gender and relative youth I must be in possession of secret insights into the outcome of races. Sometimes I was. Once when Mohammed asked, “Who do you like in the finale?” I shrugged and indicated a fit, happy-looking gray horse named Napoleon Solo, whose odds were 60 to 1. The horse won. I was, for a day, the queen of Aqueduct Racetrack. At least as far as Mohammed was concerned.

I rode to Coney Island often, especially in winter. I loved the slumbering rides, their metal limbs sticking up from the earth like the skeletons of large birds. Fortune-teller stalls and balloon shooting games were shuttered, the only signs of life coming from nearby trailers encircled by chain-link fencing. Dogs, mostly pit bulls, roamed the small yards. I would stand staring at these beautiful muscular creatures, who didn’t bother with gratuitous barking, who simply looked at me, read my face, found no mal intent there, then looked away.

I rode to the home of the Federation of Black Cowboys, out at the edge of east New York, where Brooklyn butts up against Howard Beach, Queens. These cowboys (and some cowgirls) have a stable spread over a few acres on South Conduit Avenue, just before JFK airport. For a time, the overflow from the main stable found refuge across Conduit Avenue, in a cul-de-sac at the end of Dumont Avenue known as the “Hole.” There were a few ramshackle homes and, there, stretched along bumpy, ill-paved streets named for gemstones, row upon row of makeshift stables and miniature paddocks, horses poking their silky, benign noses over fences. My friend Cornelius, a member of the federation who kept his paint horse, Dalton, at the Hole, would find someone willing to loan me a horse and we’d go horseback riding, crossing Linden Boulevard, snaking our way through tracts of modest vinyl-clad houses. Crossing the Belt Parkway, we’d see the seriously startled faces of drivers as we made our way into Gateway National Park to ride along Jamaica Bay.

Sometimes I’d ride the bike out to Rockaway, across the Marine Parkway Bridge and to the water’s edge. The beach was exquisite, pristine even, and I seldom saw another human being. I could have been anywhere. But I was in New York. No matter how far I went, to the very end of the land, when I turned back, I was still in New York City.

As I rode toward home after these jaunts, everything crowded in on me: cars, people, garbage, noise. The whirring of humanity.

I started dreading the crowded subway, so I stopped taking it.

If I had to travel from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I rode my bike. If the weather was too extreme for that, I stayed home. I mapped out a special route to walk my dog to the park, a route where there was some likelihood I would not encounter a single human being.

My world got very small. I barely ventured to concerts, hardly went to the Met to visit the paintings I loved. My city had become so crowded and bright I couldn’t think in it anymore, almost couldn’t see it anymore.

I’d been going upstate to the Woodstock area for years, and one day, on a whim, I called up a realtor friend and went to look at houses. I found a strange, fairy-tale-looking house made of brown wood with purple trim. It only had half an acre, but to me it was a universe, a lush world for my dog to explore, a place that I could study and figure out the way I had studied and figured out New York. The kind of enchantment I yearned for now was in learning the basics of human existence, living near forest creatures, stacking firewood, and growing vegetables. I wanted to write about people who could tell time just by looking at the position of the sun in the sky.

I had never imagined living anywhere but New York City until, one day, I did imagine it, and almost immediately I left the only home I’d known.

It was time to leave the noise and the bodies behind. Time for the kind of quiet that only happens deep in the woods, lost, craning my neck up to the sky to find my way.

* * *

From Goodbye to All That: Writers on Loving & Leaving New York, published 2013.

The Art of Authenticity: A Conversation with PostSecret’s Frank Warren

$
0
0

Ben Huberman | Longreads | February 2015 | 13 minutes (3,354 words)

For the past ten years Frank Warren has been collecting and publishing other people’s anonymous secrets, sent via postcard, on his blog, PostSecret. The stories behind the postcards span the entire spectrum of human drama, from tales of petty revenge to accounts of abuse and severe depression. This richness of experience — along with the secrets’ visual design, by now a recognizable mishmash of Americana, well-executed kitsch, and ironic arts & crafts creations — has kept the site popular through multiple waves of internet fads. Originally a local mail art project in suburban Maryland, the site has spawned several books, including The World of PostSecret (released in November 2014), as well as a play, a TED talk, and numerous live events.

I have a longstanding fascination with the history of the Post, a system of communication based on the competing interests of technology, surveillance, and intimacy. Ever since first visiting PostSecret, it has struck me as a project that builds on and plays with that original postal tension: does sending a postcard bring reader and sender closer together, or stress the distance between them? PostSecret harkens back to the days of handwritten correspondences and epistolary novels, but requires a very modern, digital infrastructure to spread its message of healing-via-sharing. Intrigued by the multiple layers at play in his project, I recently chatted with Frank Warren over the phone about the meaning of secrecy in the age of Snapchat and Whisper, the relation between authenticity and anonymity, and the way he chooses which postcards to publish, having received more than 1,000,000 over the past decade. 

We all have a fairly decent idea of what the Post is. What is a secret?

I’ve been collecting secrets for ten years and my definition continually evolves and expands. One way to think of a secret is as dark matter — this stuff that makes up 90%-95% of what’s in the universe but that we can’t see, we can’t sense. The only way we know it’s there is how it affects the behavior of other objects. That’s the definition of a secret I’m living with now.

Image by Robert Fogarty.

What happens to that dark matter once it becomes visible through a platform like PostSecret?

Maybe it goes from anti-matter to matter? I think the results of sharing a secret can be transformative. They can change who we are, they can create relationships. They can hurt, they can harm, they can heal. My hope is that when people share a secret with me and the world on a postcard, it’s a first step in a longer journey reconciling with that secret.

Do you ever receive follow-ups or updates from people who had sent you their postcards?

Yes! One follow-up I received was from someone who said that he had made up a story that he thought would make a good PostSecret secret and mailed it in. But then, after I scanned it and posted it on the web, he saw that through the mail process, some of the text that he had put on the postcard had been ripped away. And the secret had a new meaning. He went on to say — that secret that went on to appear on the postcard, on the website, was a true one in his life.

I’ve received another email from a woman who said, “I wrote down six secrets on postcards that I was going to send to you, Frank, but instead I left them on the pillow of my boyfriend as he was sleeping, and I went to work. Later that day, he arrives at my work and asks me to marry him, and I said Yes.”

How do you explain — to yourself — the power generated in the process of creating these postcards?

I think that when you’re speaking about secrets you’re talking about self-revelation. You’re talking about, in some cases, coming out to yourself. I was looking at a postcard today to make a selection for the Sunday Secrets on the website. And I saw one about an hour ago that said “Writing out this secret for the first time and reading it made me realize it wasn’t true.” So our secrets can have very complex relationships with who we are. Sometimes by sharing a secret you confirm it, and sometimes the sharing act in and of itself changes the nature of the secret.

We live in a strange moment right now — everybody is extremely concerned about surveillance and privacy, yet at the same time we seem to be compelled to share our innermost, most intimate emotions. How does your project relate to this tension?

You talk about the line between what we decide to reveal versus what we decide to conceal. We’ve always had to make that decision — it’s part of the human condition. I would say, though, that it’s much more of a tension now — now it’s an earthquake, with security, social media, and people presenting an image of themselves for public consumption.

I feel like PostSecret is almost like an anti-Facebook. It’s the true story that you would normally never share in a public arena. But in some ways, the more of ourselves we share online through social media, the less value it has. Sometimes the more we try and project an image of ourselves to others — and perhaps to ourselves — the deeper our secrets can hide from us. And so if we can find the courage to look deep and discover, uncover, and share a vulnerable secret, I think those kinds of stories have the most value of all. Not just to the person who’s confessing, but to the community that can hear it.

You’ve been doing this for a long time now — do you sense any shift taking place since you started PostSecret? Social media wasn’t nearly as ubiquitous back then. Apps like Whisper or Snapchat didn’t even exist.

I have the feeling that we’re in the middle of a transition now, but you can never really sense it when you’re in the midst of it — maybe we’ll be able to look back at this period and understand what was happening here. Generally, I think that every generation feels comfortable sharing a little bit more about themselves than their parents’ generation.

PostSecret’s been around for ten years, long before most social media. It gives people an opportunity through this unique marriage of digital media and a very traditional kind of communication — the postcard. And with the postcard, the anonymity is 100% transparent. If you send me a postcard and you don’t put your name on it, I might see a postmark, but there’s no way I could ever identify it back to you. And people get that. Anytime you’re online sharing anything, no matter if you’re guaranteed anonymity or not, there’s no way you can be certain if you’re truly speaking anonymously. I think that pure anonymity is potent and powerful, and one of the reasons PostSecret allows people to talk about their deepest secrets — things they never told their partner, their priest, or their family.

The intersection of the analog (postcards, handwriting, people’s artwork) and the digital (scanner, email, blog) has always been one of my favorite aspects of PostSecret. Which side is the more important one, from your perspective?

The amazing artwork on each postcard created by the sender, for me, is one of the most interesting parts of the project. The postcards themselves have been exhibited around the world — in Rio, at the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, at MOMA in New York — and they’ve all been created by everyday people. I think of this sometimes as people’s art, or punk art. It just shows the investment people make in this ritual of finding the words to take ownership of their secrets, expressing them on a postcard, and then physically letting them go to a stranger.

That process carries so much more weight and gravity than if I allowed people to just email me their secrets or text the secrets. People ask me that, and I say, “No! It’s got to be on a postcard,” because I think there’s something cathartic about that process. And if you look at the artwork on the cards, sometimes the most expressive part of sharing a secret is done visually. In a way they’re able to do it because maybe the words would be too painful to say, or even to write.

Image courtesy of PostSecret.

Image courtesy of PostSecret.

Did you ever imagine that people would create such elaborate visual representations of their secrets?

Thankfully PostSecret started as an art project, so that kind of visual creativity is in its DNA.

Was 1960s mail art — I’m thinking about the Fluxus movement, for example — ever an explicit part of your vision?

Well, when I started PostSecret I had a pretty boring, monotonous job, and I was living in a suburb, I was a husband and father, so I would pursue these postcard projects after work and on the weekends. PostSecret was the third postcard art project I worked on and it just caught fire. But I do think of the project of being in the tradition of mail art, and I would even go back a little bit further — to Dadaism.

Speaking of Dadaism, you’ve been branching out recently from visual media to the performing arts — how did PostSecret: the Show come into being?

We’ve been working on the play for five years, and it’s had multiple workshops, and we’ve crafted it until we were all pleased with it.

I was invited to give a TED talk which led to me touring and sharing secrets with live audiences, listening to secrets live, especially from college students at PostSecret Live events. The play is a way for us to continue that tradition in a way that doesn’t require me to be there at every event, although I still continue to tour and have live events.

One of the things we do is share secrets that were created in the location where the show is performed, and we also invite audience members during intermission to write down a secret on the postcard and submit it for the second act. One thing that separates the show from the website is people coming together in this audience. For the first time they’re sharing a communal experience of the revelation of the secret. It’s a very different experience when you’re sitting as part of a large group, a community, reacting and hearing the other folks reacting to the secret, than when you’re reading the PostSecret book or scrolling through the website.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m hearing quasi-religious overtones in your description of a community congregating and processing through their own secrets (or sins) together.

I don’t think of secrets as confessions, or as sinful. I think of secrets as being very human — they can be funny, or sexual, or hopeful, or painful. Or criminal! My PostSecret Live events have evolved into trying to create a safe, non-judgmental space in a specific social setting, rather than online. With an audience of over 1,000 people I’ll be inviting members to walk up to a microphone and talk about a secret, a story they have not told anyone before. And that’s the most cathartic, and emotional, and memorable part of the night.

When we talk about a connection to spirituality, I think something’s there. In this country, for example — suicide is one of America’s secrets. It’s a secret that we keep to ourselves. And if you can broach the topic — which I do in my shows, I talk about my connection to the issue of suicide, my struggles — if you open up that conversation, instantly you find out that other people have their stories that they’ve been waiting to open up and talk about, they’ve just been waiting for the right moment.

Secrets are the currency of intimacy, and if we can just create a safe place for others to share, they’ll start this conversation that has a very deep and lasting meaning. Before PostSecret — maybe I’ll keep my religious experiences secret from you, but one thing I will share is before I even had the idea for PostSecret, I was a volunteer on a suicide prevention hotline, volunteering on that midnight-to-4 A.M. shift, listening to strangers call me up at that crucible in their life, and tell me their deepest secrets.

Has being exposed to so many confessions of pain and suffering over the years affected you? Has it changed who you are?

I think it has. I think it has in a good way. I feel as though I have a greater sense of understanding and compassion and empathy. I think I have a larger acceptance of the wide range of human behavior. I think of the postcards as songs or poems or novels. And maybe the more we’re exposed to people’s personal truths, the more we can put ourselves in the shoes of other folks, and feel a greater sense of connection.

When I grew up I had some struggles. I had some losses. And I think that because of that suffering as a young man and feeling alone with it, now as an adult, as I read secrets from others coming from a sense of suffering alone, I feel a greater sense of solidarity. And that’s my hope — when I share these kinds of secrets on the web, I think in some cases there can be great relief. When you feel like you’re alone in the world with a secret you haven’t told a soul and then, in a PostSecret book or on the website, you discover a stranger who has articulated your secret even more accurately than you could, that experience doesn’t make your secret go away, but it lets your burden of keeping it lift.

Do you tend to aim for some sort of balance in the topics you cover? Do you try to create mini-narratives with the secrets you select? Walk me through the way you approach the selection process.

The answer is yes to all of that! When I select a secret for the website — the Sunday Secrets — it’s a painstaking experience. I’m thinking of myself as a storyteller trying to weave together these individual secrets to become a conversation, a chorus. I see myself almost like a filmmaker, taking these single shots from individual people’s lives and editing them together to tell our story. And I want that story to be rich. Like a great novel. And I want it to have a rhythm, like a song that has a satisfying melody to it. So it’s all about fitting the secrets together, almost like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, until they all become something greater than the sum of the parts.

Image courtesy of PostSecret.

Image courtesy of PostSecret.

Are you at all concerned with the authenticity of secrets? Fact-checking them might be counterproductive, not to mention impossible, but is it something you care about?

That’s a question I get a lot from reporters! I think it has to do with the tradition of journalism and how, when you’re writing a story for a newspaper, you need attribution, you need sources. What I do is very different, and it has a different approach. In some ways I think there are deeper stories you can tell when you are allowed to remain anonymous. If you’re given a postcard and told: “You can put anything you want on this postcard and mail it to a stranger, and it’ll remain anonymous,” that allows you to really think a little bit deeper about what you’re willing to share.

We touched on it earlier — the idea of secrets as being self-revelatory. I think if you gave somebody two postcards, and you said: “I want you to write an anonymous secret on each one and I want one to be true, and one to be untrue,” in many cases the untrue secret would actually have a deeper and greater meaning than the one they consciously shared as being true. It’s the same way that walking into a bookstore you can find just as much meaning and truth in the pages of the books in the fiction section as in the nonfiction ones.

So, whether the content is factually correct or not, something of the sender is going to be revealed in the postcard anyway?

To take the time to purchase a postcard, get a stamp, write your secret, walk it to the post office, let it go, and know that more than likely it’s not going to be put on the web or in the books, because I get so many, that takes a lot of effort, and works as a pretty good screening process.

But honestly, if I gave you a postcard, and I said, “Make up a secret about your life and write it on there,” whatever you put down in that postcard, that idea that you think you’re making up has to come from somewhere. And I’ve had people mail in secrets thinking they were making it up but when they saw it on the website they realized it was their way of coming out to themselves. Or I’ve heard from other people who’ve been inspired to change their lives based upon a stranger’s secret. So even if it wasn’t true for the creator, it was to many others.

I’m really curious: is there a secret you’d never publish?

Yes! I have been contacted by the police and the FBI about secrets before, though that doesn’t necessarily prevent me from publishing them on the web. But one postcard I’ve never shared the image of and probably never will was a postcard made out of a family portrait. And the secret written across the portrait said: “My brother doesn’t know that his father is not the same as our father.” And you look at the faces of the children in the family, you could identify which brother he was talking about.

I don’t doubt the veracity of that secret, but I question who has ownership over it to share. I would not feel good about posting that on the web, and outing that young man, sharing the secret with him for the first time. That’s not the intent of PostSecret. So that’s an example I can share with you over the phone, but I would not post that image of that family and that young man on the web, in a way that could be hurtful to someone.

The number of secrets out there is infinite. Do you also consider PostSecret to be an infinite project?

Well, as we were talking I’ve been staring at a pyramid of secrets taller than me. I received over a million postcards in ten years. I think of secrets as poems or songs. I think they’re inexhaustible. And I’m thankful for that.

***

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

A Conversation With Writer Colm Tóibín on the ‘Close Imagining’ of Fiction

$
0
0

Jessica Gross | Longreads | February 2015 | 17 minutes (4,283 words)

 

The Irish writer Colm Tóibín has written eight novels, two books of short stories, and multiple works of nonfiction. His latest novel, Nora Webster, follows a widow in 1970s Ireland as she moves through her mourning toward a new life. That book was almost 15 years in the making, and Tóibín’s previous novel, Brooklyn, which centers on an Irish immigrant to the United States, grew out of Nora Webster’s early pages. Both novels—like all of Tóibín’s work—subtly portray their characters’ complex inner lives, the details accruing slowly to finally reveal an indelible portrait. I spoke with Tóibín, who splits his time between Dublin and New York, by phone about the protagonists he’s compelled to write about and how he goes about creating their worlds.

In Nora Webster, the pacing of the writing follows that of Nora’s movement through her mourning and grief. Did that come naturally through the writing process, or did you maneuver the pacing in revisions later on?

I think if you don’t do that naturally, then attempting to think about it or to force it would be to make the reader start noticing the tricks you’re using and the tactics. You would lose the reader following you and believing in you. So in other words, the tone of the book is actually organic. And the thing is that I’m trying to judge that at the same time as do it, but if I spend too much time judging it, then I lose the doing it.

In the same way, if you’re running and you start thinking of running, something goes wrong with your breathing and your pace, whereas if you just let the running happen, you will get something from it. Or playing sport, in that if you decide you’re going to hit an ace in tennis and then you think about your ace, you don’t hit one. It’s only that funny moment where you get a mixture of almost no concentration and at the same time fierce concentration that you then start getting the ball in.

You began writing Nora Webster in 2000. How did you get to the point of actually completing it, and what was that process like?

I put a lot of thought into the book. It was always in my mind, even when I wasn’t writing it, and I would go through days where I would think, “Oh, I know what I’m going to do with it today,” or “I know what I’m going to do with it the next time I go back to it.” A really good idea might come to you at night and seem really wrong in the morning. So you’re always testing things. And then every year I would add to it in some way or another.

But a few years ago I found that I had all the different parts of the book and I needed to sit down then and connect them. And therefore I’m constantly reading over, checking if, “is there enough there for that, okay, so now this”—so it became quite strategic, as well as trying not to think too much. I mean formally strategic: that material can go there, I’m going to leave that out completely, this scene is going to need one more thing.

This novel intersects very slightly with Brooklyn: In the very beginning, the mother of Brooklyn’s protagonist pays a visit to Nora. But the overlap ends there. Why did you want to do that instead of making each a complete stand-alone?

Well, what happened was that I was reading over the first chapter of Nora Webster about five years after I wrote it. And the story of Brooklyn jumped out at me from those early pages. And so I went and wrote that. And if you look at that opening chapter of Nora Webster, you find that there are mentions of various women’s names who could help her. One of them is from The Blackwater Lightship, and another is from The Heather Blazing. And there are women who come in from some of the short stories as well.

Is that pleasurable to you, carrying characters over from one story or book to another?

Yes, yes, it’s sort of fun. And it anchors the book in something of a “real” world that is actually a fictional world. It just connects things. Henry James did it a few times, actually. And of course James Joyce does it. Some of the characters in Dubliners emerge in Ulysses. And it happens in Joseph Conrad’s work, too.

Is there an aspect of it that’s also a reward for the careful reader, or the reader who’s read many of your books?

Yes. It was funny—when I was in China, some of the audience thought that it was almost an error, like an offense. One woman said it to me accusingly: “You took the character from one of your books and put it into another book!” And I said, “Yeah, yeah, I did that, yeah.”

She thought it was cheating?

She looked at me, yeah, like it’s cheating, serious cheating. I said I thought it was terrific.

As if you plagiarized yourself.

Exactly.

You experienced a trauma in childhood that parallels what Nora’s children, particularly her son Donal, experience: Like him, your father became ill, you and your brother were sent to live with your aunt and your mother didn’t visit or write at all for months, and your father passed away when you were young. And many of Donal’s traits, including his stammer, are ones you shared. How did you decide to tell this story from the mother’s perspective instead of the child’s?

I felt there wasn’t enough depth in the boy, Donal, that he was too young, and that you could write a very melancholy, Irish short story about his coming home from school but it wouldn’t be any more than that. You couldn’t actually chart his development, because there wasn’t enough to start with. He’s too young. You could write one of those very naïve child books of the world being watched from his perspective.

So, I mean, I did think about it. And it is there, to some extent, especially in The Heather Blazing. But I thought if I did it from the mother’s point of view, I would get more, that there was more of her there to work with. It’s almost as though if you’re painting, say, trying to paint a child is very difficult. You can get something innocent and sugary and naïve, whereas when you paint an adult you get an entire personality with all the experience that goes into that personality.

Do you paint?

No, but I look at paintings a lot.

It’s interesting that you lay it out as practical, novelistic concern. I wondered if there was an element of trying to challenge yourself to empathize with your mother?

It’s not exactly my mother, but it’s the mind, the spirit of somebody of that age at that time who had gone through that experience. And some of what I did was from personal observation and memory. Some of it was from imagination.

I understand that Nora is a separate character, that she isn’t your mother, but was there any part of this writing that involved processing what had happened to you?

It doesn’t work like that, in the sense that you’re manipulating the material too much for it to be a form of therapy. It just doesn’t come out like that. What I was doing was I was building the book. So I didn’t really get anything more than what is in the book. At least I don’t think so. How can you judge, you know?

In your books, there is so much meditation on being alone and how it is a double-edged sword. A lot of your characters are really pained by solitude, but then, in other moments, crave it. Could you talk a little bit about solitude in your own life?

I suppose one of the funny things about writing is that it’s solitary, compared to playing in an orchestra. And if you’re writing, your main aim is not to leave the house at all in a given day. So you do know something about that.

But also in fiction, especially in the lives of women, how do you deal with solitude? You look at how Jane Austen deals with it, for example, or how Henry James deals with it, about giving a woman a rich solitude. You’re giving her a funny power, the power of rich reflection, which can be very dramatic in a book. It’s very dramatic in Pride and Prejudice and in Portrait of a Lady. So it sort of works in the sense that as long as you fill it with enough intelligent sensitive life you can actually get quite a lot of dramatic effect. Whereas with men it’s harder because you do need to get them out of the house and it’s what they’re doing in society or at work or at sport or something that makes them matter. With a woman it’s often domestic space.

In a Los Angeles Times review of Nora Webster, Darin Strauss writes, ” Tóibín’s method is of a piece with the book’s approach to drama. Or, make that drama avoidance; this is a novel that abjures not just plot twists but plot advances. Tóibín never manhandles life and would in fact prefer not to leave any fingerprints on its lapels.[…]Tóibín’s written a book that de-pressurizes—that, when faced with a dramatic moment, shies up its collar and ducks into the alley.” How do you respond to that? Do you agree?

Well, I think that what’s happening in the novel are a set of changes which are almost imperceptible. And there’s no big moment of release. There is no pure drama in the book, it’s all tiny aggregation, something new, or Maurice, her late husband, is left out for a few pages—you give her other thoughts, other things that preoccupy her. So it does move, but not in a way you can easily find. But certainly there is a big distance between the Nora at the beginning and the Nora at the end. But what your problem as a reader is, you wonder: Where did this start? So to that extent, what you’re reading is correct, that it isn’t as though she has a big epiphany scene on the beach. She doesn’t.

Your protagonists are not passive, but they’re also not at all larger than life, or even particularly active. I get a sense of verisimilitude from your work.

Yeah. I’m interested in a way in the submerged figure, in somebody who you wouldn’t notice on the street, and what you can do with that figure. If everything in a novel has to be more exciting than the last then I think the reader will grow very weary. But it doesn’t mean that you have to make it as thin as life. In other words, if you ask somebody what an ordinary day in your life was like, the answer to that is, well, it’s very thin. I mean its fine in its way but it’s very thin. Fiction does have to have a greater density and sense of pattern, but it doesn’t mean that the characters have to be constantly colorful.

Why does the submerged figure interest you more than the person who would be noticed on the street?

Because I think you can work, and certainly I can, with the sort of northern light—short days, long winters, silence. I’m not good with long summers or lots of sunshine. Grayness and shadow and shade interest me. If I was Brazilian, I’d probably have a different attitude.

To be quite literal about what you said, do you think of yourself as somebody who moves along in the shadows, observing, and is not really noticed on the street in this way?

No, I’m not like that, no. I always think it’s bad manners to go around a place with a morose look on your face. I might be wrong about that, but that’s my view there.

I wanted to talk a little bit about Brooklyn. There is a scene in which Father Flood, Eilis’s priest in America, informs her that her sister, Rose, has died back in Ireland. What was writing that like?

Well, I found all that episode very difficult. What you’re trying to get is shock, without using the word shock too much. You’re trying to get this slow business of her realizing, From this moment onwards, my life is going to change. And yet all that episode has to be fully convincing to the reader. And the reader must never feel for a single moment that their heartstrings are being pulled too much. So you have to withhold an awful lot of her easy emotion. And yeah, it was very difficult to write, because you can’t really write it unless you feel it. So you have to give yourself the feeling.

How do you do that?

You start imagining it, and then you start having it.

Do you ever cry as you’re writing?

Yes, I have done that. There’s a particular place in The Heather Blazing where I did that, and I found with Brooklyn, writing the letter—there’s a letter Rose’s brother, Jack, writes her from Ireland—I found that particularly difficult. I wouldn’t want to do that again.

What about that letter in particular?

Well, it had to be written in a very particular voice, because he was not especially literate. And I suppose that made things more vivid for me as I was working. There is also a scene in Nora Webster, towards the very end of the book, where Maurice almost appears to her. Again, I found that very difficult, I mean emotionally difficult.

I have to also imagine that writing the scene in the Testament of Mary in which Mary watches Jesus, her son, being crucified—

Yeah, yeah, that particular scene was also very difficult. With every book I find that the book needs a moment of great, pure emotion. But in order to write it, I have to be ready.

How do you ready yourself?

By entering into the character’s spirit in full, by imagining the scene in full, and then almost living it moment by moment as I’m working.

Once you break off for the day, how do you recover from that experience?

With those scenes, the scenes I’m talking about, you actually finish them in a day. You start early enough that you know you’re not going to actually have to try and sleep with the work half done. With these scenes, I built up to it and I knew it was coming and my main effort was to try and get it right the first time because you can’t write it from the beginning twice. In other words you almost have to do it as though it’s real.

It is such a strange thing that the more forceful the writing is, the less the reader feels it.

Yeah. I think that’s the big thing. The more bright color you’ve used, the less the reader trusts you. It’s like the difference between a scream and a whisper.

Like some of your other work, in The Testament of Mary—which tells the story of Jesus’s rise and then crucifixion from Mary’s perspective—there is a lot of meditation on death. At one point, Mary says, “I had been made wild by what I saw and nothing has ever changed that. I have been unhinged by what I saw in daylight and no darkness will assuage that, or lessen what it did to me.” Have you ever had that feeling, that there was no going back from an experience you’d had?

I think that if you’ve had a close friend who dies, for example, that you can have that feeling. I think anyone who’s been through all that knows all that.

What has been the response, or what would you hope would be the response, to the book of people who are quite religious?

I think before there’s faith there is doubt. Or buried within faith there is doubt. So I was sort of working with that idea. I mean that no one’s faith is pure. There may be people who claim it is, but it has to include moments of doubt and almost feed on moments of doubt.

In your fiction, you take pains not to gloss over the daily drudgery of work and making money and routine—and also find some beauty in that.

I think novels are filled with the world. I mean things of the world such as money, such as domestic interiors. And all of those things matter in a novel in a way that they maybe don’t matter so much in a poem. I tend not to use it symbolically, though. I tend just to place it there, and it may have a resonance, but it doesn’t have a symbolic value.

Right, it’s almost the opposite—it’s the grounding reality. Have you had a lot of daily-grind jobs?

Not really. But the thing is, you take a lot from very little. I mean, I have worked in offices. But with a novel—there’s a wonderful story Henry James tells about a friend who wrote a novel about French Protestant youth. Someone said to her, “You really must have researched, you must know a lot about French Protestant youth.” And she said, “Well yes, I was walking down the stairs and I looked in a doorway and there was some French Protestant youth in the door and I passed on but I did see them.” That was enough to get what she needed for the novel. So I think it’s an interesting idea that a day’s work in an office can give you a lifetime’s work in an office if you’re a novelist.

And perhaps is actually more effective because you don’t actually have to feel hemmed in by, or beholden to, the reality of it.

Yes, yes. You want to get things right, but they don’t have to come from deep knowledge. In other words, I think it’s important to remember that novelists can work from a surface and get a great deal from the surface that suggests depth. Yeah, you’re quite right in a way that if you know it too well you end up putting in all the unnecessary details.

I read that while you were working on Brooklyn, you met someone who lives in Brooklyn—where Eilis lives in the book. So you asked him to email you what was going on outside his window, and used that to create detail in the novel.

I think it was just one email I sent—”Could you just tell me what’s going on today?” And he said it was so cold in Brooklyn that people had their faces completely covered and you could just see eyes coming towards you on the street. And so I put that straight away into the book. I just needed one more detail for that day that was completely observed and right. And I was in Ireland working and I thought, well, if I was in New York I would go for a walk in Brooklyn and I would get something from that walk. I couldn’t do the walk, so I sent an email.

Did that one detail engender other imaginings on your part?

Yeah, I could almost then see the streets, see the cold, feel just how severely cold it was. And from Eilis’s point of view, Ireland tends to be a more temperate climate. You don’t get that biting New York cold in Ireland. I mean you can and do, but it’s unusual. Whereas here, in New York, it belongs to the winter.

Several of your books, including Brooklyn, Nora Webster, and The Testament of Mary, are told from a female perspective. Is writing from the opposite gender helpful in unlocking an imaginative door, in that from the start there are mandatory differences from your own perspective?

I think that even writing an autobiography, I mean an absolute autobiography, describing something as you thought it was involves so much imagining that you’re always involved in pursuing something you really don’t know and trying to find a shape for something that you’re not quite sure of. So it isn’t as though there would be moments if you were writing from a male perspective in which you’re sure of your ground.

The thing is, you’re never sure of your ground, because you’re always wondering what the next detail should be. So no matter what you’re doing, you’re involved in the close imagining, entering into a spirit of someone who is not fully known to you, even if they were, for example, yourself, because it is a sort of glittering process of trying to find the right image to come now that will work rhythmically and will make sense dramatically.

I usually interview writers right when a book comes out, when they’re doing the whole publicity tour. So it’s interesting to be talking to you in an in-between time. What is this time like for you?

I’m trying to write a new book, basically. I have a new short story, and I’m trying to add to the book every day. It’s really a slow process, a novel. You really sometimes think, “God, this book is never going to be finished.”

Does having written so many books help you in starting the next one, or are you always starting from scratch?

I think that you become more experienced, even instinctively you know your instinct for pacing, for knowing how much detail to put in here, how much to leave out. I think all that might possibly improve as you work. And you also get more confident, which may be bad but also can be good in the sense that have an inkling that maybe this will work. And you do realize—with a bit of shock—that a book takes a number of years, that just because you’re working on it doesn’t mean it’s going to be finished soon. You just have to be slow and patient and very deliberate and determined.

Do you feel sad to live with your short story characters, provided they don’t come back in other works, for only a short time and then have to say goodbye to them?

I think the sadness arises really from the fact that people don’t really read collections of stories with the same zeal as they read a novel. I mean the exception being someone like Alice Munro, who actually managed to build up a big readership for her stories. But most writers don’t have that readership, especially most novelists who write stories. People just think your stories are under-imagined novels.

So the story itself is a sort of odd orphan that’s been put into an orphanage and is not going to be adopted. And you feel a sort of funny responsibility for that because you think if someone is going to go to the trouble of reading this it had better be as good as it can be.

Could you tell me a little bit about your writing process? I was curious to read that you write longhand, and then edit longhand, and only word process at a late stage.

Yeah, I write in longhand and then I transcribe that eventually onto a machine. But I’ve done some work on it before that. I like the pen, I like the page, I like the paper. If you’re working on a computer, you can erase and delete and go back and replace so easily, whereas if you’re writing with a pen you have to cross out the words. It isn’t the same business, so you tend to try to get things absolutely right the first time. It doesn’t mean you do, but it means you try.

“You said in one interview, ‘Writing tends to be very deliberate. A novelist could probably run a military campaign with some success. They could certainly run a country,’ which really made me laugh. Can you expand on that?

What you’re doing is you’re devising strategies for controlling information and emotion. You’re operating tactically all the time. You’re thinking a number of years ahead. You’re planning and plotting and then you’re allowing the textured work to emerge without all that plotting. But in other words, if I were in the White House, I would be very good at forward planning and knowing what should be happening the next year, the year after, knowing what my priorities were and also being able to deal with the things that arose everyday. So I would actually be a very good President of the United States! All of us involved in the writing are involved strategy and tactics and arranging material. And so it’s very close to what people who have power do.

* * *

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

The Holy Junk Heap

$
0
0

Adina Hoffman & Peter Cole | Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza | Schocken | April 2011 | 18 minutes (4,838 words)

 

Below is an excerpt from the book Sacred Trash, by Adina Hoffman & Peter Cole, as recommended by Longreads contributor Dana Snitzky.

* * *

Cambridge, May 1896

When the self-taught Scottish scholar of Arabic and Syriac Agnes Lewis and her no-less-learned twin sister, Margaret Gibson, hurried down a street or a hallway, they moved—as a friend later described them—“like ships in full sail.” Their plump frames, thick lips, and slightly hawkish eyes made them, theoretically, identical. And both were rather vain about their dainty hands, which on special occasions they “weighed down with antique rings.” In a poignant and peculiar coincidence, each of the sisters had been widowed after just a few years of happy marriage to a clergyman.

But Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson were distinct to those who knew them. Older by an entire twenty minutes, Agnes was the more ambitious, colorful, and domineering of the two; Margaret had a quieter intelligence and was, it was said, “more normal.” By age fifty, Agnes had written three travel books and three novels, and had translated a tourist guide from the Greek; Margaret had contributed amply to and probably helped write her sister’s nonfiction books, edited her husband’s translation of Cervantes’ Journey to Parnassus, and grown adept at watercolors. They were, meanwhile, exceptionally close—around Cambridge they came to be known as a single unit, the “Giblews”—and after the deaths of their husbands they devoted themselves and their sizable inheritance to a life of travel and study together.

Agnes Lewis. Photo via Cambridge Library

Agnes Lewis. Photo via Cambridge Library

This followed quite naturally from the maverick manner in which they’d been raised in a small town near Glasgow by their forward-thinking lawyer father, a widower, who subscribed to an educational philosophy that was equal parts Bohemian and Calvinist—as far-out as it was firm. Eschewing the fashion for treating girls’ minds like fine china, he assumed his daughters were made of tougher stuff and schooled them as though they were sons, teaching them to think for themselves, to argue and ride horses. Perhaps most important, he had instilled in them early on a passion for philology, promising them that they could travel to any country on condition that they first learned its language. French, Spanish, German, and Italian followed, as did childhood trips around the Continent. He also encouraged the girls’ nearly familial friendship with their church’s progressive and intellectually daring young preacher, who had once been a protégé of the opium-eating Romantic essayist Thomas de Quincy.

After their father’s sudden death when they were twenty-three, Agnes and Margaret sought consolation in strange alphabets and in travel to still more distant climes: Egypt, Palestine, Greece, and Cyprus. By middle age they had learned, between them, some nine languages—adding to their European repertoire Hebrew, Persian, and Syriac written in Estrangelo script. Having also studied the latest photographic techniques, they journeyed extensively throughout the East, taking thousands of pictures of ancient manuscript pages and buying piles of others, the most interesting of which they then set out to transcribe and translate.

Margaret Gibson. Photo via Cambridge Library

Margaret Gibson. Photo via Cambridge Library

As women, and as devout (not to mention eccentric and notoriously party-throwing) Presbyterians, they lived and worked on the margins of mostly Anglican, male-centered Cambridge society—women were not granted degrees at the town’s illustrious university until 1948—and they counted as their closest friends a whole host of Quakers, freethinkers, and Jews. Yet Agnes’s 1892 discovery at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai of one of the oldest Syriac versions of the New Testament had brought the sisters respect in learned circles: their multiple books on the subject ranged from the strictly scholarly A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinai Palimpsest to the more talky and popular How the Codex Was Found. Somehow the rumor spread that Mrs. Lewis had just happened to recognize a fragment of the ancient manuscript in the monastery dining hall, where it was being used as a butter dish. In fact, the codex was kept under tight lock and key, and its very fragile condition—to say nothing of its sacred status—certainly precluded its use by the monks as mere tableware. It took serious erudition and diplomacy for the twins to gain access to the manuscript in the monastery library; they then worked painstakingly over a period of years to decode the codex, as it were. “The leaves,” wrote Agnes, “are deeply stained, and in parts ready to crumble. One and all of them were glued together, until the librarian of the Convent and I separated them with our fingers.” She and Margaret proceeded to photograph each of its 358 pages and, on their return to Cambridge, processed the film themselves and labored over the text’s decipherment. Later they arranged for an expedition of several distinguished Cambridge scholars to travel with them to Sinai, where they worked as a team, transcribing the codex as a whole.

All these far-flung intellectual adventures had been exciting but also exhausting. And although the twins had resolved to spend a quiet season in Cambridge, immersed in the proofs of the various texts they had lately copied from manuscript, they set out in the early spring of 1896 on still another Middle Eastern trip—their third in almost as many years—bound for Palestine and Egypt. The reason for the journey was reported later in what sounds like deliberately vague terms: “News we received from Cairo,” Agnes wrote enigmatically, “seemed to indicate that there might be some chance of our finding something there.” Weary as they were from their previous travels, they had not been eager to take this particular trip, “and yet,” as she would admit in retrospect, “it had not been the least fruitful in results.”

This understatement was typical of Agnes, and gives little sense of the startling events that had come to pass one historic May day in 1896, soon after the twins’ return. Suffering from what her sister, Margaret, described as “a severe rheumatic illness, caused by undue exposure on the night when we had lost our tents in the valley of Elah,” Agnes had decided that morning to stretch her legs. While out strolling in downtown Cambridge, she was especially glad to bump into a good friend—and, strangely, another twin who also took great pride in his beautiful hands—the Romanian-born Talmud scholar, Solomon Schechter.

Even more of an oddball in the donnish context of Cambridge than Agnes and Margaret, the very Jewish, very blustery Schechter must, too, have cut a remarkable figure as he strode down King’s Parade. With his bushy, red-tinted beard, unruly hair, and tendency to gesticulate broadly as he spoke, Schechter had been known to set off in the broiling heat of midsummer wrapped up in a winter coat and several yards of scarf. An acquaintance remembered first meeting Schechter, with “his dirty black coat, smudged all over with snuff and ashes from his cigar, hands unwashed, nails as black as ink, but rather nice fingers, beard and hair unkempt, a ruddy complexion… One ear was stuffed full of wool, hanging out, and he was always very abrupt in his speech.” Another recalled that his socks never matched. His resemblance to a bag lady apart, there was, as another colleague put it, “the magic of prophecy about the man.” He also had, his wife would write years later, “a genius for friendship; he loved people and they loved him.” Since his 1890 arrival in Cambridge, where he was first given the odd title Lecturer in Talmudic and later appointed Reader in Rabbinics, Schechter had gained the deep respect and affection of a range of the town’s leading intellectuals, including the radical Scottish Bible scholar and Arabist William Robertson Smith (who arranged for Schechter to join Christ’s College, where special kosher meals were prepared whenever he came to dine); the Africa explorer Mary Kingsley (with whom he much enjoyed swearing); and the pioneering anthropologist and reclusive author of The Golden Bough, James Frazer, perhaps Schechter’s best friend at the time. The two took walks together several days a week, discussing as they rambled “all things, human and divine.” Frazer himself praised Schechter as “great in his intellect and learning, greater even in the warmth of his affections and his enthusiasm for every high and noble cause.”

Solomon Schechter. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Solomon Schechter. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

By turns fierce, warm, brusque, tender, biting in his wit, and thundering in his manner, “the king in any society in which he found himself,” Schechter was often described in peculiarly zoological terms. Now he was “a demanding lamb,” now an eagle or a bear. “I can see him in my mind’s eye, at the height of a debate,” wrote yet another friend, “rising from his chair, perhaps kicking it down, and pacing… the room, like a wounded lion, roaring retorts.” Lamb or jungle cat, he inspired awe and devotion in most people, though one imagines that the formidable Agnes Lewis would not even have blinked as she sailed—however arthritically—toward Schechter that day in the street.

She and Mrs. Gibson had, she hastened to tell him, spent the last few weeks developing the photographs and sifting through the manuscripts they’d brought back from their most recent trip. Their purchases included what Agnes would later describe as “a bundle of documents from a dealer in the plain of Sharon… [and] a similar bundle bought in Cairo.” Margaret, whose turn it was to do the sorting, had managed to identify most of the items that they’d carted home in a trunk—and which had almost been confiscated by overzealous customs officials in Jaffa. She had worked her way through the Hebrew fragments and set aside what she deemed parts of “the Canonical Books of the Old Testament” (the only sections of the Hebrew Bible that she, as a good Presbyterian, would know), assuming that the others were either talmudic passages or “private Jewish documents.” But the twins were eager for Schechter to have a look at some of the items whose contents they did not recognize.

Schechter, of all people, might be able to identify the scraps. Remembered by Romanian relatives and acquaintances as having been the wildest boy in his hometown, one who “constantly had to be pulled down from the top of the chestnut trees,” he had also been a prodigy. It was said that Shneur Zalman Schechter knew the Pentateuch by heart at five. And although he was by now almost fifty and—as the Anglicization of his first name indicated—had traveled a long way in both physical and psychic terms from his Hasidic Russian family in the small Moldavian town of Focsani (as had his twin brother, Yisrael, who had immigrated to the Jewish agricultural settlement of Zichron Yaakov in Palestine the same year that Schechter moved to England), he brought with him a prodigious Jewish learning, as well as a voracious appetite for all kinds of knowledge, classical and contemporary. Perhaps best known to twenty-first-century American Jews as the man for whom the Conservative movement’s network of day schools is named, Schechter had been ordained a rabbi in Vienna and applied himself to the Palestinian Talmud at Berlin’s influential new school of liberal Jewish learning, the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums; he’d become skilled at the analysis of ancient manuscripts and absorbed a wide range of subjects at that city’s university—everything from psychology and pedagogy to aesthetics, ancient history, Aristotle’s ethics, and Syriac grammar. Besides a deep knowledge of biblical and rabbinic texts and a solid grounding in the “scientific” methods that had by then come to dominate in German Jewish scholarly circles, he had also developed a passion for German, French, and English literature.

When he first came to England in 1882—hired to serve as a tutor in Talmud to the aristocratic young Oxford-and-Berlin-trained theologian Claude Montefiore—he had not known a word of English. “The only phrase he had begged Montefiore to teach him,” according to his wife, Mathilde, “was ‘weak tea,’ for he could not stand the strong tea the English used to drink.” But he’d learned the language with typical rapidity, by sitting with his Hebrew Bible, the English translation, and a dictionary—then moving straight on to George Eliot. Herself an avid bookworm and elegant writer, Mathilde described her husband as a “tremendous reader” who took in “every good novel that appeared,” devouring essays, philosophy, history, and theology. He’d wooed Mathilde with the satirical and none-too-romantic Book of Snobs by Thackeray, and it was joked that a more accurate title for Schechter than Reader in Rabbinics would have been “Reader in Fiction.” He was especially fond of critical works by Charles Lamb, Leslie Stephen, and Matthew Arnold and had a particular fascination with anything written about the French Revolution and the American Civil War (Lincoln was a hero); he “loved Schiller and Heine above all.” He also adored The Vicar of Wakefield and “boys’ books like ‘Treasure Island’ and ‘Robinson Crusoe.’ ”

No knowledge of Robert Louis Stevenson or Daniel Defoe, however, was necessary on this particular May day, and when—just a short time after meeting Schechter in town—Agnes arrived home at Castlebrae, the twins’ stately Gothic Revival mansion, she found Schechter already huddled over the large dining-room table, intently examining the fragments that Margaret had spread across its surface.

Without much ado, he identified one vellum leaf as a rare and valuable page from the Palestinian Talmud.

“Then,” according to Agnes, “he held up a dirty scrap of paper. ‘This too is very interesting; may I take it away and identify it?’ ‘Certainly,’” she said.

In Margaret’s own account, “I noticed that his eyes were glittering.”

Although the scrap looked, in Margaret’s words, “as if a grocer had used it for something greasy,” Schechter, it seems, realized its importance almost instantly, and within an hour of his racing from Castlebrae with the two items, the twins received a telegram from the Cherry Hinton Road post office, just around the corner from the Schechters’ gabled brick house on Rock Road:

fragment very important; come to me this afternoon

Probably accustomed to a certain easy agitation in their friend, the twins did not go rushing out to meet him, but sat down to lunch—at which point a letter arrived, splattered with unblotted ink and scrawled on Cambridge University Library stationery in Schechter’s lurching hand. Agnes realized that it had, in fact, been sent before the telegram and that they should eat as quickly as possible and get themselves over to Rock Road. (Schechter’s sense of urgency was such that he scrambled morning and night, writing p.m. for a.m.)

13/5/96
Dear Mrs Lewis
I think we have
reason to congratulate
ourself ourselves. For
the pice fragment I took
with me represents a
piece of the original
Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus
.
It is the first time that
such a thing was
discovered. Please do
not speak yet about
the matter till to-morrow.
I will come to you
to-morrow about 11
p.m. and talk over
the matter with you
how to make
the matter known.
In haste and
great excitement
yours sincerely,
S. Schechter.

Schechter’s plea for secrecy bubbled up from the fact that the original Hebrew of this apocryphal book—also known as Ben Sira—had been missing for nearly a millennium and survived, it was generally believed, only in its Greek and Syriac translations. The haste and great excitement with which he announced the discovery of this text would, however, soon give way to elation of a far more enduring and varied sort, as, within months, it brought Schechter to travel to Egypt and haul away one of the greatest finds unearthed in modern times: the astonishing cache of documents that has come to be known as the Cairo Geniza.

A fragment of the Cairo Geniza

A fragment of the Cairo Geniza

* * *

“Geniza” is a barely translatable Hebrew term that holds within it an ultimate statement about the worth of words and their place in Jewish life. It derives from the Persian ganj (or kanj), meaning “hoard” or “hidden treasure,” and while the expression itself doesn’t appear in the Bible, several of the later biblical books composed under Persian rule contain a handful of related inflections: Esther and Ezra, for instance, speak of ginzei hamelekh, or ginzei malka—“the King’s treasuries,” and the “royal archives.” Rabbinic usage of the root is more common, if also more peculiar: in the Talmud it almost always suggests the notion of “concealment” or “storing away”—though just what that entailed isn’t usually specified. The rabbis describe the light of Creation by which Adam could see from one end of the world to the other as being “hidden” or “stored up” (ganuz) for the souls of the righteous in the afterlife. Writing the sages deemed somehow heretical (including, at one point, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, “because [their] words contradicted one another”) should, some believed, also be ganuz, that is, censored in the most physical manner—by being buried. In one instance, a threatening text was placed under a step in a staircase. Likewise, religious manuscripts that time or human error has rendered unfit for use cannot be “thrown out,” but rather “require geniza”—removal, for example, to a clay jar and a safe place, “that they may continue many days” and “decay of their own accord.”

Implied in this latter idea of geniza is that these works, like people, are living things, possessing an element of the sacred about them—and therefore when they “die,” or become worn out, they must be honored and protected from profanation. “The contents of the book,” wrote Solomon Schechter, “go up to heaven like the soul.” The same Hebrew root, g-n-z, was, he noted, sometimes used on gravestones: “Here lies hidden (nignaz) this man.”

The origins and otherworldly aspects of the institution aren’t the only mysterious things about it. Both its development and its precise nature have remained curiously elusive. What we do know is that at some point the verbal noun “geniza” evolved from indicating a process to also connoting a place, either a burial plot, a storage chamber, or a cabinet where any damaged or somehow dubious holy book would be ritually entombed. In this way, the text’s sanctity would be preserved, and dangerous ideas kept from circulating. Or, as one early scholar of the material neatly put it: “A genizah serves… the twofold purpose of preserving good things from harm and bad things from harming.”

Often this depositing of the sacred texts in a secure location was only an interim solution and suggested a kind of liminal existence preceding actual interment. In some communities texts that had been stored in a geniza would eventually be buried alongside a saint or righteous individual; more frequently the scrolls and scraps were ritually consigned to the earth alone. In still other cases it appears that removal from circulation to a geniza constituted the terminal stage of the process and brought the writings in question to their final place of rest.

With modifications, the practice of geniza has continued throughout the Jewish world into the present, ranging greatly from community to community. (A related though less well-known tradition exists in Islam, and in Arabic the word for funeral, janaza, derives from the same three-letter root implying “concealment.”) In general and over time, it seems the talmudic notion of geniza as a form of censorship waned, and most genizot came to serve the more neutral function of holding obsolete texts. Beyond that, customs were idiosyncratic and highly variable. A nook near or under the synagogue’s ark, a basement room, a cubbyhole—all could and did function as genizot. (One Iraqi community chose to honor their bags of tired texts by throwing them into the river.) The fragments that required this sort of treatment became known as shemot, or names: they were considered sacred because they bore the name of God. In some towns and cities, the geniza materials were taken out of their receptacles on a designated day and buried in an elaborate ritual that was part funeral, part carnival. Depending on local tradition, the papers and books—and often discarded ritual objects that included or had contact with a written text, such as mezuzot, phylactery straps, and the like—would be placed in straw baskets, leather sheets, or lengths of white cloth, like shrouds. Coffins draped with decorative fabrics were sometimes used to hold a no-longer-valid Torah scroll, and the privilege of pallbearing was bestowed upon those who had donated money to the synagogue. Songs were sung, cakes eaten, and arak was drunk as a procession set out for the cemetery. This act of inhumation served, in fact, as a kind of twin ritual to the dedication of a new Torah scroll, and after the old scroll was buried, pilgrimages to the “grave” would be performed, just as they were made to the tombs of certain holy men.

For reasons that remain obscure, in the case of the Palestinian Jews of Fustat, or Old Cairo—who worshipped in what would eventually become known as the Ben Ezra synagogue—the tradition of geniza was, it seems, extended to include the preservation of anything written in Hebrew letters, not only religious documents, and not just in the Hebrew language. Perhaps, as one scholar has proposed, “the very employment of the Hebrew script… sanctified written material.” Another theory holds that the Jews of this community may simply have piled up papers in their homes and periodically delivered whole cartfuls to the Geniza without bothering to separate sacred from secular writing. Or, maybe, as another writer has suggested—in an effort to make sense of the hodgepodge of texts that have turned up in the Fustat Geniza—the impulse to guard the written word may have gone beyond piety and evolved into a “generalized aversion toward casually discarding texts of any kind.” Whatever the explanation, for most of the last millennium, hundreds of thousands of scraps were tossed into the Ben Ezra Geniza, which came to serve as a kind of holy junk heap.

More town square than sanctuary, the Fustat synagogue complex was the pivot around which its community’s life in the busy city spun. In addition to serving as a house of prayer and center of study, it provided the congregation’s welfare office, soup kitchen, hostel, clerical and bookkeeping headquarters, and its court of law. As such, all manner of paperwork passed through it and—when discarded—slowly filled to the actual rafters a windowless box of a room on the synagogue’s second floor. Thanks to the dry climate and various legends about a venomous serpent guarding the entrance and a curse that would visit anyone who dared disturb what it held, the haphazardly piled paper and parchment mostly remained hidden behind a wall in the women’s section, until Schechter’s arrival in late December of 1896.

Fustat. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Fustat. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

What he discovered there astonished him, and in fact it seems almost impossible now to imagine how it is that so much could have emerged from so little. Barely more than eight feet long by six and a half feet wide, and extending to a height of some six yards, the Ben Ezra Geniza was the size of glorified walk-in closet. Yet here was an entire civilization. After Schechter had climbed a rickety ladder to reach that dim attic-like opening, and once his widening eyes had adjusted to the dark, he found himself staring into a space crammed to bursting with nearly ten centuries’ worth of one Middle Eastern, mostly middle-class Jewish community’s detritus—its letters and poems, its wills and marriage contracts, its bills of lading and writs of divorce, its prayers, prescriptions, trousseau lists, Bibles, money orders, amulets, court depositions, shop inventories, rabbinic responsa, contracts, leases, magic charms, and receipts. “A battlefield of books,” Schechter called it, and at first glance it must have seemed an unlikely (and unsightly) mess. As another visitor described the physical state of the Geniza’s contents: “For centuries, whitewash has tumbled upon them from the walls and ceiling; the sand of the desert has lodged in their folds and wrinkles; water from some unknown source has drenched them; they have squeezed and hurt each other.”

It took, in other words, real imagination on Schechter’s part to grasp what faced him in the unprepossessing room later referred to by one Cambridge professor as “that pestiferous wrack.” But grasp it he did: in the dank and musty chaos, Schechter soon came to understand that he had uncovered no less than a cross section of an entire society, and one that lay at the very navel of the medieval world—linking East and West, Arab and Jew, the daily imprint of the sacred and the venerable extension of the profane. Written on vellum or on rag paper, in ink of gallnut and soot and gum, these pages and scrolls were composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic, as well as Greek, Persian, Latin, Ladino, and even Yiddish—all written in Hebrew characters. Because those family and business papers were often tossed in unsorted, and stationery was precious and regularly “recycled,” we also find Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and—in one odd instance—Chinese. Their words were set down by young men and old, by women, children, students, and scribes, by rabbis and rebels, rich and poor, the famous and the forgotten.

Such was the miraculous nature of what Schechter found in the Cairo Geniza that some have compared its discovery to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Cairo Geniza, goes this argument, is actually the more important find, since the sensational, ancient scriptures from Qumran were—as most scholars have seen them—a cultic aberration, “the work of men who gave up the world . . . to find God in a wilderness,” whereas the Geniza embraces and embodies the world as it really was, warts and wonders alike, for the vast majority of medieval Jews. One of the twentieth century’s greatest historians, S. D. Goitein, whose writing about the daily and most mundane Geniza documents unfurled a vibrant panorama of this Mediterranean society, clearly had such a comparison in mind when he titled a 1970 talk about the Geniza “The Living Sea Scrolls.”

The materials of the so-called classical period of the Geniza alone (the later tenth through mid-thirteenth centuries) have occupied scores of scholars for more than a hundred years, transforming in the most fundamental way how we might understand Jewish history, leadership, literature, economics, marriage, charity, prayer, family, sex, and almost every other subject imaginable—from the nature of the silk trade to astrology, religious dissent, Hebrew grammar, glassmaking, and medieval attitudes toward death. There is, in point of fact, no other premodern period of the Jewish past about which we have so many and varied details. Because of the Geniza, we can nearly hear and see—and often almost smell and touch—the urbane world of the Arabized Jews who populated Fustat. If one is used to thinking of Judaism as a straight shot from the Bible to the shtetl, followed by a brief stopover on the Lower East Side, it may seem strange to realize that this socially integrated Jewish society was not just a product of some peculiar local circumstance but was, instead, emblematic of its epoch. Lest we forget, from the time of antiquity until around 1200, over 90 percent of the world’s Jewish population lived in the East and, after the Muslim conquest, under the rule of Islam. Fustat was, in its medieval heyday, home to the most prosperous Jewish community on earth, and served as a commercial axis for Jews throughout North Africa and the Middle East and as far away as India. At the same time, the city contained nearly every race, class, occupation, and religious strain the region had to offer. “It was,” as Goitein saw it, “a mirror of the world.”

The story of the Geniza and its recovery is, by nature, a tale with numerous heroes, medieval and modern. Although Schechter deserves much of the credit for having, by force of his expansive historical vision and truly exceptional personality, rescued some 190,000 Geniza fragments from a kind of oblivion (or random dispersal), he was hardly the first to be drawn to the cache. Its presence was known—and at least partly appreciated—well before he arrived on the scene. “Looking over this enormous mass of fragments about me,” Schechter wrote, in Moses-on-Nebo-like fashion, after several year of hard work breathing in the dust and spirit of this culture’s disjecta membra, “I cannot overcome a sad feeling stealing over me, that I shall hardly be worthy to see all the results which the Genizah will add to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism. The work is not for one man, and not for one generation.”

But this is perhaps as it should be. For the Geniza itself tells the tale of many generations, each of which preserved and transformed a part of the tradition it received. Maintaining the practice of concealment, ironically, made future revelation possible, as, over the centuries, an inadvertent archive was amassed. And so, in an almost unconscious manner, the Fustat community restored to the notion of geniza its ancient and essential dimension—that of history as hidden treasure.

* * *

From the Book: Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza by Adina Hoffman and Peter Cole, copyright © 2011 Adina Hoffman and Peter Cole. Published by arrangement with Schocken Books, an imprint of The Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.

Kitchen Rhythm: A Year in a Parisian Pâtisserie

$
0
0

Frances Leech | Vintage | March 2013 | 14 minutes (3378 words)

The Longreads Exclusive below is based on Frances Leech’s ebook of the same name, published in 2013 by Vintage UK.

***

To make chocolate mousse, enough for 150 people, say, first whip the cream — liters and liters of it. Then, separately, whisk the egg yolks. Boil sugar and water and add to the yolks, still whisking, in a thin drizzle. Melt the chocolate, then stir, fold, and whisk everything together with some gelatin.

What is missing from this description, the bare-bones sketch in the red address book that alphabetizes all of my work recipes, is the physical sensations. When I started my apprenticeship in Paris a year ago, I learned that baking can be at once precise and vague. Measure everything to the last gram, simple enough. Harder to describe what the meringue mixture should look like when it is just right, hard to put the steady pressure of a hand piping cream into words. I looked and looked and was frustrated over and over.

Then I started listening. When the dough for puff pastry is sufficiently kneaded it will start to clunk in the mixer. When the cream for the chocolate mousse is softly whipped it will fall with a slap slap slap into the bowl. Drifts of cream, like rumpled silk, not stiff damask. Pour the boiling sugar onto the egg yolks and listen as the hornet’s nest whir changes to a pata-pata-pat-a-pat.

Sound is so important in baking. White chocolate squares clink like Scrabble tiles. Properly tempered chocolate makes a slight crack when you bite through the shell to a yielding ganache, as all the molecules have been neatly lined up — a different guilty pleasure altogether from the cottony thunk of a cheap candy bar. There is a perfect word in Japanese for the thin chocolate sheets we use for decoration, pakipaki, the sound they make when snapped into shards. One of the quiet moments in the otherwise doom-laden film Perfect Sense shows a candle-lit restaurant with a couple of patrons — they had all lost their senses of smell and taste in a global pandemic — carefully breaking a long cheese biscuit in half and in half again, holding it up to their ears.

When talking about food we tend to focus on the visual effects as well as the obvious taste and smell, and forget about its aural and tactile qualities. But when the world becomes too much, too loud, I use crisps to fill the space between my ears with white noise. Traditional comfort food, mashed potatoes or rice pudding, is much too quiet to muffle my worries.

Sound is the reason that Jacques Genin, one of France’s pastry deities, serves his millefeuille à la minute: for the shatter-crack of the puff pastry as it puts up resistance to fork and ear. Texture is firstly sound — or the absence of it — and millefeuilles are often a soggy thud, a disappointment full of claggy custard. Genin’s version comes down the spiral stairs freshly made, three perfect squares of puff pastry enclosing a few piped drops of vanilla-specked cream. You can feel the “thousand leaves” crackling with caramelized sugar as you demolish it. Listen really carefully and you hear the vanilla seeds pop between your teeth.

In our tiny bakery on the other side of Paris, the cakes are made in the early morning, to preserve that freshness and crunch. At 5:37 a.m. my alarm goes off for the first time. By 6:09 a.m. I will be waiting on the métro platform. Normally I’ll be greeted by a stale smell of urine, at least one mouse. In the carriage, plenty of silent people, men, bundled up in black coats. No one else has a small jam jar full of porridge. Eating on the go is frowned upon, and the cold and early mornings do not count as mitigating circumstances. By 6:27 a.m. I pull open the swing door and duck under the pink curtain of the pâtisserie. I am probably last. If my check trousers are still damp from the wash, I drape them over the oven door for five minutes. There are four bakers. The floor space we share is not much larger than my bedroom.

Although we make classic French pastries, almost everyone is Japanese: the boss, the manager, the shopgirls, the bakers. There is one French girl who works nights making chocolate, but she is fluent, and enjoys the language practice. A never-ending supply of keen Japanese cooks come over to France to earn their stripes, or rather their checked chef trousers. Though Tokyo now has more Michelin stars than Paris, working in France still has cachet. Here there are several high-profile Japanese pâtissiers — Yamazaki, Sadaharu Aoki — and even a Japanese pâtisserie school somewhere in the Parisian banlieue. In my shop, I am the odd one out. I have only high-school Japanese, which, as most kids know from language lessons, means ordering a beer, catching a bus, and maybe reading a pre-prepared discourse on the environment, most of which I had forgotten. Over the last year, I have learned how to sweep the floor in Japanese, how to ask for the sugar, how to shriek DANGER HOT HOT HOT.

“There, can you hear it? Pata-pata-patapatapat.” Add eggs to the butter and sugar mixture for the vanilla tart dough and listen to the mixer making the curious sound. I think I can hear it but I can’t define it in words. Such is the problem with a manual skill, so too with a new language: how to translate your sensations through a new filter. After the inevitable swear word comparison, the second most common conversation for beginners making their way, forging cross-cultural bonds, is on animal noises. No specialist lexicon necessary, just funny faces, moos, clucks and whistles. But something that seems so intuitive is not, in fact, at all: animals sound different depending on how many phonemes there are in your language. That even my “ouch!” is not a natural reaction but restricted by phonetics fascinates me. My colleagues hear “ow,” like a barking Japanese dog.

Any explanation of baking is likewise limiting. How do you describe the pressure of a hand or the bubbles in a simmering crème citron? Okakura Kakuzō’s Book of Tea effectively elaborates on the three stages of boiling water: “The first boil is when the little bubbles like the eye of fishes swim on the surface; the second boil is when the bubbles are like crystal beads rolling in a fountain; the third boil is when the billows surge wildly in the kettle.” But he also acknowledges the difficulties of translation. Like the reverse side of brocade embroidery, the basic colors and shapes are there, but the finesse is missing.

The fact that my colleagues and I are lacking a common tongue sometimes helps me. After our halting exchanges in French, I have to look again to confirm the thick consistency of the custard, hear the plop as it falls off the whisk. I have to use all of my senses to confirm if the eggs for the génoise mixture have been properly beaten. After baking it for 45 minutes, as written in the recipe, I still have to check by pressing the springy almond sponge with the heel of my hand.

Just before 9 a.m. the shop girls arrive, greet us politely. Ohayo gozaimasu!  They make us tea and baguette, which the others normally leave to get cold as they rush around bruléeing apricots and chopping pears. At 10 a.m. someone will call out a stern warning — ju ji desu! — as the shop is about to open and the cakes are not yet all lined up in their diagonal regiments in the window. After that, washing up, always washing up, and the heavy lifting for the day. 100 passion fruit and coconut mousses, 18 kilos of chestnut and rum paste for our Mont Blanc tarts. Bear in mind that this is a very small operation: nothing can be wasted. In the big factories outside Paris like Ladurée, there are machines to stuff tarts and cook custard. Half of their production is lost along the way — lopsided or broken, it goes in the bin. Here, the margins are small and the pressure is on.

Later in the day, I might get to play with the pastry break, or “laminator,” a conveyor belt that shuttles pastry dough back and forth to roll it thinner. Or my favorite task, to stir the vat of chocolate mousse: after the egg yolks, sugar, chocolate, cream, and gelatin are whisked together, I have to plunge in an arm elbow-deep to scrape the bottom, to remove those graduated swirls of brown and white to make a smooth, even color. The cool mousse coating my skin does not feel like work, it feels like a spa.

Touch is key. For tempering chocolate, just holding the spatula to the soft upper lip should be enough to check the temperature, the same for testing fondant icing with a little finger. Scariest of all, the appareil à bombe (the boiling sugar that transforms egg yolks into pillowy fluff) must be tested with a forefinger quickly dipped in very cold water. If the sugar disappears, wait a little. When it forms a fudgy ball, it is ready to pour. Hard filaments and it might be too late.

Like a child, I make continual mistakes with my grammar and with my hands. I listen and copy without understanding the structure. I mimic the movements but miss the knack, the flick of the wrist. For the piping I just have to practice and practice. For the language, I can look it up later and write a vocabulary list. The Japanese I use is an odd mishmash of the words closest to hand: French culinary terms and brands, English adopted words like chizu (cheese). There’s also the curiously onomatopoeic subsection of Japanese vocabulary. The bun bun is the hand blender, kachi kachi means and sounds like “hard,” whereas suppai mimics the lip-smacking effect of “sour.” My favorite colleague, the one whose name means something like “the color of the sky just before sunset,” taught me her own brand of Japanese, repeated and sketched out in the flour coating the bench. The others started laughing when I asked for a giji giji knife (doesn’t that just sound like a serrated knife sawing through a loaf of bread?) or for a chibi chibi (teeny tiny) tart ring. It isn’t textbook learning, but I liked discovering the logic of her Japanese, how its terminology echoes the sounds of the bakery.

As a former language student who has lived in France and Italy, I revel in words, in finding patterns and tricks in poetry, in discovering foreign words for concepts previously unknown. But it is still hard for me to talk about food without being reductive or using an excess of similes. We make crème citron, crème aux marrons and crème pâtissière which all have different densities and textures. English is not much better; lemon curd, chestnut paste and baker’s custard still do not pin down the particularities in the range of different creams. Even the English translation for pâtissier is not quite right. Calling myself a pastry chef sounds limiting, just empty tart shells and hollow moulds. If I say baker, it sounds too much like bread, which under the French system is a whole qualification in itself.

Near 1 p.m., if I am not too slow, hopefully we get to eat. More tea, pork and sesame stew, and a rice cooker full of sticky warm rice. Around Christmas, when we have to spend 15-20 hours in the little subterranean space, someone will set the oven timer and we can take a short nap on the stainless-steel counter, plates pushed back, faces pillowed on soft arms. Eventually, we go again. More pastry, more stocking up. If yesterday was the fromage blanc mousse with red-fruit coulis, then today will be the air gun. White chocolate is blasted through an airbrush with a loud buzz and a cloud of chocolate smoke to coat the triangular mousses with a velvety powder. The oven also roars as puff pastry slowly rises inside.

It was a millefeuille that led me to my bakery. An American friend had voted our strawberry version to be better than the one from the famous Lenôtre two doors down. So I applied. In the way of chance meetings, I found myself making those layered desserts every morning for a year. A strip of puff pastry, a layer of vanilla crème patissière lightened with whipped cream and just half a capful of Grand Marnier, then strawberry triangles interlaced across. Repeat, and finish with a third layer of pastry. Press some crackly feuilletine onto the sides and freeze for an hour to get a clean cut. Dust with icing sugar and top with one raspberry, one red currant, and a glazed strawberry half.

Only when I had graduated from apprentice to full-time working staff did they move me from millefeuille, éclairs, and all things cream — just cutting and sticking really, nursery-level tasks — to the oven with its exponential possibility for mistakes. Then I learned how to bake the puff pastry: finely sprinkle caster sugar over a whole sheet of baking paper before placing the pastry square, more paper, and a wire rack on top so that it puffs evenly. (180°C for 20 minutes.) Press the rack gently to even out the puff, remove paper, and dust generously with icing sugar. Back in the oven to caramelize the top, an extra baking tray underneath to protect the bottom from overbaking. (210°C for 10-12 minutes.) The sugar will turn to toffee and start a lava ooze towards the edge of the baking paper; be careful when pulling it onto a rack to cool.

If the hot sugar hits your skin, you will hear a slight hiss — the hiss of a drop of water in a frying pan — before you really feel it.

I have burned both cakes and myself. I wear my scars like badges — a thin line from a seven-liter bath of crème pâtissière, an isosceles from the first time I was allowed to make four trays of the cocoa sponge sans farine. When I am in disgrace there is mostly silence, as yesterday when I let fall seven shiny raspberry-chocolate desserts onto the floor. I get no Ramsay-style lambasting, none of the bravado of Bourdain’s circles of hell. (The most familiar element of his book was the repeated description of various chefs’ sallow skin from years underground, under fluorescent lights.) No one yells at me. Instead there is a deflated-balloon sigh of disappointment, then work continues at its usual steady pace. For half an hour or so afterwards I imagine the electric beaters are muttering chigao-chigao-chigao, the Japanese rebuke that literally means “different,” but signifies a harsher “No! Not like that at all. Did you not write down the instructions?” These little sounds knit my day together with their soft rhythm. The evening that I spent hand-dipping hundreds of caramels was punctuated by the endless tap tap tap of the skinny fork on metal. A bum note would tell me just before the caramel globe would topple back into its chocolate bath. Another girl was renamed Koro, after the noise of the wooden rolling pin clunking onto the floor. She repeatedly let it drop.

During December we all worked long crazy hours, overnight. At 9 a.m. on Christmas morning I came home in an empty métro — only a couple of tourists and a few of the Chinese local to my area were aboard — and promptly fell asleep in the bath. But there was a certain camaraderie, a shared masochism and pride in the hundreds of bûches de Noël so painstakingly prepared. For lunch on January 1st, after another all-nighter, the boss prepared special Japanese New Year soup with sticky mochi. My colleagues all love food, sigh over the memory of a proper bowl of Tokyo ramen, compare addresses. (This I can understand, the litany of ramen sashimi unagi donburi.) They come from different cities but can always bond over past meals. They are delighted that I know okonomiyaki, a pancake full of noodles and bean sprouts, maybe egg and pork, roughly translated as ‘as-you-like-it-cooked-thing.’

Sometimes we have more in common than just being foreign together, Japanese and English in an uptight French city. We discover a mutual love of proper tea and a similar knack for apology. (Elsewhere in Paris, you get a pot of lukewarm water with a tea bag abandoned alongside, and a defiant shrug.) We repeat “excuse me,” “shitsurei shimasu,” “sorry,” “gomen nasai,” as we squeeze past the narrow corridor between freezers and countertops. I am saving the queen of all apologies, moshiwake gozaimasen, for a special occasion. (More than seven cakes on the floor, then.) It means “there is no excuse. I am so ashamed that there is nothing I can say to make this better.” In my tiny Japanese corner I have some escape from the “service is a privilege,” nose-in-the-air attitude common to Parisian shopkeepers.

“Franpi!” (My new nickname.) “The chocolate disc is not supposed to be perpendicular, but at a slight angle. Better. And you forgot the gold leaf!” Woe betide me if she notices that in my haste, the gold has stuck to the last smudges of glucose on my fingers, and is now wasted, embedded in the cracks on my hands. Our head pâtissier’s precision comes from the steel core of a mother who can keep six recipes spinning at once, and, rail-thin, can heft a 25-kilo sack of flour without a problem.  Sometimes she accidentally calls me by the name and familiar suffix of her toddler son, though she is my age. I’m not sure if it is exasperation or affection — my clumsiness must frustrate her. If I do get the mirror glaze just right, deep black and brilliant, she nods an approving jōzu, a word usually used for hopeful tourists who manage to pronounce konnichiwa, bestowed with all the tenderness and pride of a pet owner. Just as Paris beckons you in, only to then snub you fiercely, so does this word — a frontier between actually speaking Japanese and only trying. Jōzu is a pat on the head, a gold star that I need to get past, in language and in pastry.

About 4 p.m., the final job is always lining the tart shells for the next day, chocolate and vanilla. Then the crumbs are swept up, the cupboards wiped down, and the floor mopped. On hands and knees sometimes, to get around the corners. It is a relief to turn off the oven and the murmur of the air conditioning and leave the laboratory mute.

Sometimes I like to imagine being one of Zola’s miners, covered in dust and sweat, digging kilos of butter underground, blinking into the sun upon finally emerging. It is a brief reminder of all the books read at university, and how different this last year has been. Abandoning the proper career prospects an Oxford degree should have laid out for me was not an act of bravery or defiance. It wasn’t out of misplaced nostalgia for a simpler time, for edifying manual labor. To talk about working with one’s hands as more fulfilling is to fall into the trap of looking for an imagined creativity from times past. I started pastry school because I was baking compulsively in my spare time anyway, mixing and folding and stirring, and because I loved the taste, the fireworks of sugar. Now, I appreciate the possibility of using all of my senses at once.

Like living in Paris, there is satisfaction in the very idea of pâtisserie: so romantic! Free cakes! Maybe a floral apron! The reality turns out to involve scars and a lot of bleach. Reality is mundane. The city is cold, the bakery exhausting. But just as it begins to wear me down, the idea catches me by surprise again. Paris puts on her brightest autumn coat and winks, and once again I fall in love. Someone opens a box of vanilla sugar and the scent inundates the tiny room. I feel the chocolate mousse up to my elbows. I learn a new word. Beguiled again, won over, I carry on making cakes with my ears and eyes, hands and heart.

***

Frances Leech is a writer and pastry chef living in Paris. She co-wrote and illustrated A Pocket Feast, a Paris food guide. Her work can also be found on tangerine drawings.


‘A Taste of Power’: The Woman Who Led the Black Panther Party

$
0
0

Elaine Brown | A Taste of Power, Pantheon | 1992 | 30 minutes (7,440 words)

 

Elaine Brown is an American prison activist, writer, lecturer and singer. In 1968, she joined the Los Angeles chapter of the Black Panther Party as a rank-and-file member. Six years later, Huey Newton appointed her to lead the Party when he went into exile in Cuba. She was the first and only woman to lead the male-dominated Party.  She is author of A Taste of Power (Pantheon, 1992) and The Condemnation of Little B (Beacon Press, 2002)She is also the Executive Director of the Michael Lewis Legal Defense Committee and CEO of the newly-formed non-profit organization Oakland & the World Enterprises, Inc.

Her 1992 autobiography A Taste of Power is a story of what it means to be a black woman in America, tracing her life from a lonely girlhood in the ghettos of North Philadelphia to the highest levels of the Black Panther Party’s hierarchy. The Los Angeles Times described the book as “a profound, funny and…heartbreaking American story,” and the New York Times called it “chilling, well written and profoundly entertaining.” Our thanks to Brown for allowing us to reprint this excerpt here.

* * *

Her skin was very white. She was a porcelain doll, and just as delicate. I never resented what Masai felt for her. It was understandable. Jean Seberg was truly beautiful.

We had met Jean in the early part of that terrible year of 1969. David had “assigned” Masai and me to see her. She was another white movie star who wanted to help.

A small group of Hollywood helpers had already begun to astound us with their support for our chapter by the time we met Jean. If we had thought about it, it was a natural alliance.

Historically, artists were the traditional allies of movements for social change. In the twentieth century, the art of filmmaking had produced men like Charlie Chaplin, so progressive he became a personal target of J. Edgar Hoover’s anti-Communist campaign. There had been the Hollywood Ten, and tens more, who were blacklisted from the film industry for refusing to cower before U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist raid on America.

Recent history gave further testimony to that affiliation. The civil-rights movement, the most potent surge for social change in the history of America, had been vigorously supported by artists, black and white. When the latter-day Black Power people seized leadership of the black struggle, they shunned all white involvement, raising fists in white faces. White artists found their support of that movement rejected. Whatever the hazards of association, the Black Panther Party seemed to make a place in the sun for sympathetic whites. White artists were the first to come in out of the cold.

As Los Angeles and New York were the main homes of the artistic communities America fostered, the party chapters there began developing relationships with liberal and progressive white artists. In New York, there were such notable supporters as Leonard Bernstein. Our chapter in Southern California, however, was becoming the beneficiary of the support of the most powerful collection of artists in America: the Hollywood film industry’s ac­tors, actresses, producers, writers, and directors.

People like Don and Shirley Sutherland, and the writer Don Freed, and actors like Jon Voight and Susan St. James and Jane Fonda, and, most consistent of all, producer Bert Schneider had begun lending us their homes for fund-raising soirees that produced thousands of dollars in hard cash. They subscribed to and helped obtain other subscriptions for our newspaper. They sent monthly checks for our breakfast program, and paid our incessant bails. As most black artists, along with other black professionals, steered around and away from us, we clutched Hollywood, and did not analyze it. We thanked our stars.

That was what made me so resentful of author Tom Wolfe’s wholesale appraisal of such white supporters with the epithet “radical chic.” The influential and popular Wolfe coined that phrase to characterize the rich and famous suddenly latching on to the Panther cause—with the added counterimage of the black Mau Mau, who operated a flimflam to privately exploit the radical chic.

The bevy of white “star” supporters were, the cosmopolitan Wolfe suggested, only casting themselves in a more interesting role, to enliven the boring comfort of life between their real roles. I thought his well-touted term was, at best, a superficial stereotype. At worst, that label, as it seeped into the lingo of the times, ridiculed our supporters with a judgment that could make them recoil.

It was true that some of those cinematic souls were motivated by something less than concern over the plight of poor and oppressed black people. It was equally true that there were ordinary black opportunists in our revolution, as in our ranks. Among those at the various parties and brunches our steady supporters sponsored, there were surely those who wanted to satisfy their curiosity about mythical black men. There were surely those titillated by the danger and daring seemingly involved in being near real black “militants.” There were surely those who imagined themselves vicariously linked to some dramatic revolutionary act. There were surely those who simply found it the thing to do in 1969.

None of that was the point. We were dying, and all of them, the strongest and the most frivolous, were helping us survive another day.

There was nothing at all radically chic about Jean Seberg. From the moment Masai and I entered her rented house in Beverly Hills, I felt her genuineness and decency. She was expressive, like a little girl, excitedly interested in our programs. Transplanted from an all-white, all-American youth in Iowa, she really wanted to know about black people, about the nature of our oppression and the price of our freedom.

She had supported other efforts of blacks in the past: the NAACP—surprisingly, when she was a teenager in Iowa; and, more recently, the school and other social programs of a flashy, independent Muslim named Hakim Jamal (whom Masai knew). She had come to the realization, she told us, that black people could never be treated fairly or justly unless entire systems in America were revolutionized. She wanted to support such an effort.

Her friend, fellow actress Vanessa Redgrave, through whom she had made initial contact with us, considered Jean foolish to become involved with the Black Panther Party. While it was never clear to me precisely why Redgrave felt that way, Jean had her own ideals. She simply believed what she had been taught back in Marshalltown, embodied in the words about freedom and equality found in the Declaration of Independence. To me, Jean seemed a free spirit and a true believer.

After several hours of listening to Masai and I discuss the ideals and goals of the party, and the specifics of our programs, she offered her financial support—and something more, I sensed, as she and Masai lapsed into a long, personal conversation about Hakim Jamal.

Masai and I visited her about once a week after that. Soon I saw no point in going with him.

That was months before the raid on our office and Fred Hampton’s assassination. Jean had given us quite a bit of money by then. She gave it in incremental amounts, several thousand dollars at a time. Our arrangement was that she would telephone Masai or me when she had a contribution to make. She would simply leave a message that she had called. An envelope of cash would then be delivered to my mother’s house for one of us to pick up. She used a pseudonym when she called, “Aretha,” after the Queen of Soul. The three of us had laughed in deciding on that name. Jean felt if she was known as a major contributor to the party, she would not get work in Hollywood, and would not, in turn, have the resources to continue. It was logical.

That first meeting with Jean was also some time before I became pregnant with Masai’s child, before he began spending most of his time in Oakland, before his sudden marriage. It was also before Masai’s wife, too, became pregnant—which gave rise to Jean’s dubbing him “Johnny Appleseed.”

When I returned to Los Angeles after Fred’s funeral in Chicago, I called Jean. She was out of the country, but she made arrangements to get some money to our chapter as soon as possible.

The main office on Central Avenue could not be occupied. Thousands of rounds of Los Angeles Police Department ammunition had punctured and destroyed the walls of our two-story building. There were so many bulletholes that light from the front of the building shone through to the back. So many tear-gas canisters had been tossed into the building’s windows and doors that people passing by the building on the street still became nauseous and teary-eyed.

The damage had been done by an army: the LAPD’s new, and previously unknown, Special Weapons and Tactics team, known as SWAT. SWAT, a funny acronym, its sound descriptive of its intentions for us, was billed as an “urban guerrilla counter-insurgency team”—superior to and superseding the Metro Squad.

Before the raid on our office, no one had heard of SWAT. People had seemed incredulous when we told them about those dark blue trucks containing heavy artillery and military materials and specially trained men that had sat outside the Central Avenue office in November, a month before. Now it was clear that the LAPD had spent several hundred thousand dollars to actually create a military force to do one thing: eliminate the Black Panther Party in their domain.

In one fell swoop, they had tried to destroy our Southern California office and our Southern California chapter. They had come at three in the morning with a search warrant and a battering ram and a helicopter and a tank and those dark blue trucks. They had assaulted the headquarters building, as well as two other facilities.

SWAT team members assaulting our headquarters had sustained substantial wounds, while Panthers had not—at least not any serious bullet wounds. Albert Armour, at another facility, had even survived, after fighting SWAT team units alone for half an hour, firing from the rooftop when the building was overtaken and the few others there were forced to surrender. Tommye Williams had been the most serious casualty of the assault, taking a ricocheted bullet in her leg.

Later, however, they had all been beaten mercilessly. Kidneys had been collapsed by gun butts. Teeth had been kicked out by combat boots. Eyes had been stomped closed.

Later, after the five-hour battle on Central Avenue, our type­writers and mimeograph machines and telephones had been smashed. Our posters had been ripped from the walls. Our pots and pans and food and books had been strewn wildly, angrily, over the second-story floors. Our files had been demolished. Our furniture had been broken; our roof caved in.

As I walked through the headquarters building with a gas mask, I was overcome by the wreckage committed by rage. I stared at the hundreds of cigarette filters sprinkled on the floors. My comrades had stuffed them into their nostrils when gas masks had failed them, to keep from being forced outside. They had hunkered down behind the sandbags and reinforced walls and fought like madmen and survived. Now they were all in jail under exorbitant bails for extravagant charges.

Reviewing the devastation, I wondered how long our spirit could last. After visiting my eighteen comrades in jail and the hospital wards of the jail, I knew the police had damaged us severely. Still, they had destroyed neither our chapter nor our will. We would start again.

 

* * *

It was hard to be pregnant under the circumstances. As March 1970 drew near, however, and I began to feel the regular movements of a living being inside me, the anger and rage of 1969 were assuaged. In the hours of quiet in my bed in the chapter’s house in Compton, where I now lived, I would touch the outline of my swelled belly. There would come what seemed a response. I could see it! It was delightful, the sight and feeling of a little being turning, reaching, moving inside my body. I took to talking to the baby and telling it what was happening.

Now we were being stopped in our car by a pig named Zeigler. He was forcing us out of the car at gunpoint and delightedly announcing that if he shot me in the stomach, he could “kill two birds with one stone.” Now we were speaking at a huge mass rally for the eighteen L.A. Panthers in jail from the December raids; and cheering with the thousands over the testimonial of “Bebe,” the lady who lived around the corner from the Central Avenue headquarters. She was addressing the crowd, her wig cocked “ace-deuce”: “Yeah, the police come early in the mornin’, rootin’ us up out of our houses, tellin’ us not to say a thing. And I say to my friend, ‘Why they doin’ this to the Panters? When I’m sick, I can’t call no doctor. I calls the Panters, and they come see ’bout me.’ And she say, ‘That’s right, honey.’ And then I say, ‘And when I ain’t got no food for my children, I calls the Panters, and they come see ’bout me …’ ”

The Black Panther newsletter, 1971: Libcom

The Black Panther newsletter, 1971: Libcom

Now we were making a speech at an Emma Lazarus Jewish Women’s Club meeting, where old Polish ladies who had fought the Nazis with guns and refused to go to the gas chambers were telling me to stop smoking while I was pregnant.

Now we were singing to a hundred thousand people gathered in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park for an antiwar rally, where David’s speech, which suggested the war be ended by killing Nixon, triggered his arrest for “conspiracy to kill the President.”

Now we were meeting “Aunt Jean” at the airport, where she announced that she, too, was pregnant.

“Can you believe it?” Jean Seberg declared excitedly above the din as I greeted her at the L.A. airport.

She touched my stomach and spoke to the baby: “Aunt Jean is having a baby, too!”

This, I thought, was the “wonderful secret” she had told me about over the telephone, girlishly enticing me to meet her at the airport if I wanted to hear more.

“No, Jean, I can’t believe it,” I said, feeling afraid for her.

I felt no one would understand about the boy in Mexico she was telling me had fathered the child. For all intents and purposes, she was still, married to French author Romain Gary. She still lived with him officially in France. It was a marriage headed for divorce, but a divorce that would be complicated given the Catholic­-grounded French divorce laws.

I told her all that.

“Romain is my friend more than my husband. He’ll understand when he sees how happy I am,” she said, beaming.

She had met the father in Mexico, where she had just completed a film about Mexican revolutionaries. The boy had a part in the film. He was more than an actor, she swore. He was a revolutionary himself, she said, as I recalled another love affair she had had during a different film. Maybe she had confused everything. Maybe Tom Wolfe was right. But I had come to love Jean. She was happy, and she needed to be loved.

“So you had a love affair,” I finally declared, “but this is really foolish, Jean.” I tried suggesting she return to Mexico to have an abortion.

“You should be happy for me,” she exclaimed brightly, sidestepping everything I had said. “You, of all people, should be really happy for me. I want this baby, don’t you see?”

She was going back to France, anyway, to wind up her life with Gary.

“I am happy for you,” I said, resigned to the notion that she did not live by the rules.

Her blond hair was still close-cropped, a remnant of her debut film Saint Joan. She looked the part even then. She was the part, an absurd girl who could never accept brutality or oppression or injustice, and who really believed in love.

She handed me a present she had bought for her “niece or nephew” and kissed me goodbye.

 * * *

I was sure Jean would have held my hand. I longed for someone to do so, though I tried to be stalwart. I realized I had done nothing to prepare for the moment of the birth of my baby. The Vietnamese women had their babies one day and got back into battle the next, I had told myself. I was, after all, a revolutionary. There were bullets or prisons waiting to take me. There was the grave, ultimately. Surely I could have a baby.

The pain was more than I could bear. I felt alone, and sad for being so. I felt powerless. I did not want to go through with it. I could not believe I would have to give birth to that baby who had been with me for those past months, whose face I did not know. A living being would actually have to emerge from my body. I was frightened.

Ray "Masai" HewittIt's About Time BPP Archives

Ray “Masai” Hewitt: It’s About Time BPP Archives

Masai, who in the last month had decided to behave like the father of my child, arrived at the hospital. He brought my mother with him. Dorothy Phillips, a Sister in the party who lived with me and the others in the Compton house, was there. She had driven me to the hospital at four in the morning, Masai being elsewhere with his pregnant wife. Neither my mother nor Dorothy, nor even Masai, however, was allowed to see me. Because he was not married to me, Masai’s paternity was irrelevant to the Catholics who operated Queen of Angels Hospital—none of whom, I thought, had to have this baby.

Giving birth was endurable until the moment there was no break between the labor pains. I had thought it would be a 5-4-3-2-1-0 operation. There was one sustaining pain now, hard and unbearable. I begged the nurse coming to check on me for some­ thing to ease the pain. She responded by telling me to breathe properly. I had forgotten to go to those stupid classes for breathing, I now remembered. I was changing my mind about natural childbirth, I told her arrogantly. She went off in a huff.

On each of her more-frequent returns to my room, I implored her to give me something to help ease the pain, simultaneously trying to retain some pittance of dignity—lost in my physical appearance; reduced to absurdity by the enema I had been forced by some unknown person to take; stripped away by the shaving of my pubic hair. She remained firm.

After about five hours of such exchanges, beside myself with pain and frustration, I changed tactics. “Fuck you, then,” I finally shouted at her back, banging my elbows on the bed’s sidebars, which she had furiously raised.

Marie Branch, the only black medical professional who helped us at our free clinics in L.A. arrived and took command. She forced them to accept her as my private nurse.

She made them unstrap me. Before she arrived, I had been given a shot of something known commonly as “twilight sleep,” to temper my hostile attitude. I had tried to get out of bed, where, according to medical text, I was to remain prone. The drug had only made me hysterical. To keep me in place, leather straps had been harnessed across my feet and chest. Marie ordered the staff to free me and let me have my baby sitting up, which, by then, was all I wanted.

The hysteria and pain subsided. My mind grew silent, contemplating the magnitude of the process. A being was coming out of my body; a being who had been breathing inside my dark womb would soon open its eyes to me, a separate person, its mother. Would he be happy? I wondered. Would she be whole, not dam­aged by my life and the way I was living it? Would he grow up in a welcome world or a still-hostile one? I suddenly loved that little being whose face I did not know. She was more than revolutions or oppression or freedom or time or death. To give that being life, I would die. I did die, for my ego vanished at the moment of her birth. Ericka.

 * * *

It was June of 1970, three months after Ericka was born, right after the fantastic and dirty little story had been printed in the Los Angeles Times about Jean Seberg. We were still reeling from the repercussions of columnist Joyce Haber’s FBI-sponsored story.

Let us call her Miss A… She is beautiful and she’s blond…

… According to those really “in” international sources, Topic A is the baby Miss A is expecting, and its father. Papa’s said to be a rather prominent Black Panther.

Jean had called me and cried over the story. It had been published around the world, landing on the front covers of French journals. She had pledged she would never return to the United States.

Romain Gary had slapped her around because of it. He had accepted the pregnancy at first, but the publicity hurt him, and he hurt her.

Interoffice memo between FBI HQ and the Los Angeles office, discussing plans to defame Jean Seberg: Wikimedia Commons

Interoffice memo between FBI HQ and the Los Angeles office, discussing plans to defame Jean Seberg: Wikimedia Commons

Panthers were outraged by the possibility of its truth, grumbling about which Central Committee member had “fucked that white bitch.” Hollywood supporters were worried about their own association with the party.

No one was interested in the truth. The FBI had done well. Its telephone wiretaps had picked up information about “Aretha” in conversations between her and me, or her and Masai. They had placed FBI “interpretation” on the funny little appellation “Johnny Appleseed,” which Jean had given Masai after she learned he was fathering two children, his wife’s and mine. They had followed him on his visits to her. They had made their move.The secret, internal memorandum the FBI’s Los Angeles office forwarded to Hoover in April 1970 read:

Bureau permission is requested to publicize pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known movie actress, by Raymond Hewitt (“Masai”) of the Black Panther Party by advising Hollywood gossip columnists in the Los Angeles area of the situation.

It is felt that the possible publication of Seberg’s pregnancy could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the general public.

Hoover’s immediate response had been:

Jean Seberg has been a financial supporter of the Black Panther Party and should be neutralized. Her current pregnancy by Raymond Hewitt while still married affords an opportunity for such effort.

I talked to Jean a few times afterward. I would never see her again. She would return to Marshalltown to have a bizarre funeral for her stillborn baby, madly displaying the little corpus in a glass casket to refute the FBI. Years later, she would commit suicide in France.

 

Scan of COINTELPRO document: Wikimedia Commons

Scan of COINTELPRO document: Wikimedia Commons

Now, in June, Eldridge Cleaver was calling me away from the never ending madness. That was how I felt as listened to David Hilliard. Eldridge was forming a delegation of radical American journalists to join him in North Korea. He had left Cuba and was now in exile in Algeria, where he had met the North Koreans.

I was to join this delegation to North Korea, David was saying, as a representative of the Black Panther newspaper. David was slightly perturbed about that. Eldridge had specifically ordered that I be sent, as deputy minister of information for Southern California. While David said he was comfortable with the idea of my going, he seemed distraught that Eldridge had not requested that a member of the Central Committee be part of the delegation. After all, Emory Douglas, minister of culture, and Masai, minister of education, had accompanied David to see Eldridge in Algiers in 1969.

In any event, David himself could not leave the country. He was facing trial. The federal “kill Nixon” charge had been dis­missed. David was, however, preparing for the trial on charges stemming from the April 6 events that had sent Eldridge into exile.

We would be in North Korea three weeks, David was explaining. Eldridge would outline everything about the nature of the trip when we met him in Moscow. My heart sang.

I returned to Oakland weeks later, in early July. David wanted to see me before I left the country. I was planning to leave that evening and had with me my packed bags and passport. It was rather ludicrous to have a passport, I thought with a smile, since travel to North Korea was specifically forbidden to U.S. citizens. But we were not U.S. citizens. We were outsiders, runaway slaves. At any rate, I was ready. I had made arrangements for my little Ericka to be cared for by my comrades; Gwen Goodloe would personally supervise it all. I was ready to see Papa again.

“Find out when Eldridge plans on opening the International Section office,” David said in our secret meeting.

I made mental notes.

Spread from The Black Panther newsletter: Libcom

Spread from The Black Panther newsletter: Libcom

 

“Find out if Kathleen is returning,” he said, referring to Eldridge’s wife, who had joined him when he moved to Algiers. “Ask him what really happened to Byron Booth. Did D.C. make it to Algiers?” he continued, speaking about San Francisco captain Don Cox, who had disappeared after a shoot-out in the Hunters Point section of San Francisco. “Tell Papa my case looks bad. I’ll probably do some time …”

David went on for almost an hour, thrusting me into a whole new world. I had not known that D.C. had been sent to Algiers. I had never heard of Byron Booth. Apparently he had disappeared after arriving in Algiers. I did not know there was to be an International Section of the Black Panther Party. In listening to David, I realized that the party seemed to be growing into a legitimate member of the international family of Communists.

Before taking me to the airport, David had to make a stop at the party’s national headquarters. The aroma of spicy barbecue was wafting through the rooms of the building. The Bay Area branches were about to hold an anti-Fourth-of-July picnic and rally in West Oakland. Tons of ribs and chicken were being roasted over charcoal in the facility’s back yard. The kitchen was filled with Sisters and Brothers making potato salad and lemonade.

David ushered me into a small office to wait for him. There were several Panthers inside awaiting work assignments. I sat down next to the only one I knew, Jonathan Jackson. He was reading a book by Che Guevara.

“Have you spoken to your brother, lately?” I asked, interrupting.

He had, he said, without looking up. It was typical behavior for Jonathan. I thought he was too serious most of the time, though he was only seventeen years old.

A clipping frominThe Black Panther newsletter, January 1970: Libcom

A clipping from The Black Panther newsletter, January 1970: Libcom

The year before, he had seriously asked Angela Davis to permit him to be her bodyguard. Angela had become caught in a morass of media and police attention over her battle with UCLA, based on the university’s refusal to reinstate her faculty position because she was—by then—a member of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Jonathan had also learned most of the songs on my album, Seize the Time, after I brought it to his family’s home in Pasadena on one of my visits there; in particular, the song written for Franco, “The Panther,” dubbed “Get Guns and Be Men.” He was most serious about his beloved brother, George Jackson, his imprisoned hero, whose book, Soledad Brother, was about to be published. Jonathan and his mother, Georgia, had recently moved their things from Pasadena to Berkeley, into one of the party’s houses there, so that they could visit George regularly at nearby San Quentin prison. He had been transferred from Soledad prison after he was charged with the murder of a prison guard.

Even when Georgia joined us in the little office, Jonathan did not look up from his reading.

“Jonathan! At least stop long enough to give Georgia a chair,” I said, giving him an admonishing smile.

George Jackson, as pictured in The Black Panther newsletter, 1971

George Jackson, as pictured in The Black Panther newsletter, 1971: libcom.org

Georgia greeted me with a hug and a wink.

“Oh yeah. Right on,” he said, getting up without putting down his book. He leaned against a wall near his mother and continued reading.

I chatted with Georgia a few minutes, until I saw David waiting in the doorway for me.

I kissed Jonathan goodbye on the cheek. It was the sweetest face, one had to kiss it. His fair complexion took on the blush of a boy. He finally looked up with his big, questioning, sad eyes.

“Okay. See you later, Sister Elaine,” he eked out with unbelievable shyness.

***

I boarded an Oakland-to-Los Angeles shuttle flight and waited in the L.A. airport to meet Robert Scheer. By arrangement, he was to be my traveling companion. Scheer and I took a nonstop flight from Los Angeles to Paris a few hours later.

Scheer was a writer, and one of the editors of Ramparts magazine. He was also some sort of radical hippie, it seemed, from Berkeley. With a group of his white radical friends in the area, he had formed something called the Red Brigade, whose purpose was unclear to me, even as he talked about it. Scheer also, according to David, had been instrumental in getting Eldridge into Cuba.

He and I would be joining some of the others in Paris. We would meet Eldridge and the rest in Moscow. The United States had diplomatic relations with the French; the French had diplomatic relations with the Russians; the Russians had diplomatic relations with the North Koreans, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Those who met Scheer and me in Paris were also white, Jan Austin and Andy Truskier and Anne Froines and other radical journalists. There would be eleven of us in all, including Eldridge.

When the Aeroflot jet landed in Moscow, it was dark. Eldridge loomed forward out of the crush of heavyweight Russians. He was elegant and not in the least worn. He had on an all-white suit and was still wearing the earring in his pierced ear. He greeted me first, expansively taking me into his arms. It had been a long way back to him.

Surely the Russian tsars and nobility were frustrated even in their death. Ordinary peasants had not only seized power from them, their peasant hands had laid claim to the vestiges of their royal reign. The beautiful Baroque hotel we entered had once belonged to them. Its wide marble stairwells had been theirs. Its crystal chandeliers and Byzantine rugs and tapestried walls had been theirs. The elegant balcony doors of the room where Eldridge and I slept had been theirs. The turrets of the basilican edifices rising in the distance sparkled in the morning light. The Russian summer sun filled the room when we flung open our balcony doors.

I was musing about the history it all represented as I listened to the voice of Eldridge. He was addressing the entire delegation, now gathered in our room. Of the eleven members, only he and I were black. Besides the whites, there were two Asians: a young, diminutive Japanese woman and a fellow from San Francisco’s Chinatown, whose face was overwhelmed by acne.

“Babylon must be burned,” Eldridge was saying. “But the Black Panther Party is abandoning its duty to take Babylon down…”

I grew attentive.

“The fact is, there’s a split in the party. The right wing has seized the reins of leadership and put a muzzle on the Panther. The vanguard party has become a breakfast-for-children club.”

Was he serious? Was he constructing another of his well­ known grand metaphors, a bizarre one? Like me, the others were stilled by incredulity, their pens frozen over the note pads they held.

“But I represent the left wing of the party,” he proclaimed, “the International Section, headquartered in Algiers. We’re saying it’s time to clip the right wing operating out of national head­quarters, dominated by the reformist David Hilliard and his nepotistic hierarchy, which includes his reactionary brother, June, and his silly wife, Pat.”

I could hardly think, much less respond. It was impossible to believe what I was hearing.

“Babylon is quiet. Pigs are comfortable. Why? Because the vanguard is cooking fucking breakfasts instead of drawing guns!” he boomed.

Had exile driven him so mad he did not see? Had he been given some new mind-altering drug that had erased the police raids and assassinations from his brain? He had obviously forgotten the detail of the party mandate, based on the teachings of Malcolm X, that no member speak against another outside the ranks.

“The entire movement will follow suit,” Eldridge went on to open mouths. “I’m not going to stand for it. You can’t stand for it…

Eldridge Cleaver, 1968: Flickr, George Brett

Eldridge Cleaver, 1968: Flickr, George Brett

“The left wing of the vanguard party is calling upon you, our white, radical Mother Country brothers and sisters —and you others—to stand with us. Support the International Section, the hijackers and the ex-cons and revolutionary warriors in exile, who mean to set fire to Babylon. With your assistance, the real party can rise again, and we can return to finish what we started,” he finished in a dramatic whisper.

“I’m sorry,” Jan Austin boldly interrupted, putting down her pen and notepad. “What exactly do you want us to do? We’re not in the party. We’re journalists and writers. Why are you telling us this?”

“So that,” Eldridge said with a sigh, “with the might of your pens you will spread the word throughout Babylon. Recognize the left wing. Tell everybody who the true revolutionaries are. Take the correct line. Call for the bombing of pig strongholds. Urge the kidnapping of the children of the bourgeoisie. Demand that the bastions of Wall Street be burned to the ground. Stir some shit in Babylon. Show some fucking spirit!”

“Is that why you asked us to travel all the way here?” Andy Truskier asked, unmoved.

“Basically. I had to talk to all of you in person. I had to personally let you know what was happening to the party. With the help of Scheer, I handpicked each of you for this mission.”

I noted Bob Scheer’s silence.

Bobby Seale, Elaine Brown, Huey P. Newton, John Seale: It's About Time BPP Archives

Bobby Seale, Elaine Brown, Huey P. Newton, John Seale: It’s About Time BPP Archives

“I’m trying to get this train rolling again. But I can no longer communicate with any of the members of the Central Committee in Oakland. They’re all Hilliard lackeys. I brought Sister Elaine here to be my personal emissary. She’s loyal to me. She and I go a long way back. She’s going to take the message back to the true believers in the party, so they’ll know it came from my lips. I’ve had word a lot of them are sick and tired of the bullshit. So you don’t have to worry about the part y’s business. Do your thing, and we’ll deal with the party …”

Looking out of a window, all I could wonder was when and how he had come to the conclusion that I would be his emissary to advance a rift inside the party. Was he so arrogant as to imagine that my expressions of love for him had meant I would help him destroy the Black Panther Party?

“Of course, we’ll go to Korea and talk to them about promoting the thoughts and writings of good ole Comrade Kim Il Sung,” he continued. I promised them we’d get Kim’s entire works published in the U.S. I’m sure we can do that, can’t we, Scheer? That’s why they arranged this whole thing. But yes, I needed to see all of you on this more serious matter. I need your under­ standing. Can you dig it?”

“Right on,” those who opened their mouths mumbled, new acolytes of the massive man who sat before us, one whom I did not know and, it occurred to me, never really had known.

It lasted another hour—Eldridge’s attacks on the party, on David, on everything sacred. Later, when we were away from the others, I challenged the minister of information of the Black Panther Party.

I told him flat out that the saddest thing about how absolutely wrong he was about David was that David respected him. I asked him why he could not see that it was David who had held the party together through all of the hell we had faced since he left. Furthermore, David had always been in constant communication with the minister of defense, the leader of the party, Huey P. Newton, in prison at San Luis Obispo, whom Eldridge had not attacked.

He told me I did not understand. He knew David. David was ignoring the directives of Huey, whose hands were tied, because David was “pussy.” That was why the party was stuck in reform. He knew what was happening. I did not, for which he might forgive me. David was destroying the vanguard, buying more eggs than guns.

Coverage of the Free Breakfast for School Children program inThe Black Panther newsletter, 1969: Libcom

Coverage of the Free Breakfast for School Children program in The Black Panther newsletter, 1969: Libcom

The rank and file wanted to move. Loyalty to the party was the only thing holding them back. He had solid information about that from Brothers out of New York who had joined him in Algiers. Who were these “Brothers,” I asked him. All I needed to know was that they were the bad motherfuckers. Anyway, anybody with eyes could see how weak the party had become. This had been echoed, Eldridge said, by a Trinidadian Sister named Connie Matthews. She worked with a Panther support group in Europe and had come to Algiers to talk to him about how the party’s reputation in the international community was stained, how nobody was taking the party seriously anymore.

“And after sitting in Algiers,” I said, “listening to these so called Brothers and this Connie Matthews, you want to …”

“Listen! Shut up and listen!” he commanded. “They just confirmed what I already know. There’s unrest in the rank and file, and even on the streets—remember the Weathermen thing? —over the fact that the Hilliard dynasty has damn near forced everybody to put down their guns. I hear this shit everywhere. Even in Algiers! I’m not going to stand for it!”

We argued for hours. Rather, I more and more patiently tried to explain that David was seriously committed to the revolution and that the party was on the correct road.

“The party can’t do battle with the pigs alone,” I said earnestly. “Take a look at our losses, if nothing else, Eldridge. Our own people are becoming afraid of us. Every time the pigs attack us, the whole community suffers. The people just aren’t ready for that. The only thing holding the party and the people together is the programs …”

“Bullshit!” he shot back. “Revolution has to be won, not coddled like eggs. The Hilliards are so punked-out and gun-shy, they’re making the vanguard look like a reformist bitch.”

“Nobody’s put down the gun, Eldridge, but if we don’t have the programs, we won’t organize the people to pick up the gun. And it’s the people,” I reminded him as forcefully as I dared, “who will, after all, ultimately make the revolution… Face it, Eldridge,” I pleaded, “the only thing we’ve done so far to advance the struggle, besides losing a lot of Brothers, is the programs.”

“I don’t give a fuck about some serve-the-people programs. Anybody who doesn’t want to deal with the struggle has to have his ass dragged down the revolutionary road, kicking and screaming if necessary. I’m talking about the same thing I’ve always talked about, ‘revolution in our lifetime’ and I mean it…”

“You mean the revolution that will die with its secret because all the revolutionaries will have died trying …”

“You’re too emotional. Can’t you see I’m drafting Whitey to take the first heat—Weathermen and all that, and these motherfuckers. Look. I just want to get rid of those weak-assed Hilliards right now. That’s all. There’s only one way to get that done and hold the party together … Now, I brought you here to help me accomplish that.

“All you have to do is sound the alarm. Do it because you love me. What the fuck. Take a .45 or something, walk into national headquarters,” he went on seriously, “and put it to David’s head. Tell the motherfucker you’ve come with a message from me: I’m taking back the Black Panther Party in the name of the true revolutionaries. And don’t worry, I’ve got backup for you, Brothers waiting for the word from me.”

“You must be kidding, Eldridge.”

By dinnertime, after we had drunk a second round of vodka and the beef Stroganoff had been served to the “delegation” at long tables in the opulent, mirrored dining hall, Eldridge and I had stopped speaking. The last thing he said to me before I left his room and tried to find another for myself was that he would bury me in Algiers.

“I picked you!” he had shouted furiously. “I picked you to take care of this. You’re the perfect candidate. A woman that everybody in the party knows and that everybody knows loves me. Just like I know it. The fucking anthem is my song … Stop acting up, and ‘let your love come down,’ “he said with a chuckle.

“Eldridge, you’re crazy … I can’t deny I loved you. I have truly loved the idea of you. But you can’t be serious about any of this … Please … Look, I’ll go back and I’ll leave the party, and I won’t? tell anyone anything. I know you can find yourself another emissary. ‘Cause it’s over for me. It’s all over, Eldridge.”

“You won’t get back, bitch, unless you do what I say! Do you actually think I’d let you walk away from here and mess up the cha-cha?!” he shouted, standing over me now, seated in the room with blue taffeta drapes and bedspread. “Besides, there ain’t nobody else. I couldn’t exactly tell David to send one of the rank and file. I certainly couldn’t call on any of those studs on the Central Committee. All their sorry asses belong to the Hilliards. You’re it, bitch!”

I tried not to cry or shake.

“If you don’t want to work with me, it’s simple. I’ll bury your ass. In Algiers. I’ve got a burial ground there, you know.” He laughed, throwing his head back. “I’ve put two niggers in the ground already. Boumedienne doesn’t give a fuck,” he said referring to the Algerian president. “I do as I please. It ain’t Cuba. I got AK-47’s and twenty niggers, and I will put your ass in the fucking ground!”

”I’m not going anywhere but back to the States,” I cried out, getting up from the bed. ”I’m leaving now. I’ll take a plane from here, alone—tonight, if necessary.”

“And I’ll beat your ass right here and now if you move … Anyway, it’ll be a hard way back.” He laughed again. “I’ve got your passport. Remember? Got all the passports. If you want it, deal with the Russians or the Koreans. But I don’t think you have the heart to put yourself in the middle of an international scandal over it. Do you?”

“You’re right, Eldridge. It’s more than I can handle,” I said in a resigned whisper.

I stepped away from him, trembling.

In that second, I suddenly saw him, knew him. Eldridge was a man so afraid of facing prison again, he had left David behind to take the weight of the charges of April 6. Eldridge was a man who had stood naked before the police, walking away with a surface wound to his heel, while Bobby Hutton, half his size and age, had been mowed down before his very eyes. Eldridge was a man who was a rapist, a man who lashed out at women—in fear.

He was undoubtedly capable of inspiring others to act. There was no question that if I were pushed to Algiers, he could inflame his nebulous “niggers” to do what he willed with me. But his own claims to manhood hovered beneath the skin of a man who was, more than anything, a rapist.

“You’re right,” I repeated. “Right about the passport. Wrong about me. I’m not Kathleen. I do not take ass-kicking. You can kill me here and now, but that’s what it’s going to take. ‘Cause if you touch me, I guarantee you, one of us will die tonight! And I don’t think you’ve got the heart to risk an international scandal. You wouldn’t have any more countries to run to.”

His eyes smiled as he walked past me. He quietly opened the door of the room to leave.

“Later, baby. Later.”

* * *

From A Taste of Power, originally published 1992. 

Buy the book

The Bomb in the Bag

$
0
0

Jack El-Hai | Longreads | March 2015 | 14 minutes (3,509 words)

 

 

A New York City stockbroker named M. Leopold was working in his office at 84 Broadway shortly after noon on December 4, 1891, when he sensed vibrations, an odd rumbling. Looking outside, he saw flames and a cloud of smoke shooting out from a window of the Arcade Building directly across the street. A man’s body then flew out through the opening, landing on Broadway. Leopold raised his window and smelled the tang of dynamite.

The blast echoed from the Battery in the south to Twenty-Third Street in the north, and frightened crowds poured out of the Arcade Building. “The people came out in a solid mass, almost as if shot from a cannon,” a reporter observed. “They ran all ways, with shouts and confusion, and occupants of the offices of the building swarmed to the fire escapes.” This stream hit the street and neared another cataract of terrified people that had spilled onto Wall Street. The crowds collided and combined, blocking the streets and causing some people to scale the iron fence of Trinity Churchyard and trample the graves as they sought safety.

Leopold and many other people working on the block knew that the exploded window belonged to the office of Russell Sage, a wealthy financier. Often collaborating with fellow tycoon Jay Gould, Sage had built railroads, invested in industry, cleverly weathered financial panics, and reportedly had more ready cash at his disposal than any other person in the U.S. What nobody yet understood—except for the unfortunate occupants of the financier’s wrecked office—was that a crazed man had just targeted Sage for attack. Even though Sage survived it, the assault had an effect that the assailant never intended: a remarkable redistribution of the vast riches of one of the most notorious robber barons of the Gilded Age. It was also America’s first suicide bombing.

Russell Sage

Russell Sage

* * *

Long before the bombing, Russell Sage met a woman named Olivia Slocum. She grew up in Syracuse, New York, and her father Joseph Slocum suffered hard luck as a merchant. He was frequently short of cash, and in 1852 he and a business partner learned that one of their investors, the young and lanky Sage, had cheated them. At the time, Sage was a wealthy speculator based in nearby Troy; Olivia had probably met him at local events years before her father’s troubles with him. She was working as a domestic for wealthy families, possibly as a governess, and barely got by.

Meanwhile, Sage was more than getting by. He expanded his interests in land speculation, railroads, and money lending. He won election to the U.S. Congress, served two terms, developed a railroad network extending from the Northeast to the Midwest, manipulated stock markets, and accumulated millions of dollars. The death of his first wife had left him a widower in possession of houses in Troy and on New York City’s Fifth Avenue. Olivia, lively and talkative, continued to cross paths with Sage over the years, and a courtship developed. In 1869, at the age of 41, she married the man who had cheated her father.

Olivia Sage

Olivia Sage

By making a union with Russell Sage, who was then 53, Olivia did not gain access to his great fortune, although her standard of living certainly improved and she presided over a Manhattan mansion. Sage, meanwhile, was renowned for his frugality. He insisted on making few ostentatious purchases, living simply, and keeping strict control of his money. His life with Olivia consisted of horse-drawn drives through New York’s Central Park, games of whist, summer trips to Saratoga Springs, and evenings by the fireplace with newspapers, numerous pets, and friends. Olivia, sympathetic to a variety of causes that included Christian missionary work, women’s education and suffrage, and American Indian education, had to rein in her charitable urges. Spare with his language and his emotions, her husband steered away from any behavior that could be called philanthropic. He believed he owed society nothing.

Over the following decades, the two followed their separate interests: He lent money, directed railroads, and traded securities for profit while she managed their social activities and devoted time to a multitude of charities. This living arrangement worked well for years, giving the couple a comfortable domestic routine, until the events of December 4, 1891, and their unexpected aftermath.

New York Times coverage of the bombing.

New York Times coverage of the bombing.

* * *

The Arcade Building was a somber brownstone rising six floors over Broadway, and it was where Sage had worked for years. On December 4, a man walked into Sage’s offices. The press would later describe the man as “an insane crank,” “a dangerous maniac,” and “a man of unbalanced mind.” A clerk greeted the visitor, who was grasping a bulky handbag and said he was a representative of John D. Rockefeller, the immensely rich magnate of Standard Oil. He had urgent business to discuss in-person with Sage. When told about the visitor, the 75-year-old Sage examined him through a window in an office partition. “I saw a young man sitting on the bench,” Sage later said. “He had a dark beard somewhat pointed.” Sage did not recognize him, “but I felt instinctively a distrust of the man.”

Even so, Sage approached the man, who was dressed in a silk hat, black overcoat, and worn-down pinstriped pants. “Do you want to see me?”

The stranger handed over a calling card bearing the name H.D. Wilson and listing the cardholder’s connection with Rockefeller. Then he gave Sage a sheet of typewritten paper. Sage later couldn’t remember the exact wording of the note, but it demanded $1.2 million in cash (more than $30 million in today’s dollars) and threatened that any delay in handing over the money would cause the visitor to detonate ten pounds of dynamite in his bag, “sufficient to blow this building and all its occupants to instant death,” as Sage recalled.

Sage immediately decided that he was dealing with a lunatic—“because any sane man knows that no man, however wealthy, has a million dollars about him.” He decided to stall and summon help from a guard stationed in the outside hallway. Sage read over the typed message a couple more times and racked his brain for an excuse to retreat to his private office, from which, he hoped, he could escape to the hallway. “I have an appointment here to meet a gentleman that I made yesterday,” Sage ventured. “It will not take more than two minutes for me to attend to it. If you will wait until then—”

The visitor grew impatient. “I understand then that you refuse,” he declared while lifting his handbag with his right hand. Sage long remembered the dramatic pose that the stranger struck. “I have but to throw down this valise to kill everyone in the building,” the visitor said.

Sage begged the man not to act rashly. Before the visitor could reply, another man made an unfortunate entry into the office. Normally, Sage would have ignored the comings and goings of this clerk, William Laidlaw, 35, who worked for a Wall Street firm with which Sage often dealt. But this was no normal afternoon. Sage said he felt relief at the arrival of someone who could perhaps distract the stranger from his homicidal intent.

As Sage later insisted, Laidlaw’s arrival did not faze the visitor, who stared at the rich man and, without waiting further, threw the handbag to the floor.

* * *

An enormous explosion destroyed the office, shattering the glass of every window, blowing a hole in the floor, and leaving the ceiling in splinters. It injured Sage, Laidlaw, and seven others. The blast also shot Sage’s junior clerk Benjamin Norton through the front window and into the street. A heavy typewriter that Norton had been using, along with other wreckage, landed on top of him, and he soon died. The bomber himself was blown to fragments.

Ten years earlier, a Russian revolutionary named Ignaty Grinevitsky had sacrificed his life while assassinating Tsar Alexander II with a bomb in St. Petersburg. No other suicide bombing had ever before occurred, and there would be no more in the U.S. for many years.

This bomber’s crime, then, was nearly inconceivable. After the blast, Sage found himself able to walk and somehow made it out of the building to a nearby drugstore, where a doctor administered first aid. The clerk Laidlaw, whose body had been riddled with shards of glass and was more seriously hurt, also received treatment there, although it’s unclear how he got out of the Arcade. The explosion had ripped his clothing from his limbs, and he bled from numerous lacerations.

Laidlaw required hospitalization, and he would never fully recover from his injuries. He intimated to his caregivers that something more sinister than a bombing had occurred in the office. An upset Laidlaw revealed that when the blast erupted, Sage “had hold of my hand and I was standing between the stranger and Mr. Sage.” Laidlaw accused Sage of trying to pull the clerk into a position that would block the financier from the explosion of the bomb, all while Laidlaw had no idea of the imminent danger in the office.

The implications were shocking: that Sage had not given an honest account of the incident and that in the moments before the explosion he had used Laidlaw as a human shield.

Meanwhile, rumors spread around Wall Street that Sage had been killed, even though his injuries were minor and he returned home that same afternoon. Jay Gould, who had learned of the bombing by telephone, had broken the news to Olivia Sage, and she met her shaken husband at the threshold of their home. She helped him up a flight of stairs to their bedroom, where a physician demanded that he rest. Sage ordered the crowd of servants and aid-givers out of the room.

He was recuperating upstairs a while later when a team of police officials arrived at his house with a wicker basket—it was undoubtedly the most gruesome delivery Olivia had ever allowed into her home. It contained, the police believed, the charred head of the bomber, which the explosion had torn from his body and dropped in the rubble of the office. Sage examined it and without emotion identified it as the head of his attacker.

Olivia soon directed her domestic staff to turn away visitors and well wishers, but at least one invader challenged her defenses. The man pushed his way past a servant and threatened to blow up the house unless he was given $2,500. When the servant called out that she could not expel him, Olivia appeared in a rage and said, “I can.” In no time, she shoved the intruder out the door and onto the street. (In another account of this incident, Olivia fainted into a lifeless heap on the stairs and scared the crank away.)

Sage eventually made a recovery, suffering only from hearing loss. Within a week, he returned to work under the temporary protection of bodyguards (New York Governor David Hill and many other frightened political officials and businessmen followed his example and sought protection, too). Olivia traveled to Far Rockaway to represent Sage at the funeral of clerk Benjamin Norton.

Aside from the head and a pair of mangled feet, the only other remnants of the bomber that police recovered from the blast scene were a distinctive Brooks Brothers suspender button and some shredded clothing. This evidence eventually led them to the Brooks store in Boston, where they narrowed the identity of the bomber to an unsuccessful loan notebroker named Henry L. Norcross. He had not been seen at his home in Somerville, Mass., for about two weeks.

During the ten days since the explosion, the bomber’s head in storage at the New York City morgue had decomposed to the point that some of Norcross’s friends could not positively identify it. Norcross’s mother, however, recognized it with certainty after noticing a scar on the back of the head—“Oh, yes, that is my boy!” she wailed—and her husband joined her in believing Norcross to be the bomber. After learning of the alleged bomber’s identity and his mother’s anxiety over his fate, Olivia Sage burst into tears.

Norcross, a quiet and moody free thinker in his late twenties who spoke out against the excesses of wealthy people, had hoped to patent a railroad invention of some kind, and he needed to gather money for the project. Sage maintained he had never heard of him.

Beyond Norcross’s family and acquaintances, one person claimed to have important knowledge of the bomber: the extraordinary Mary Edwards Walker, a physician, suffragist, feminist, political activist, and the only woman ever to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, for her bravery in crossing Civil War battle lines to treat injured soldiers. She believed that Norcross, whom she had once employed as a laborer and considered an imbalanced Nihilist, had murdered a woman named Christie Warden in New Hampshire five months before the attack on Sage. Walker protested the itinerant felon George Abbott’s conviction for the crime, offering evidence that Norcross had shot Warden and that he had also made spoken threats against Sage.

She had not relayed these threats to Sage, she later said, because the financier had angered her by earlier refusing to respond to her letters requesting support in her battle for a federal pension.

Few people took Walker’s assertions seriously, and Abbott was hanged for Warden’s murder in 1893. The New York City bomber’s remains were buried in Boston without service or ceremony.

* * *

After the bombing, Russell and Olivia Sage’s peaceful lives began to unravel. For starters, two women were separately preparing to sue Sage for alleged romantic dalliances. To recover her bearings, Olivia retreated to resorts and friends’ homes.

There was more. Within weeks of the suicide bombing, the maimed clerk, William Laidlaw, filed a lawsuit against the financier alleging his injuries stemmed from Sage using him as a human shield. To represent him as special counsel, Laidlaw hired Joseph H. Choate, a celebrity of the New York Bar (and later U.S. ambassador to Great Britain) who had been involved in some of the era’s most important court cases and had helped oust the Tweed Ring from City Hall. Laidlaw, via his attorneys, wrote a letter to Sage offering to settle for a cash sum to avoid litigation. Outraged, Sage flung the letter into the trash.

And so, in 1892, Laidlaw v. Sage went to court. Nobody guessed that this legal struggle would become, at the time, one of the longest-running civil lawsuits in U.S. history. The case was heard numerous times in court and in judicial review over the next seven years, during which it was dismissed, a decision laid aside on appeal, a mistrial was declared, and a decision was overturned on a technicality. At trial Laidlaw won awards of $25,000 and $43,000. Jury members seemed sympathetic to the clerk’s story of his innocent entry into Sage’s office, the wealthy man’s diabolical hiding behind the younger man to avoid injury and Laidlaw being crippled in the blast.

Coverage of the trial.

Coverage of the trial.

Only with difficulty could the public keep track of the crooked path of the case from trial to appellate court and back to trial. But the public easily saw the entertainment value of the ongoing legal contest. Choate, by turns righteous and puckish in the courtroom, had vowed to tarnish Sage’s reputation even if it took ninety trials. He used every trick he knew to make Sage—already notorious as a skinflint and opponent of charity—look guilty on the witness stand. He wanted Sage to feel shame and pay damages to Laidlaw.

Choate went even further: he schemed to torture the financier under cross examination, to heap upon Sage public ridicule for his grasping wealth, parsimony, and supposed cowardice. At one point in the proceedings, when a juror complained that he couldn’t hear Sage’s responses under cross-examination, Choate remarked, “There, Mr. Sage; you see what these gentlemen are losing. Speak up. Just imagine you are in the Stock Exchange selling Western Union on a rising market.” To this Sage neither smiled nor replied.

During the fourth and final trial, Choate grilled Sage about his financial position at the time of the explosion:

Choate: You then held some Missouri Pacific collateral trust bonds?

Sage: Yes.

Choate: How many?

Sage: Can’t say.

Choate: Can’t you tell within a limit of from ten to one thousand?

Sage: No.

Choate: Nor within one hundred to two hundred?

Sage: No.

Choate: Is it because you have too little memory or too many bonds? How many loans did you have out at that time?

Sage: I can’t tell.

Choate: Can you tell within $200,000 the amount then due from your largest creditor?

Sage: I — any man doing the business I am —

Choate: Oh, there is no other man like you in the world. Now you can’t tell within $200,000 the amount of the largest loan you then had out, but you set up your memory against Laidlaw’s?

Sage: I do.

Sage, however, proved to be an obstinate opponent equally adept at verbal parrying. During the same trial, he and Choate had this exchange:

Choate: Mr. Sage, can you read without your glasses?

Sage: Sir?

Choate: Can you read without your glasses?

Sage: I can read with my glasses.

Later, Choate made Sage furious by bringing up a statement attributed to Olivia, that her husband would never pay Laidlaw a penny. Sage shot up in the witness box, shook his fist, and shouted, “You have mentioned her name! You are bringing her name in. You are bringing in those outside things and it is proper for me to protect my wife. I would believe her in preference to this clerk [Laidlaw].”

The outcome of this fourth trial, a judgment in Laidlaw’s favor, was overturned in 1899 by the Court of Appeals of New York, which declared that there was not enough evidence that anything Sage did had caused Laidlaw’s injuries. The court granted yet another trial.

That fifth trial never happened. Laidlaw, now out of work for years and nearly destitute, lacked the energy and wherewithal to continue. Sage never did pay a penny to the clerk who had dragged him through court for seven years. Joseph Choate at last had to accept defeat. The famous lawyer had succeeded, though, in soiling Sage’s reputation.

Regardless of the unsettled status of the lawsuit, people on and off Wall Street believed that the trials had shown the octogenarian financier to be venal, cheap, and self-absorbed—a man who compared the acquisition of money without limit to the childhood hoarding of marbles.

Olivia Sage, meanwhile, had to live with her husband’s reputation.

* * *

In 1904, when Sage was 88, yet another lawsuit alleging sexual wrongdoing shook his marriage. A judge quickly tossed out the woman’s claim, but Sage never denied his guilt.

With Sage’s death in 1906 at the age of 90 from natural causes, he slipped beyond the reach of any decision in Laidlaw v. Sage. Sage’s passing also sprang Olivia from her confinement in a marriage to a wealthy man known for his aversion to charity and philanthropy. Even before Sage died, Olivia had been considering how to make good use of the vast fortune she would inherit. By the time Sage’s estate was settled, leaving her with $75 million (about $2 billion in today’s dollars), she knew what she wanted to do. Henry Norcross’s bomb and William Laidlaw’s lawsuit may have cast her husband as a parsimonious Scrooge, but Olivia could use his money to revise his legacy.

In short order, Olivia Sage went on a rampage of philanthropy that for years kept her on pace with the generosity of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Attaching her husband’s name to her charitable projects whenever possible, she funded Russell Sage Halls on college campuses across the country and donated money to women’s associations, religious organizations, hospitals and old age homes, animal protection groups, and civic causes. Perhaps the two most visible philanthropic creations of Olivia Sage that remain today are Russell Sage College, a women’s institution in Troy, and the Russell Sage Foundation, which revolutionized public improvement by using the new field of social work to reduce poverty and accomplish moral reform.

Sage’s legal nemesis, the disabled clerk William Laidlaw, died in 1911, having spent an agonizing period broke and alone in New York City’s Home for Incurables. A city newspaper reported that he was tormented during his final days by dreams of the bombing that maimed him for life. He seems to have received none of Olivia Sage’s charitable bounty.

* * *

Jack El-Hai is the author of The Nazi and the Psychiatrist: Hermann Göring, Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, and a Fatal Meeting of Minds at the End of WW2 and The Lobotomist: A Maverick Medical Genius and His Tragic Quest to Rid the World of Mental Illness. He lives in Minneapolis.

* * *

Editor: Mark Armstrong; Fact-checker: Brendan O’Connor

A Very Naughty Little Girl

$
0
0

Rose George | Longreads | March 2015 | 21 minutes (5,358 words)

 

 

She was a name on a plaque and a face on a wall. I ate beneath her portrait for three years and paid it little attention except to notice that the artist had made her look square. There were other portraits of women to hold my attention on the walls of Somerville, my Oxford college: Indira Gandhi, who left without a degree, and Dorothy Hodgkin, a Nobel prize-winner in chemistry. In a room where we had our French language classes, behind glass that was rumored to be bulletproof, there was also a bust of Margaret Thatcher, a former chemistry undergraduate. Somerville was one of only two women’s colleges of the University of Oxford while I was there, from 1988 to 1992, and the walls were crowded with strong, notable women. (The college has since gone co-ed.)

The plaque saying “Vaughan” was on the exterior wall of my first-year student residence, a building named after Vaughan, Dame Janet Maria, the woman in the portrait and principal of Somerville between 1945 and 1967. She was still alive when I was an undergraduate, and, according to her obituaries, was known for driving around Oxford in a yellow Mini; for always dressing in tweeds; and for going to the Bodleian Library even in her late eighties and inadvertently annoying other readers when her hearing aid hummed and whistled. But when I arrived at Somerville, and was assigned to Vaughan, I thought only with some relief that everyone would finally be able to spell my Welsh third name, usually a puzzle even to English speakers. I did not think back to my two surgeries, or to my birth, where bags of someone else’s blood and plasma would have hung from hooks and saved my life, and thank Janet Vaughan for her role in helping to make that standard medical practice. But I should have.

Portrait of Janet Vaughan

Portrait of Janet Vaughan

* * *

Blood. We all have it, this liquid that is nearly half water, red in color, that “circulates in the arteries and veins, carrying oxygen to and carbon dioxide from the tissues of the body,” an Oxford Dictionary definition. Blood is common, ubiquitous, inevitable. But it is also so much more than its dictionary description. It is more expensive than oil. Every two seconds, someone needs some. Every day, millions of people receive blood from anonymous strangers in a wondrous procedure that has become banal.

In the United Kingdom, where I live, the system of widespread donation of blood by anonymous volunteers, and its transfusion into people who need it, dates back not even a century. The National Blood Service began as the Blood Transfusion Service in 1946; the National Health Service was founded in 1948. But humans have been curious about blood probably since the first human bled. The first date on the history timeline of the National Blood Service is 1628, when William Harvey demonstrated that blood circulates around the body, but the practice of blood-letting is usually dated back to Egyptians of 3,000 years ago. Letting out blood eased the imbalance of the four humors— blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile—that governed the body.

Transfusion—the transfer of blood from one creature to another—is also ancient. Romans, wrote Pliny the Elder, ran to drink the blood of dying or dead gladiators, to gain some of their strength and force. Blood was also thought to carry personality, so when Jean-Baptiste Denis, doctor to Louis XIV, treated a feverish 16-year-old patient with a blood transfusion in 1667, he thought the “mild and laudable” blood of a lamb his best bet. The patient recovered, though a madman treated with calf’s blood did not. Transfusion was largely avoided for 150 years. The Victorians tried, but humans given human blood kept dying, and only when Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types in 1909 (and that some mixed fatally) did transfusion become acceptable.

Transfusion is now unremarkable. A car accident victim can require 100 pints of blood. Coronary bypass surgery can require blood from 20 donors, while a premature baby can be saved with three teaspoonsful. 15.7 million pints of blood are donated every year in the U.S., and more than 100 million globally, according to the World Health Organization. But in 1920s Oxford, when Janet Vaughan was a medical sciences undergraduate at Somerville, the speedy transfer of blood from one human to another en masse was unthinkable.

* * *

Vaughan was born to privilege. Her father was a headmaster of fine public schools such as Rugby. Her mother, Madge Symonds, was a beauty, though Vaughan described her as “a caged butterfly or hummingbird,” and the cage was her life as a headmaster’s wife in stuffy schools where she ate chicken bones with her fingers to shock the butler. Madge was great friends with Virginia Woolf, Janet Vaughan’s second cousin, and the character of Sally Seton in Mrs. Dalloway is based on her. The Vaughans were connected, but not wealthy. Janet was given indifferent schooling, including a headmistress who described her as “too stupid to be educated.” She ignored that, read voraciously, and after three attempts, was accepted at Somerville to study medical sciences. She arrived, she said, with nothing more than “a little ladylike botany,” yet graduated with a first class degree, and set about being a physician. For her obstetrics rotation at University College Hospital, London, she was sent into London’s slums. “Terrible poverty,” she told the journalist Polly Toynbee, when Vaughan was interviewed as one of six women chosen by the BBC to be “Women of Our Century.” She encountered “a woman with no bed except newspaper. A husband who said, ‘ain’t there no male doctors? I’d rather have a black man than you.’” She saw lines of children sitting up in bed with rheumatic hearts, who would die. She saw that poverty is deadly. “How anyone could do medicine in those days and not become a socialist I find hard to understand,” Vaughan wrote. “What I hated most was people’s acceptance: ‘Yes, I have had seven children and buried six, it was God’s will.’ I hated God’s will with a burning hatred.”

The slums introduced her to real poverty, but also to blood, her lifelong interest. Anemia was endemic, and by the time she qualified, she began to wonder why the standard cure for anemia was arsenic. She was a pathologist by now: her mother had died, and she thought her widowed father needed her. Pathology, with a more stable routine than doctoring, would make her available for him. But a pathologist can still read. She was trained at Oxford, and at Oxford you are trained to read ferociously. So she had read of the work of Dr. George Minot, an American physician who had been treating pernicious anemia with raw liver extract. Vaughan thought this made more sense than arsenic, so she approached her professor of medicine, a man who did not see a woman who was young and think both those things to be handicaps. “I went to the professor,” she told the BBC, “and said, can we test it on a patient?” He said no, but she could try it first on a dog, if she produced the extract herself. He gave her some money, and off she went to collect as many pails and mincing machines as she could. She did the rounds of her friends. She borrowed Virginia Woolf’s mincer, and minced and minced. It became a scene in Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own,” Janet with her mincers, Minot’s paper propped on the kitchen table, a parody of expected domesticity.

The extract was fed to two dogs, who sickened. Janet said, no more dogs, and took the extract herself. “The next morning when I came back to the hospital there were all the professors of medicine, chemistry, surgery, waiting on the doorstep to see if I was still alive.” It was fed to a patient, “a nice old labouring man.” The patient survived, and of course a senior professor took all the credit for the miraculous new treatment. Janet didn’t much mind: she had other things to do. Her father had remarried, and she could travel, so she got a Rockefeller Scholarship to Harvard, where there were no women. She wasn’t allowed to work with patients and she wasn’t allowed to work with mice either, for when she ordered some Boston mice, a famous lab variety, she was told there were none to spare. No matter. She sourced some “excellent Philadelphian mice,” but Harvard didn’t allow them. She ended up with pigeons, using them to do groundbreaking research on vitamin B12 in blood that wasn’t fully acknowledged for 50 years. She called them her Bloody Pigeons.

How I love the brisk nervelessness of this woman. Some of it comes from privilege. But much of it is her own, as much as her fictional room was. She had the confidence to make fissures in patriarchal concrete, but also the confidence to get married, because she wanted to. With her husband, David Gourlay, she moved into Gordon Square in Bloomsbury, and Vaughan went to work at a hospital where no one spoke to her, and physicians asked for her advice—by then her reputation was significant—only by letter. She treated more anemic patients with liver, though the patients then said, “don’t give me any more of that medicine, doctor. It makes me hungry and I can’t afford [to eat].” She taught her patients to fight authorities to get extra milk, for the extra iron it would give them. She taught her students that to practice medicine, they must learn to deal with the public assistance board as well as the hospital dispensary. She had two daughters. She was busy, and happy.

But war was coming. First, it came to Spain. Her Bloomsbury friends went to fight, and Vanessa Bell’s son Julian was killed. Vaughan began to work with the Committee for Spanish Medical Aid and joined the Communist Party, though she soon lapsed. She said that no one seemed to notice. She sold possessions to raise money for Basque children; she spoke on soapboxes at street corners. She welcomed to London Dr. Duran Jorda, an exceptionally gifted Spanish hematologist who had worked out how to store large supplies of blood so it could be used in a war situation. By now, taking blood from one human and putting it in an another was understood: but storing that blood so it didn’t spoil was not. Vaughan read that Russians had also stored blood, taken from fatal road accidents and kept at low temperatures, then used for civilian needs. She noted all this, and she kept it safe until 1938, when the Munich Agreement was signed, allowing Nazi Germany to annex Sudetenland.

We think now, in our era of wars that only happen elsewhere, of 1938 as safely pre-war. But it can’t have felt like it. A bombing blitz on London was seriously expected to follow Munich. Someone came to Hammersmith and told the medical school to be ready for 57,000 casualties in London that weekend. And Vaughan realised, immediately, that casualties would need blood. They would need a lot of blood.

* * *

In the Wellcome Library in London, I find a propaganda film published by the Ministry of Information in the 1940s, a time when neither “propaganda” nor “Ministry of Information” sounded sinister. The film is called “Blood Transfusion,” and is narrated by accents that now sound cut-glass and royal, but then were normal. It tells us that blood transfusion was widely used in the First World War on the Western Front, including by Dr. Oswald Robinson of Toronto. Donors were easily on hand, and by then it had been understood that adding sodium citrate to blood stopped coagulation and made blood easier to store.

The film moves to 1921, in Camberwell, where we meet Mr. Percy Oliver, leader of a local branch of the British Red Cross society. In 1921, there was no mass storage of blood, nor any organized recruitment of blood donors. Blood donation was done, but ad hoc. The technical term was “on the hoof.” Oliver’s actions helped to change that, when the telephone rang on an October evening in the south London suburb of Camberwell, and someone from King’s College hospital asked for urgent blood donors. Oliver volunteered, and so did all the nurses on the committee. From this one call in 1921, Oliver set up a network of blood donors, an office with donors’ details on index cards and a telephone that was always manned, and he called it the London Blood Service. Donors were sought and their blood used immediately. The service dealt with 737 calls in 1926, 2,442 in 1931 and by 1938 nearly 7,000. Oliver’s model was copied and spread, so that by the war, most parts of the country could reach a donor panel. It was an amazing achievement from a man who still worked full-time at the local council, and from each donor who gave some of their eight or nine pints of blood, freely and for no reward.

But in a war, it would not do.

By 1938, science knew how to transfuse blood and store it temporarily. But Janet Vaughan knew that on the hoof would not be possible in wartime. She needed to work out how to store large quantities of blood, safely, and transport it, safely. Blood supply needed to go from Mom and Pop to Walmart. Yet there was resistance. Douglas Starr, in Blood, quotes the British Secretary of War, asked in 1937 what the nation proposed to do about a mass blood supply. The secretary was dismissive. Blood could not be stored for long or in great quantities, he said. On the hoof was better. “It was more satisfactory to store our blood in our people.”

Janet Vaughan did not agree, and Janet Vaughan did something about it. Her medical director gave her £100, and she sent off her assistants in taxis to find all the tubing that London shops could provide. They made up crude transfusion sets, and set about bleeding. (I am struck by this word, which Vaughan and contemporary accounts use routinely. It has been retired in the modern blood supply service. Today, I receive letters asking me to “donate” or “give blood,” but not to be bled, or to sit on a “bleeding couch.” Is it too brutal? Does the word make us too animal? Now the emphasis is on altruism, not the baseness of a body fluid.)


The bombs did not fall, and Vaughan’s team diverted the blood collected at Hammersmith to hospital use. But war was going to come so Janet began planning. The minutes of the meetings of the Emergency Blood Transfusion Service exist in the archives of the Wellcome Library, and they are as rich as blood. The Service was actually a gathering of Vaughan’s peers from various hospitals, held in the Gourlays’ Bloomsbury flat. The meetings were always in the evening, after the day’s work was done, and they lasted hours. I picture these meetings. Janet Vaughan would be wearing a tweed suit. She would be kind but brisk. Later, someone described her as “down to earth but like air on a mountain.” The other doctors might have bow ties. They would smoke pipes. They would drink tea, or gin and tonics, and eat crumpets. They would do this while deciding on the size of bottles, or what kind of armrests to put on the “bleeding chairs,” and they would change modern medicine.

London needed blood depots. The committee decided on four, one for each quarter of the city; two north of the river, two south. They would be near hospitals, but safely out of the city center, in case it was bombed. The service needed money, so they worked on a budget, which was doubled on the advice of Vaughan’s boss. The precise methods of storing blood had to be decided upon: On April 5, 1939, the first meeting, the minutes record a suggestion that 50cc of 3.8% citrate containing 0.1% glucose should be added to every 450cc of blood. Donors, they thought at first, would be Group O only, the universal blood type that can be safely transfused into most people, and there should be 9,000 of them per depot. Other issues arose. Of course donors must be screened, as much as circumstances permitted. Syphilis was a worry, particularly as promiscuity always rises in wartime. The practicality of testing all donations for syphilis was one issue: whether or not to tell unwitting carriers that they had been infected by their spouses was another.

The bottles, though. Amongst all calculations detailed painstakingly in the committee minutes over the months—8 million Londoners, therefore 2 million people per depot, 65,000 estimated daily casualties therefore 10,000 per depot; and from wanting only O to accepting all blood types—the bottles were vital. Without the proper storage vessel, all the sodium citrate in the world wouldn’t keep blood safe, or make it portable. The choices were few but they were tricky: a Beattie waisted type? A whisky cap on a United Dairies bottle? A McCartney screw cap on a United Dairies bottle? Or a modified McCartney bottle of the L.C.C. type? “The children complained that the flat was littered with old bottles,” wrote Vaughan in her unpublished autobiography Jogging Along.

Blood transfusion bottle. Photo via Wellcome Trust, Wikimedia Commons.

Blood transfusion bottle. Photo via Wellcome Trust, Wikimedia Commons.

Through the summer the deliberations continued. The committee was an informal one, but then Vaughan sent a memorandum about their plans to Professor Topley of the London School of Hygiene, who was known to be organizing emergency services. Her boss heard of it and called her “a very naughty little girl.” As if that would stop her.

By the second week of June, they had decided to use Wall’s ice cream vans to transport blood. They would call up registered donors by using runner boys. The bottle would be a modified milk bottle with a narrow waist and an aluminum screw cap lined with a soft rubber disc. This became known as the MRC bottle, after the committee was taken over by the Medical Research Council.

Janet was to run the northern depot, in Slough. She set off alone to see the medical officer of Health (M.O.H.) to find premises. “How fortunate I was to go to Slough where everyone—mad as they thought me at the time—was more than willing to help me.” There was an unshackled energy about Slough that appealed to this child of boarding school, Oxford and Bloomsbury. She thought it “a frontier town,” grown up after the First World War around a vast trading estate, full of migrant workers “with no settled traditions and customs to be disturbed.” She was directed to Noel Mobbs, Chairman of the Great Trading Estate and of a social center. Mr Mobbs did not believe a war was coming, but he said the depot could move into the social center, that there was space for cold rooms to be built. There was also a bar.

Agreements were signed. Hitler prepared to invade Poland. Three days before Britain declared war, on September 3, 1939, Janet Vaughan received a telegram from the Medical Research Council. It read, “Start bleeding.”

* * *

Medical technician from British Medical Services during World War II. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

Medical technician from British Medical Services during World War II. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

Slough Depot. Wartime. The place bustled with nurses, secretaries, telephonists, medical technicians, drivers. There were 100 staff, including two local girls to make all the sterile plasma and serum “and sterile they kept in spite of the really unsuitable dusty conditions in which they had to work.” And the drivers who must drive the Wall’s ice-cream vans full of blood. These drivers: I pictured them as forthright young women in heavy coats, like the forthright young women in heavy coats in Sarah Waters’s The Night Watch. But I was wrong, because in Slough, there was “Mrs. E. O. Franklin’s chauffeur Brady, a mad Irishman,” who kept the vans ticking over. There were voluntary drivers, and unexpected drivers who in times of dire need, such as when Liverpool was bombed and Liverpool had no blood, were recruited from the bar. Drinkers became drivers. Janet loved this bar, for what it meant to her staff: “My young drivers, girls, coming in late at night having driven through terrible weather and blackout, to be able to get some whisky in the war was very important.”

They were not all young girls. One regular driver was Lady Dunstan, “who must have been at least 70. She always wore a string of pearls and a toque rather like Queen Mary, but she was never daunted.” An elegant pensioner, driving an ice-cream van around bombed streets: I couldn’t have invented it. Another driver was “a remarkable old lady whose only interest in life before the war had been her string of ponies and her bridge. She came and said she wanted a job and we set her down amongst the young technicians to fix a singular nasty wire filter that was being used at that time for stored plasma.” When she was ill, as she was occasionally, “she used to send her chauffeur in the Rolls Royce to fetch her a supply of filters to fit at home in bed. One of her friends said she had never been so happy in her life before. She knew we depended on her work, as we did, and through us casualties all over the country.”

And who sat on the bleeding couches and gave their blood? Everyone. Some were recruited in factories or army units or offices, where large groups of people could be appealed to easily. “But the housewife in the country village and small town was often a most faithful and regular donor.” Many gave every three months throughout the war “feeling it the one personal contribution they could make to the war effort.” Richard Titmuss, in The Gift Relationship, reported the results of a survey into why people donate blood. One man wrote, “1941. War. Blood needed. I had some. Why not?”

The bleeding of donors was undertaken in the depot and by mobile teams sent out into the surrounding small towns and villages where they set up a temporary bleeding center in a town hall, factory restroom, church hall or village public house. Janet was very proud of the quality and sterility of “the bleed.” At first, blood was requested by telephone. But “they soon learnt that Slough could hear and see the bombs falling and would arrive.” The bombs began to drop in the fall of 1940. The ice-cream vans would get near the bomb sites, and deliver their blood to the hospital where the casualties were being taken. This experience created medical innovation: they wore electric lights on their foreheads, like miners, so that if lights were off and blackout was in operation, they could still see where to stick in their needles.

They changed the needle design because of one incident with a burned girl on the Great West Road. Vaughan arrived and found a little girl, horrifically burnt after she had taken alight from the house electric fire. She left the girl to die, because she had to see who she could save and who she couldn’t, but after saving who she could she returned to the girl and found her still alive. Her legs and arms were so burnt, she had no veins. And Janet again remembered something she had read, that you could give blood into bones. “That was the great thing about medicine in the war, you could take risks because people died so they were no worse off if they died because of what you did.” She took the biggest needle she could find and stuck it in the girl’s breastbone, and told a nurse to pump in blood. (When depot staff couldn’t find a vein, they called it “Digging for Victory.”) Two hours later, the nurse had got two pints in. The girl lived, and applied to Somerville years later, when Vaughan was principal. Harriet Proudfoot, that burned little girl, was given the choice of three Oxford colleges to choose from, but remembered Vaughan, who visited her and sucked blood out of her undamaged ear. And all the while “she explained what she was doing and spoke to me as if I was as interested and intelligent as she was.” When Harriet applied to Oxford, the only college she put on her form was Somerville. “So,” said Janet Vaughan of this, “nice things happen.”

The depots treated thousands of casualties, but the staff also did scientific research. They learned that theories about how to treat shock were wrong: rather than having the expected low blood pressure, shock victims had high blood pressure, and needed large volumes of blood. Each trauma victim received on average two and a half milk bottles of blood, with two bottles of blood used for one bottle of plasma. Sometimes, they quickly learned, dried serum and no blood was adequate treatment. This was essential for the mass evacuation of Dunkirk in the summer of 1940, when the depot sent all the blood it had to the coast. But the casualties kept coming, and the system could not cope, even though the Americans by now were sending over blood and plasma on ships, under the Blood Plasma for Great Britain program. Vaughan and her staff had also been working on using plasma, but the plasma looked cloudy and full of clots, so they hadn’t dared risk it until Dunkirk. “We knew men must die if we didn’t transfuse them, so we took a risk on our very odd-looking plasma.” It was another risk justified by war, and the plasma worked “like magic.”

By the spring of 1941, when the air raids stopped, they thought the demand for blood would drop, but it didn’t. “Surgeons and physicians had learnt to appreciate the value of transfusion as a therapeutic aid. Throughout the war there was a steady increase of transfusion practice throughout the country. In many cases no doubt the pendulum swung too far and unnecessary transfusions were given, but on the whole the educative value of the war time transfusion service was great.” The war, and the depots of London—along with army depots—taught us the value of blood.

* * *

Through the war, then, delivering blood. Vaughan learned to say yes to any request, because “what men and women need in a desperate emergency is reassurance. They can hold on if help is coming, and—given the lead—other men and women will always be prepared to give that help.” Just before D-Day, Janet received a phone call from the head of Emergency Medical Services. “Janet, we have made no arrangements for the Ports, will you look after them?” She said, yes, of course, having no idea what looking after the Ports would entail. “As so often we heard no more, but I can only hope that the Ports received reassuring messages that Slough would come if needed.”

The war was ending, and although Vaughan had had five years of death and burns and bombs, when she was asked to go to the Nazi death camp Belsen to research how best to feed starving people, she said yes. She said yes, for science, because people who had been as starved and annihilated as the inmates of Belsen needed emergency nutrition, and the prevailing medical thought was that this should consist of hydrolysates, a strong protein in liquid form. She was driven over the Rhine on wooden pontoon bridges, and she waved to troops returning from the front. She saw hundreds of forced laborers in striped pajamas, spat out from their camps and wandering over the countryside. When she got home, she burned all her husband’s striped pajamas.

They knew before they got there that they were near Belsen, because of the stench of shit and dead bodies. The senior officer thought they were there to help, but they said no, they were there to do research. That sounds brutal now, but Vaughan writes about it with no shame. She believed in science, and they would soon need to save all the prisoners of war who would emerge from Japanese camps. The science must be done, even if she found herself having to inject hydrolysates into skeletal men who saw her approaching with a needle and screamed “nicht crematorium!” because the Nazis had sometimes injected the condemned with paraffin before sending them to the crematoria. Vaughan writes that this was so that they burned better. This was horror, but Vaughan kept on, though she had to pick the living from the dying in piles of bodies; though she was attacked by naked, desperate men (and could only wave a bedpan at them). She did enough research to show that small amounts of food were a more efficient treatment of starvation than hydrolysates. She wrote a letter home on a scrap of paper, that said, “I am here—trying to do science in hell.”

She did science in hell for a few weeks, then returned to England, and to a job as Principal of Somerville College for the next 22 years. It was academia, but it was no sinecure: of course she rose at dawn to dictate all the correspondence needed to run an Oxford college, before setting off every day to put a full day of work in at her lab nearby. If callers to the college wondered where the principal was, she responded, “Do they think I sit knitting?” She became an expert on radiation, researching the metabolism of nuclear fission on humans and on the rabbits who were her test animals. A fellow scientist called her “our radioactive Principal,” which was more accurate than he expected, because if there was any risk that radiation had leaked, Janet Vaughan would disappear to have a bone biopsy from her tibia. She did this work for decades, and once answered the politician Shirley Williams’s question as to why on earth she was handling plutonium at her age, with “what could be better than for someone in her seventies to do this work: I haven’t long to live anyway.” She fought to have women’s colleges accepted as full Oxford colleges, and she increased the intake of science and medical undergraduates at Somerville. She never stopped being a socialist.

mw79382

She lived long after retiring in 1967. She still wrote academic papers in her eighties. She was a Dame, of course, a member of so many societies (my favorite: The Bone and Tooth Society), and loaded with honorary degrees. She was establishment, but yet not, to the end.

Polly Toynbee asked her in 1984 how she would like to be remembered. And this woman who was instrumental in setting up mass blood donation and transfusion; who dared to stick a large needle into the breastbone of a small burned girl; who did science in hell; who never stopped encouraging science in all ways, and women to do more of it, said, “As a scientist. That I have been able to solve, to throw light onto fascinating problems. But as a scientist who had a family. I don’t want to be thought of as a scientist who just sat thinking. It’s important you have a human life.”

Dame Janet Maria Vaughan died in January 1993, aged 92. She had only recently stopped driving her Mini. By then, the Blood Transfusion Service, later the National Blood Service then NHS Blood and Transplant, had existed for 47 years. Last year, it collected 1.9 million donations of blood. British hospitals use 8,000 units every day. Although some parts of blood still only last five days, it can now be separated, stored and widely transported, partly because of a woman named Janet.

* * *

Rose George is the author of The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why it Matters (2008); and of Ninety Percent of Everything: Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry that puts clothes on your back, gas in your car, and food on your plate (2013).

* * *

Editor: Mark Armstrong; Fact-checker: Brendan O’Connor

Interview with a Torturer

$
0
0

Rithy Panh with Christophe Bataille | Translated by John Cullen | The Elimination: A survivor of the Khmer Rouge confronts his past and the commandant of the killing fields | Other Press | February 2013 | 44 minutes (12,355 words)

Below is an excerpt from the book The Elimination, by Rithy Panh, as recommended by Longreads contributor Dana Snitzky.

* * *

Kaing Guek Eav, known as Comrade Duch, was the commandant of Security Prison 21—the S-21 torture and execution center in Phnom Penh, Cambodia—from 1975 to 1979. He chose his nom de guerre, he explains, from a book he remembers reading in his childhood; in the book little Duch was a “good boy.”

At least 12,380 people were tortured in that prison. After the victims confessed, they were executed in the “killing field” of Choeung Ek (also under Duch’s command), about ten miles southeast of Phnom Penh. In S-21 no one escaped torture. No one escaped death.

We’re inside the walls of another prison, the one to which Duch was sentenced in 2010 by the ECCC, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, a national court (better known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal) backed by the United Nations.

He speaks to me in his soft voice, “S-21 was the end of the line. People who got sent there were already corpses. Human or animal? That’s another subject.”

I observe his face, the face of an old man, his large, almost dreamy eyes, his ruined left hand. I envision his younger features and discern the cruelty and madness of his thirties. I understand that he may have had the ability to fascinate, but I’m not afraid. I’m at peace.

Two prisoners of S-21. Photo by Timo Luege

Two prisoners of S-21. Photo by Timo Luege

* * *

Some years previously, in preparation for my film S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine, I conducted long interviews with guards, torturers, executioners, photographers, nurses, and drivers who had served under Duch’s command. Very few of them have had to face legal proceedings. All of them are now free. Sitting in a former cell in S-21—the torture center has been turned into a museum—one of them blurts out, “The prisoners? They were like pieces of wood.” He laughs nervously.

At the same table, before a picture of Pol Pot, another one explains, “Prisoners have no rights. They’re half human and half corpse. They’re not humans, and they’re not corpses. They’re soulless, like animals. You’re not afraid to hurt them. We weren’t worried about our karma.”

I ask Duch, too, if he has nightmares: from having authorized electrocutions, beatings with cords, the thrusting of needles under fingernails; from having made people eat excrement; from having recorded confessions that were lies; from having given orders to slit the throats of men and women lined up blindfolded at the edge of a ditch and deafened by a roaring generator. He considers for a while and then answers me with lowered eyes: “No.” Later, I film him laughing.

Security Prison 21 (S-21), Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Security Prison 21 (S-21), Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

* * *

I don’t like the overused word “trauma.” Today, every individual, every family has its trauma, whether large or small. In my case, it manifests itself as unending desolation; as ineradicable images, gestures no longer possible, silences that pursue me. I ask Duch if he used to dream at night in his cell in the tribunal’s prison. A man who has commanded a place like S-21, and before that M-13, another detention and execution center in the jungle—doesn’t such a man see in nightmares the agonized faces of his victims, calling to him and asking him why? The face, perhaps, of the young and beautiful Bophana, twenty years old, who was savagely tortured for several months?

As for me, ever since the Khmer Rouge were driven from power in 1979, I’ve never stopped thinking about my family. I see my sisters, my big brother and his guitar, my brother-in-law, my parents. All dead. Their faces are talismans. I see my little nephew and niece again—how old are they? five and seven?—starving, breathing with difficulty, staring into space, panting. I remember their last days, their knowing bodies. I remember helplessness. Childish lips closed tight. Duch seems surprised by my question. He thinks for a bit and then says simply, “Dream? No. Never.”

* * *

If I close my eyes, still today, everything comes back to me. The dried-up rice fields. The road that runs through the village, not far from Battambang. Men dressed in black, outlined against the burning horizon. I’m thirteen years old. I’m alone. If I keep my eyes shut, I see the path. I know where the mass grave is, behind Mong hospital; all I have to do is stretch out my hand, and the ditch will be in front of me. But I open my eyes in time. I won’t see that new morning or the freshly dug earth or the yellow cloth we wrapped the bodies in. I’ve seen enough faces. They’re rigid, grimacing. I’ve buried enough men with swollen bellies and open mouths. People say their souls will wander all over the earth.

Now I’m a man in my turn. I’m far away. I’m alive. I no longer remember names or dates: the village boss who used to go horseback riding in the country; the woman who was forced into marriage; the worksites where I slept; the loudspeakers blaring in the morning. I no longer know them. What wounds me has no name.

I’m not looking for objective truth today; I just want words. Especially Duch’s words. I want him to talk and explain himself. To tell his truth, to describe his path, to say what he was, what he wanted or believed himself to be. He has, after all, lived a life; he’s living it now; he’s been a man and even a child. I want this son of an incompetent, debt-ridden businessman, this brilliant student, this mathematics professor so respected by his own students, this revolutionary who still quotes Balzac and Alfred de Vigny, this dialectician, this chief executioner, this master of torture—I want him to answer me, and in so doing to take a step on the road to humanity.

* * *

In 1979 I land in Grenoble, where I’m welcomed by my family. I tell them little or nothing about what I’ve been through. In a short piece written in Khmer, I recount those four years, 1975 to 1979. With the passage of time those old pages will vanish. I’ll never see them again. And talking is difficult.

I start school and begin to discover the country I’ve dreamed about so much, and freedom. The weather’s cold and dark. I can’t read or write or speak French, or so little as makes no difference. I’m elsewhere. I have few friends. What can I say, and to whom? Very quickly I turn to painting. I copy. I sketch. I draw barbed wire and skulls. Men in striped clothes. Metal arches guarded by dogs. Then I take up the guitar and discover woodworking.

One day a huge schoolmate corners me in the corridor and strikes me on the head. This makes his pals laugh. He hits me once, twice, three times. I plead with him to stop because in Cambodia the head is sacred. But he keeps it up. My back’s to the wall, and suddenly everything turns upside down. Incredible strength comes into my hands, I fling myself on him, I strike out in turn. A veil falls. An instant later I open my eyes: the guy’s lying on the ground, curled up, with blood all over his face. I’m being held back; other arms pin my arms. I’m breathing hard. I’m trembling.

In the following months, fearing reprisals, I carried a metal pipe wrapped in newspaper in my schoolbag. Fortunately I never had to use the thing.

And so violence abides. The evil done to me is inside me. Present and powerful. Lying in wait. Many years, many encounters, many tears, and much reading will be necessary for me to overcome it. I don’t like the thought of that bloody morning, and thirty years later I don’t like recounting it either. I’m not ashamed; I’m just reluctant.

Drawing and woodworking were pushing me into silence. I chose film, which shows the world, presents beauty, and also deals in words. I figure it keeps my fists in my pockets.

Ever since that episode I’m wary of violence. I stay away from weapons. And I avoid stairwells, terraces, precipices, unobstructed views, cliffs. Falling is easy. And I’ve already lived so much. If I’m on a balcony, I can’t help myself—I calculate how many seconds I’d fall before hitting the ground. But I don’t give in. And I’m going to meet Duch with my camera and film hundreds of hours of interviews. I need to have him in front of me. Maybe my movie project is nothing but an excuse to get close to him. I want those who perpetrated that evil to call it by its name. I want them to talk.

* * *

I’d never intended to make a film about Duch, but I didn’t like his absence from S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine, which is almost entirely an indictment of the man; everybody accuses him. It was as though my investigation was missing an essential element: Duch’s words.

I review the images that were never included in S21, which required three years to shoot. I wanted to cover the story thoroughly, but also to find the proper distance; not to treat the material as sacred, but not to trivialize it either. First I went to see the torturers in their homes. I spoke to them. I tried to persuade them. Then I filmed them in the very places where their acts had been committed. I often paid someone to take their place in the fields because a shoot could require several days. I gave them room and board. Sometimes they came alone. Sometimes they were accompanied by other “comrade interrogators.” They would talk among themselves, take one another’s measure. Avoid one another. I wanted to make them draw near and feel the truth, to puncture the small lies and refute the big ones. Then they met the painter Vann Nath, one of the few survivors of the center, a calm and just man.

I film their silences, their faces, their gestures. That’s my method. I don’t fabricate the event. I create situations in which former Khmer Rouge can think about what they did. And in which the survivors can tell what they suffered.

I ask the executioners the same questions. Ten times, twenty if necessary. Some details appear. Some contradictions. Some new truths. Their eyes hesitate or evade. One of them remembers having tortured someone at one o’clock in the morning. We meet at that hour in S-21. Artificial light. Whispers. A motorcycle passes. All around us cane toads, rustling sounds in the night, a family of owls.

When I show a torturer from the group known as the “Biters” the photograph of a young girl, his first response is to say he recognizes her. “She confessed. But I never touched her.” An hour later he murmurs, “I took up a guava branch. I lashed her with it twice. She pissed on herself. She rolled on the ground, crying. Then she asked for a pen. Since her writing was too bad, I took the pen and wrote out her confession myself.” She’s accused—she accuses herself—of sabotage: supposedly she injected water into the patients’ drips and contaminated the operating room. Is that really credible? I look at the man’s downcast eyes, listen to the weak drone of his voice. I only partly believe him. He was very violent with that woman: after three days her clothes were torn and her face exhausted. She stayed in S-21 for a month.

The same man explains that he would torture all through the night and sometimes fall asleep with his prisoner. Can you imagine the soiled shackles at the feet of the wooden chairs? The metal mesh springs where the victim writhed in convulsions before he or she finally slept? The pincers, the iron bars, the needles, the vises? The smell of blood? Every twenty minutes Duch or his deputy Mam Nay would telephone to check on the torturer’s progress, and he’d report on how he was doing. Then the torture would resume.

The torturer further explains that over the course of several weeks he obtained almost thirty successive “confessions” from a single prisoner. There must be three copies of every confession; each was about twenty pages long. The most important confession would be typed. Administrative lunacy. Duch would read each confession carefully and return the annotated, underlined text to the torturer with requests for clarification and several new queries. The sessions would resume.

* * *

In my office in Phnom Penh there’s a wall of metal closets. They contain letters, notebooks, sound recordings, archives, distressing statistics, maps. Next door, in a climate-controlled space, I keep various hard disks with photographs, recorded radio broadcasts, Khmer Rouge propaganda films, statements made by witnesses before the tribunal. The entire Cambodian tragedy is here. The Khmer Rouge took the capital city on April 17, 1975. By the time Vietnamese troops drove them from power in January 1979, the tally was 1.7 million dead, or nearly a third of the population of the country.

As in former times a single, long fan blade is paddling the suffocating air. The city comes to me, with its cries, its horns, its children’s laughter, its activity. I open a thick file. I look at the vanished faces. Some of them are dear to me. I know their stories and I’ve read their confessions. Others come and go in my dreams, but I still don’t know their names. What do the dead ask? That we think about them? That we liberate them by bringing the guilty to judgment? Or do they want us to understand what took place?

I’m holding a slightly streaked, slightly out-of-focus photograph. It shows Duch entering a banquet hall and apparently smiling at ten or so persons, seated around a table, who aren’t looking at him. Like all of us at the time he’s wearing a pair of black pants. But he’s chosen a dark gray shirt, as he’s careful to point out to me. What a mystery: how did that calm young man become one of the cruelest torturers and mass murderers of the twentieth century? He looks as though he broke into the banqueting place. But he’s cool and casual. I imagine him in 1943, when he’s one year old. His parents go off to work in the fields. His mother’s an ethnic Cambodian, his father Chinese. He and his sisters grow up in the province of Kampong Thom. A brilliant pupil, he’s singled out and continues his education in the town of Siem Reap before being sent to the prestigious Lycée Sisowath in the capital. In his graduation year he receives the second highest examination scores in the country. He elects to pursue a career as a mathematics teacher and along the way meets Son Sen, a man with a lifelong engagement in revolution and ideology. Son Sen will later be Duch’s superior in the Khmer Rouge hierarchy and a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cambodia.

Duch is assigned to a lycée in a small town in Kampong Cham, not far from Pol Pot’s native province. He’s the deputy director of the school when he’s convicted of having led a riot and serves three years in prison. When he’s released in 1970, he goes underground in the countryside. A year later, he’s appointed head of “security services” in the jungle, in what’s known as the Special Zone. Until 1975 he’s the commandant of the M-13 prison, where it’s certain that thousands of Cambodians were tortured and subsequently executed. In M-13 Duch fine-tunes his organization and develops his method: “In 1973, when I was the head of M-13, I recruited children. I chose them according to their class—middle-class peasants and the poor. I put them to work, and later I brought them with me to S-21. Those children were formed by the movement and by hard work. I made them into guards and interrogators. The youngest of them looked after the rabbits. They learned how to guard and interrogate before they learned their alphabet. Their level of culture was very low, but they were loyal to me. I trusted them.”

Khmer Rouge soldiers. Photo via Alan Chan

Khmer Rouge soldiers. Photo via Alan Chan

At first Duch makes his rounds on a bicycle; later he uses a Honda motorcycle. Some peasants from Amleang tell me, “When we heard the sound of his bicycle chain, we hid ourselves.”

In the foreground of the photograph a woman seems to be suckling an infant. I can see only her straight back, the nape of her neck, her short hair. Duch is categorical: the photo was taken at the banquet given to celebrate the marriage of Comrade Nourn Huy, known as Huy Sre, the head of S-24—an annex of S-21. Later this same comrade would be executed, along with his wife, on Duch’s orders. I replace the photograph. Every biography, even if examined in detail, remains an enigma.

* * *

At the end of the 1990s, during the filming of S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine, we could feel the presence of the Khmer Rouge, watching us. Who can believe for a moment that they’re no longer in the country? One day, while we were shooting an interview with an escapee from Kraing Ta Chan prison, several men arrived carrying machetes and axes. Very angry men. What to do? Resist. I held on to my camera and shouted, “I know who you are and where you worked. I know every one of you. You, you were a torturer in this prison. Don’t deny it. You there, you were a guard. And you were a messenger. You think I arrived here just like that, without preparing myself? You think I don’t know you?” They hesitated. Vann Nath and my film crew stood beside me. The men put down their machetes and talked with us. By the end of that trying day I was able to film the torturer, alone.

My documentaries Bophana and S21 were shown in Cambodia. Like me, the country was able to retrace its memory. I felt that those films had brought an episode in my life to a close.

Then Duch’s trial began. It seemed far away from me. I believed I was at peace. I’d cautioned the tribunal judges, both Cambodian and international, in advance: The images will tell the story, I said; they’ll tell the world what the guilty parties did; they’ll show their arrogance, their rigidity, their lies, their methods, their cunning. Think about the Nuremberg Trials! Remember the leading Nazi who stands up and replies “Nein” before sitting down again; a sequence like that is worth all analyses. Images are educational and universal.

I read the transcripts of the first hearing in Duch’s trial, and they tormented me. I realized I couldn’t maintain my distance.

I didn’t try to understand Duch, nor did I care to judge him; I wanted to give him a chance to explain, in detail, the death process of which he was the organizer-in-chief. So I asked the judges for permission to conduct interviews with him. I met the man in the visiting room and outlined the two basic principles of my project: he wouldn’t be the only person to appear in my film—other witnesses, possibly contradictory, would be used—and every subject would be discussed frankly. Summing up, I said, “I’ll be forthright and frank with you. Be forthright and frank with me.”

He answered me with a sort of sententious tranquility: “Mr. Rithy, both of us are working for the truth.”

* * *

First day of shooting. Duch leaves his cell in an armored vehicle, escorted by about fifteen guards. He meets me in one of the tribunal’s chambers.

Me: “What should I call you? Kaing Guek Eav?”
Duch: “No. Call me Duch.”
Me: “Duch? Your S-21 name? You don’t want to go back to what you were before?”
Duch: “No. Why do you want me to hide? I’m Duch. Everybody knows me by that name, and that’s what they call me. Call me Duch.”

I reeled when he said that.

* * *

He’d seen my documentaries and therefore knew all about my work. He didn’t like S21, because in that film, he’s the subject of some very precise accusations. But in speaking to me about Bophana, which tells the story of a young woman who was tortured because she wrote to her lover in romantic, coded language, Duch said, “If you run into Bophana’s uncle, please ask him to forgive me. I feel sorry for that man—I did him harm. I’m the one responsible. And if you see her husband’s mother, tell her that Duch acknowledges the wrong he did.” Then he added, “I don’t acknowledge everything that’s said in your film, but as commandant of S-21 I take full responsibility.” Duch wants to believe that redemption can be bought with words. He disputes the historical truth, and then he declares that he takes full responsibility. In other words I deny what you affirm, but I’ll bear the burden of your truth.

I answered him, “Mr. Duch, you take on too much. That’s not what we’re asking for. To each his own responsibility; the torturers, for example, have accepted theirs. And they’re recounting what happened. What I want is to understand what went on at S-21 during those years. I want you to explain everything to us: your role, the jargon you used, the organization of the prison, the confession process, the executions.”

After some ten hours of interviews an excited Duch confided in me, “I had a revelation this morning during my prayers. I was overwhelmed. And then I understood: I must talk to you.”

I replied, “That’s all I ask.” And we continued.

* * *

Later he laughed and asked me, “What’s the hourly rate?” I didn’t understand, or rather, I pretended not to understand, because I knew that someone before me had paid a large sum in dollars for an interview. To visit the high executioner himself, the monster, the man . . . what excitement. He repeated his question, pronouncing the words distinctly, “Mr. Rithy, what’s the hourly rate?”

I answered, “I can’t pay you. And I don’t want to. My work is to make the film. You know my conditions. I film you, and I alone am in charge of the editing. You can take it or leave it.”

He didn’t insist. “I was joking,” he said. “You know, journalists are paying one of the photographers from S-21 as much as two hundred dollars for an interview! And he talks a lot of idiotic nonsense!” Duch burst out laughing.

During the course of some months, I questioned him without fear and without hate. In the beginning he would launch into long expositions of Marx’s writings, historical materialism, and dialectical materialism. Then he discoursed upon his career, his method, the Khmer Rouge doctrine. He sidestepped. Contradicted himself. Looking at photographs, he seemed at first to recognize neither his victims nor his comrade torturers. Not even Tuy, notorious for his cruelty, whom Duch trained in M-13 and later brought with him to S-21, Tuy the specialist in “difficult cases.” Little by little, Duch found his voice again, but the only words he had left were lies.

* * *

On the day when I bring him Bophana’s file—the thickest interrogation file to come out of S-21—he finds himself in difficulties. His handwriting is everywhere in the file. You can still perceive, after thirty years, the combativeness, the hatred, the perversity, an excitement that resembles desire. When I’m requesting more precision, more details, his soft voice interrupts me: “Mr. Rithy, I’m grateful to you for having brought me such a complete file. Thank you very much.” Then he rises to go.

Only once do we have a really fierce quarrel. I can feel the tribunal guards behind me, leaning over my shoulders, ready to hold me back. Mechanically lining up his files on the desk so that not a single page is sticking out, Duch keeps repeating, “that’s true, that’s true” with a faraway look in his wide-open eyes.

Suddenly he stops and stares at me: “Mr. Rithy, we have a problem, the two of us—we don’t understand each other.” The quarrel proceeds.

I say, speaking forcefully, “What’s the use of my coming to meet with you if you lie to me?”

Duch smiles.

“That’s true, that’s true . . .” he says.

A little later, as he’s getting up to go, he laughs and says, “Mr. Rithy, let’s not argue anymore. See you tomorrow.”

After hundreds of hours of filming, the truth became cruelly apparent to me: I had become that man’s instrument. His adviser in some way. His coach. As I’ve written, I was searching not for truth but for knowledge, for consciousness. Let the words come, I thought. But Duch’s words always amounted to the same thing, a game of falsehood. A cruel game. Resulting in a vague saga. With my questions, I’d helped to prepare him for his trial. So: I had survived the Khmer Rouge, I was investigating the human enigma as humanly personified by Duch, and he was using me? I found this idea intolerable.

* * *

The world was wobbling. I nearly suffocated in the plane. I fell several times while walking in the street. In Paris, I avoided the subways and buses. I’d stare at the crowds of people and tremble. Where were they all going? And where had they come from? The slightest noise would make me jump. I held on to metal, to tiling, to wood, to my relatives, to my books, to paper; I held on to the night.

Then a fog of sounds invaded my brain from morning till evening. I’d hear squealing tires. Radio frequencies. Clashing metal. Weird echoes. I remember spending entire nights walking up and down the big boulevard that passes in front of the Royal Palace in Phnom Penh. I was attuned to the rhythm of the traffic. The blood pounded in my temples. I didn’t want to hear anymore. I said to my assistant, “If I don’t show up back here tonight, come look for me in front of the palace. Don’t leave me on the riverbank. Please. Come for me.”

I’d sit on the sidewalk with my head in my hands. No sobs, no thoughts. Around four o’clock in the morning I’d ride through the capital of bad dreams in a motorcycle taxi, with a lump in my throat and the warm wind on my forehead. Small cement buildings. Illuminated pagoda. Vendors’ stalls in the shadows. Twenty years now since the Khmer Rouge fled these broad avenues; but I feel Duch’s hand, reaching for my shoulders and the back of my neck. He gropes. I resist. I turn around, shivering.

On my way I see a child sleeping in a vegetable cart. The sky is pale. We’re saved.

* * *

Duch remembers names, places, dates, faces, trajectories with great precision. He’s a man of memory. Nothing escapes him. He loves method and doctrine. He never stopped refining the slaughter machine—or its language.

Throughout the filming Duch gauges me. I gauge myself too. I can find but little humanity in what he is. Having been saved by a Buddhist monk as a child he’s very familiar with Buddhism, but he’s no pawn of fate. He’s in control of his life from start to finish, all the way to his late conversion to Christianity—he’s presently an evangelical Christian. If it’s not one ideology, it’s another.

On the wholly human scale: I find in myself nothing but sensations. Everything registers as smells, as images, as sounds. I’m alive, but I’m afraid of not being alive anymore. Of not breathing anymore. The bloodbath has drowned part of me.

* * *

I believe the insomnia started in 1997 when my film Rice People was selected to participate in the main competition at the Cannes International Film Festival. My condition has worsened ever since. I made a little money, and a cruel thought stuck fast in my brain: I can’t share this good fortune with my parents. Then, all at once, my childhood surfaced again. I shook. I couldn’t breathe. That money had to be gone through; it absolutely had to be given away. Let it slip from my hands. Let it vanish and take me with it.

After dark I’d walk down the Grands Boulevards, surrounded by prostitutes, petty crooks, tourists, and Parisians adrift in the night. I played various table games—poker, baccarat, chemin de fer—in all the Clichy and République and Bastille casinos and gambling halls. I won fortunes. I remember walking through the streets of Paris with a fortune in my pocket. I lived for those miraculous fifteen minutes—and for this lie: I was rich; I had the world on a string. Then I’d become poor again, thank God. Gamblers lose. I laughed and drank a lot with Arabs, Jews, Armenians, Chinese. We were on the skids. We all knew we were going to lose. Besides that was why we were there. The important thing was to flame out so brightly that nothing was left: no chips, no banknotes, no seven-faced dice, no joyful roulette wheels, no casinos, no gamblers. Nothing. No one.

That life disgusted me. I was foundering in anxiety. I dreamed of Mitterand, suffocating in his coffin. I dreamed I’d been shut up in an oven, beating on the walls and shouting in vain. After some weeks I abandoned the night. Like a good boy I returned to my screenplays, to my films, but sleep wouldn’t come back.

* * *

Me: “The leaders knew the confessions were false?”
Duch: “I know! I know. It bothered me! I wanted to compare them with the truth, starting as far back as M-13. But what could I do?”
Me: “So everyone knew the confessions were false?”
Duch: “Yes, but no one dared to say so! Mr. Rithy, I loved police work, but as a way to get to the truth! I didn’t like working the Khmer Rouge way.”

* * *

So I resisted. I held on. That’s why I find the end of Primo Levi’s life saddening and irritating. Yes, irritating—the word may surprise, but it’s true. The idea that Levi survived deportation to a concentration camp, that he wrote at least one great book, If This Is a Man, not to mention The Truce and The Periodic Table, and that he threw himself down a stairwell fifty years later. . . . It’s as if his tormentors finally succeeded, in spite of love, in spite of his books. Their hands reached across time to complete the work of destruction, which never ends. Primo Levi’s end terrifies me.

* * *

In the interviews we often bring up the works of Karl Marx, which Duch knows and admires.

Me: “Mr. Duch, who are the closest followers of Marxism?”
Duch: “The illiterate.”

People who can’t read are the “closest” followers of Marxism. They’re the ones who are in arms. And, I may add, they’re the ones who obey.

Those who read have access to words, to history, and to the history of words. They know that language shapes, flatters, conceals, enthralls. He who reads reads language itself; he perceives its duplicity, its cruelty, its betrayal. He knows that a slogan is just a slogan. And he’s seen others.

* * *

In 1975, I was thirteen years old and happy. My father had been the chief undersecretary to several ministers of education in succession; now he was retired, and a member of the senate. My mother cared for their nine children. My parents, both of them descended from peasant families, believed in knowledge. More than that: they had a taste for it. We lived in a house in a suburb close to Phnom Penh. Ours was a life of ease, with books, newspapers, a radio, and eventually a black-and-white television. I didn’t know it at the time, but we were destined to be designated—after the Khmer Rouge entered the capital on April 17 of that year—as “new people,” which meant members of the bourgeoisie, intellectuals, landowners. That is, oppressors who were to be reeducated in the countryside—or exterminated.

Overnight I become “new people,” or (according to an even more horrible expression) an “April 17.” Millions of us are so designated. That date becomes my registration number, the date of my birth into the proletarian revolution. The history of my childhood is abolished. Forbidden. From that day on, I, Rithy Panh, thirteen years old, have no more history, no more family, no more emotions, no more thoughts, no more unconscious. Was there a name? Was there an individual? There’s nothing anymore.

What a brilliant idea, to give a hated class a name full of hope: new people. This huge group will be transformed by the revolution. Transmuted. Or wiped out forever. As for the “old people” or “ordinary people” they’re no longer backward and downtrodden, they become the model to follow—men and women working the lands their ancestors worked or bending over machine tools, revolutionaries rooted in practical life. The “old people” are the heirs of the great Khmer Empire. They are ageless. They built Angkor. They threw its stone images into the jungle and into the water. The women stoop in the rice fields. The men build and repair dikes. They fulfill themselves in and by what they do. They’re charged with reeducating us and they have absolute power over us.

The flag of Democratic Kampuchea (the country’s new name) bears not a hammer and sickle but an image of the great temple of Angkor. “For more than two thousand years, the Khmer people have lived in utter destitution and the most complete discouragement. . . . If our people were capable of building Angkor Wat, then they are capable of doing anything.” (Pol Pot, in a speech broadcast on the radio.)

How many people died on the building sites of the twelfth century? Nobody knows. But what they built expressed a spiritual power and elevation utterly absent from the creations of the Khmer Rouge.

* * *

A few days before April 17, 1975, one of my father’s friends came to our house to warn him, “The Khmer Rouge are getting closer. You and your wife and children should leave. There’s still time. We’ll find a solution for you—a plane to Thailand, for example. You must flee.” My imperturbable father refused to budge. He wasn’t afraid. A man devoted to education, he was a servant of the state and had always worked for the general good. Once a month, in his spare time, he’d meet with some friends—professors, school inspectors—and proofread translations of foreign books into the Khmer language. He didn’t want to leave his country. And he didn’t think he was in any danger, even though he’d worked for every government through the years.

Using the sequence of events in China as an example, he assured us he would no doubt be sent to a reeducation camp for a while; such an outcome seemed to him to be practically in the natural order of things. Then conditions would start to improve. He believed in his usefulness to the country, and in social justice. As for my mother and us, the children, the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t consider us important. That, then, was the analysis of an educated, well-informed man, a man with peasant origins to boot. In retrospect it’s easy to see the naïveté in his assessment. His viewpoint was, first and foremost, that of a humanist, a progressive who envisioned a humanistic revolution.

However, my father knew that some acts of violence had already occurred. Around the end of 1971 a schoolteacher had explained to him that teaching in the zones occupied by the Khmer Rouge insurgents was almost impossible. He spoke of extortion, torture, murder. They were pitiless, he said, and most of all there seemed to be nothing in their organization that was either egalitarian or free.

The popular revolution was cruel, but on the other hand Lon Nol’s regime was no better, with its trail of disappearances and arbitrary executions. The peasants would no longer put up with destitution and servitude. Their misery was increased by the American bombardments in the hinterlands. In the towns, too, the ruling power was loathed; in a climate of penury, corruption had reached intolerable levels. It was on this fertile ground of anger that the Khmer Rouge, with their discipline, their ideology, and their dialectics, had prospered.

My father had met Ieng Sary after his return from France in the mid-1950s. Ieng Sary had gone on to become an important Khmer Rouge leader, and then in 1963 he’d disappeared into the jungle with Pol Pot. At that time my father had helped his wife. Their children were in the same school as we were. My father couldn’t imagine this former pupil in the Lycée Condorcet, this student of Marx, this professor of history and geography, participating in an inhuman or criminal enterprise. He figured that the new regime would make educating the masses a priority. Basically he had faith in his own program.

The French protectorate of Cambodia had come to an end in 1953, but true independence is not so easily obtained. Under Lon Nol’s regime propaganda was everywhere. A climate of violence prevailed. Like all boys of my age I was fascinated by the rifles and the uniforms. Whenever a military truck approached our house, I’d station myself outside with a wooden gun. I drew tanks in my notebooks.

When I reflect on the situation, I feel certain that children in the countryside must have shared the same fascination, but the Khmer Rouge took them in hand very early, at eleven or twelve years old. They were given a uniform—black shirt, black pants, a traditional checkered scarf (a krama), a pair of sandals cut from tire rubber—a rifle, and, above all, an ironclad ideal and an iron discipline. What would I have thought if someone had consigned a weapon to me and promised a people’s revolution that would bring equality, fraternity, justice? I would have been happy, as one is when he believes.

* * *

The fighting was getting closer to Phnom Penh. We could feel the earth shaking from the American bombardments: the famous “carpet bombing” strategy already employed in Vietnam. My country cousins had warned me that when the B-52s approached, I shouldn’t throw myself flat on the ground; the vibrations in the earth could give you ear- and nosebleeds, even at a distance of several hundred yards. They also taught me to recognize the whistling of rockets. They couldn’t take being hungry and thirsty and afraid anymore. Because of the air raids, they had to harvest their fields at night. They all died alongside the Khmer Rouge. That’s not hard to explain: the more bombs the American B-52s dropped, the more peasants joined the revolution, and the more territory the Khmer Rouge gained.

The refugees crowded into the capital. They seemed dazed. Rationing became widespread. There were shortages of water, rice, electricity, gasoline. We took in my aunt and her two children and lodged them on the ground floor of our house. We could hear the rockets whistling as they fell on our neighborhood, and then the mournful wailing of the ambulance sirens. My school was located across from a pagoda, so we witnessed, with increasing frequency, the cremations of officers who had died in combat. A general, impalpable atmosphere of anxiety pervaded the city. We were waiting, but for what? Freedom? Revolution? I couldn’t recognize anyone anymore—all faces were closed. It was then that I put away my wooden rifle. The party was over, and I had no ideal to aspire to.

* * *

On April 17 my family, like all the other inhabitants of the capital, converged on the city center. I remember that my sister was driving without a license. They’re coming! They’re coming! We wanted to be there, to see, to understand, to participate. There was already a rumor afoot that we were going to be evacuated. People ran behind the columns of armed men, all of them dressed in black. They were young, old, and in between, and like all peasants, they wore their pants rolled up to their knees.

Many books declare that Phnom Penh joyously celebrated the arrival of the revolutionaries. I recall instead feverishness, disquiet, a sort of anguished fear of the unknown. And I don’t remember any scenes of fraternization. What surprised us was that the revolutionaries didn’t smile. They kept us at a distance, coldly. I quickly noticed the looks in their eyes, their clenched jaws, their fingers on their triggers. I was frightened by that first encounter, by the entire absence of feeling.

* * *

Some years ago I met and filmed a former Khmer Rouge soldier, a member of an elite unit, who confirmed to me that they’d received clear instructions on the eve of the great day: “Don’t touch anyone. No one at all. And if you have no choice, never touch a person with your hand; use your rifle barrel.”

* * *

Annotation in red ink in the register of S-21, across from the names of three young children: “Grind them into dust.” Signature: “Duch.” Duch acknowledges that it’s his handwriting. Yes, he’s the one who wrote that. But he clarifies his statement: he wrote those words at the request of his deputy, Comrade Hor, the head of the security unit, in order to “jolt” Comrade Peng, who seemed to be hesitating.

The pages of that register each contain between twenty and thirty names. Accompanying every name, Duch jotted a note in his own hand—“Destroy.” “Keep.” “Can be destroyed.” “Photograph needed.”—as though he had detailed knowledge of each case. The thoroughness of torture. The thoroughness of the work of torture.

* * *

We went to stay with friends who gave us temporary lodging in the center of the capital. At an intersection jammed with vehicles, soldiers, and a crowd of people, a Khmer Rouge commander riding in a jeep with a pistol at his belt and a cohort of bodyguards around him recognized my father, put his hands together in greeting, and slowly bowed. Who was he? A former pupil? A schoolteacher? A peasant from my father’s native village? A few yards farther on my father said to my sister, “Let’s try over to the right,” but at once he received a violent blow to the temple from a rifle butt. “No! To the left!” a young Khmer Rouge yelled. We obeyed him.

When my older sister’s husband, who was a surgeon, saw what terrible shape the refugees were in, the pregnant women on the roads, the gravely ill abandoned to their fate, he left us and went back to the Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital. For days on end he performed operations and provided medical care, and then he was evacuated, together with all the patients. The chaos was indescribable. And there were no longer any means of communication—or rather communication itself was forbidden. My brother-in-law searched in vain for us and then set out alone for his native province. Fifteen years later I learned that he’d been arrested at Taing Kauk. Somebody recognized him and denounced him as a physician. At that time people would make denunciations for a bowl of rice. Or out of revenge. Or jealousy. Or to ingratiate themselves with the new power. A physician? He was executed on the spot.

About a year later his wife, my elder sister, disappeared. Both of them, she and her husband, had worked for Cambodia. What could be better than archaeology and medicine? The body of the past and the living body? My father had hesitated too long to send them to France, even though a grant would have made it possible, and even though he’d already succeeded in sending four of his children abroad. He wanted them to specialize, to make further progress, and then to come back and serve their country. But he gave up the idea.

When I go to the archaeological museum—the National Museum of Cambodia, a complex of red buildings with ornate, soaring roofs, built by the French—I think about my sister, who, despite her young age, was the museum’s deputy director. When I was eight or nine years old, I often went to visit her in her office. I’d climb up on the little brick wall and use a stick to knock down fruit from the big tamarind trees. The ripe tamarinds were delicious. Today I wouldn’t dare do that. Because of my age? Or my memories? The royal palace, with its high walls and its traditions, isn’t far. The world we knew will not return. And you, my sister, I never saw you again. I can still picture your colorful skirt when you would appear at the big, carved wooden door, and your bag filled with documents. I remember our walks together. Your words. And my caprices. I see you smile. You take my childish hand.

* * *

Early on the morning of April 17, a soldier presented himself at our front door: “Take your things! Leave the house! Right away!” We sprang into action. Immediately, without knowing why or how, we obeyed. Did we already feel fear? I don’t think so. It was more like astonishment. One of our neighbors, a handyman who’d become a Khmer Rouge commander, tried to reassure us.

The whole city was in the streets. The men in black told us we’d be back in two or three days. The hunt for traitors and enemies had begun. The purge was hideous but classic in those circumstances. The Khmer Rouge were looking for army officers, senior civil servants, supporters of Lon Nol. According to a spreading rumor, the Americans were going to bomb the capital. The Khmer Rouge leaders had frequently alluded to the possibility of an American bombing, and then certain Western intellectuals had echoed the speculation. The Americans did nothing. Who could have seriously entertained the thought that they would bomb a city of two million people just a few days after withdrawing their personnel and ending their support? I still remember the helicopters evacuating their embassy. You needed a lot of hatred and a good deal of blindness, or some unspeakable other reason, to believe in that fable.

Each of us carried a bag prepared by my mother, with her innate practical sense, and we left in the car. We didn’t get very far. Before long we were lost in the human flood. There were women and children pushing wheelbarrows, men carrying insanely heavy loads, people half-crazed—and everywhere the fifteen-year-old fighters, with their cold eyes, their black uniforms, and the cartridges in their bandoliers.

Historians today think that the revolutionaries drove some 40 percent of Cambodia’s total population into the countryside. In the course of a few days. There was no overall plan. No organization. No dispositions had been made to guide, feed, care for, or lodge those thousands and thousands of people. Gradually we began to see sick people on the roads, old folks, serious invalids, stretchers. We sensed that the evacuation was turning bad. Fear was palpable.

* * *

I question Duch tirelessly. Although he looks the tribunal’s prosecutors, judges, and attorneys in the eye—he has a monitor in front of him and knows when he’s being filmed—he never gazes into my camera. Or hardly ever. Is he afraid it will see inside him?

Duch talks to heaven, which in this case is a white ceiling. He explains his position to me. He makes phrases. I catch him lying. I offer precise information. He hesitates. When in a difficult situation, Duch rubs his face with his damaged hand. He breathes loudly. He massages his forehead and his eyelids, and then he examines the neon lighting.

One day during a dialogue that’s turning into a fight, I see the skin of his cheeks grow blotchy. I stare at his irritated, bristling flesh. Then his calm returns, the soldier’s calm, the calm of the revolutionary who’s had to face so many cruel committees and endure so many self-criticism sessions. Then I stop filming him and say, “Think about it; take your time.”

He smiles and speaks softly to me, “Mr. Rithy, we won’t quarrel tomorrow, will we?” I see clearly that he’d like us to understand each other and laugh together. And he needs to talk to me. To continue the discussion. To win me over. No, he’s no monster, and he’s even less of a demon. He’s a man who searches out and seizes upon the weaknesses of others. A man who stalks his humanity. A disturbing man. I don’t remember that he ever left me without a laugh or a smile.

* * *

We drove several miles and stopped. Should we go on? Where? A soldier walked up and, without a word, signaled that we should get moving again. My father sighed and clenched his fists. The scene was repeated twice more. The Khmer Rouge spoke a rather odd language, using words I knew little or not at all. For example, they used the verb snœur to confiscate our car, which they later left on the side of the road. Theoretically snœur means “to ask politely.” The word was smooth, almost soft, but the look in the eyes was violent. Thirty years later Duch evokes Stalin, “an iron fist in a velvet glove,” and summarizes the Khmer Rouge attitude this way: “courteous but firm.”

This way of speaking made us uneasy. If words lose their meaning, what’s left of us? For the first time, I heard a reference to the Angkar (the “Organization”), which has filled up my life ever since. We set out on foot, and then the sun sank behind the rice fields.

We were beginning to guess, from the tone and looks of the Khmer Rouge, that we wouldn’t be seeing Phnom Penh again anytime soon. And I don’t remember encountering anywhere the force, the joyful excitement, or the freedom of the first sansculottes.

* * *

In M-13, Duch frequently attended interrogations. He reflected upon them. Observed them carefully. “I went so far as to derive a theory from them,” he tells me. I don’t understand this formulation. “Derive a theory from them? What theory? Explain it to me . . .” He replies, “I remained polite but firm.” Then he falls silent.

* * *

The second night, my mother asked my father to go and throw away his neckties. The searches hadn’t started yet, but rumor had it that some young people with long hair had been executed and their heads paraded around on staffs. My father disappeared into the forest, ties in hand, and came back after hiding his former life.

* * *

At dawn on the day after the fall of Phnom Penh, the prisoners inside M-13 prison, in the northern part of the country, received an order to start digging. Under the white-hot sky, sweating and suffering, they excavated a ditch. How many of them were there? Dozens? We’ll never know. They were executed. Nothing remains of those mass graves, some of which may have been immense. As the years passed, the Khmer Rouge planted cassava root and coconut palms, which have since consumed bodies and memory.

Duch reached Phnom Penh with his entire crew: several dozen peasants—a few as young as thirteen or fourteen—whom he’d chosen and then educated in the ways of torture. Duch’s team included Tuy, Tith, Pon, and Mam Nay, known as Chan. Some of these men were also former professors. Mam Nay had been in prison with Duch, his friend, his double. They both spoke French fluently, and they had an almost intuitive mutual understanding.

The new history had begun; the murderers were waiting in the outskirts of the capital. Soon they would occupy the former Ponhea Yat lycée, which would be known as S-21.

Later I show Duch a photograph of Bophana before she was tortured. Black eyes, black hair. She seems impassive. Already elsewhere. He holds the photo a long time. “Looking at this document disturbs me,” he says. He seems moved. Is it compassion? Is it memory? Is it his own emotion that touches him? He’s silent again for a while, and then he concludes, “We’re all under the sky. When it rains, who doesn’t get wet?”

* * *

We adopted the habit of sleeping in the forest, not far from the road. We’d throw a plastic sheet on the ground and lie down on it.

Most necessities were unobtainable: drinking water, milk for the babies, medical assistance, fire. Prices skyrocketed. For my thirteenth birthday on April 18, my mother had bought a ham on the sly and had it caramelized. It must have cost tens of thousands of riels. We shared that dish, but I don’t think any of us smiled during the meal.

After a few days the rumor started going around that our currency wasn’t worth anything anymore, that it was simply going to disappear. Vendors started refusing to take banknotes. The effect was devastating. How could we eat, how could we drink, how could we live without money? Bartering had sprung up again as soon as the evacuation began, and now it was widespread. The rich became poorer; the poor stripped themselves bare. Money’s not merely violence—it also dissolves; it divides. Barter affirms what’s absolutely lacking and renders the fragile more fragile still.

My provident mother had brought away with us a quantity of sheets, which she exchanged for food. Those big pieces of fabric were very useful. My mother was able to obtain some mess tins, some American army spoons, a bucket, a pan, and a boiling kettle so that we could drink, risk-free, water from the Bassak River.

We came to realize that this trend was irreversible.

Years later I looked at some extraordinary archival photographs; they show the Central Bank of Cambodia right after the revolutionaries blew it up. Only the corners of the building remain, sad pieces of metal-reinforced lacework standing over rubble. The message is clear. There’s no treasure; there are no riches that can’t be annihilated. We’ll dynamite our old world, and thus we’ll prove that capitalism is but dust inside four walls.

A lovely program, worth a minute’s consideration. It’s often the case, in every country, that rebels call for a society without currency. Is it the money that disgusts them? Or the desire to consume that it reveals? Exchange is supposed to have unrecognized capabilities. Free exchange, which is the term used for barter. But I’ve never seen a free exchange. A gift is something else. I lived for four years in a society without currency, and I never felt that the absence of money made injustice easier to bear. And I can’t forget that the very idea of value had disappeared. Nothing could be estimated, or esteemed, anymore—not human life or anything else. But to assess something, to evaluate it, doesn’t necessarily mean to have contempt for it or to destroy it.

Nothing could be assessed anymore? Well not exactly nothing, because throughout that whole period, gold never stopped discreetly circulating. It had extraordinary power. With gold you could cause what had disappeared to appear again—penicillin, for example. Rice, sugar, tobacco. The Khmer Rouge were full participants in such trafficking.

Other archival images: the treasury. Nailed wooden crates, discovered in a warehouse. Inside, under sheets of transparent plastic, the official banknotes of the new country. So it seems that Democratic Kampuchea had its currency ready to circulate after all. What happened? Logistical problems? Further doctrinal radicalization? The new currency was never used.

We bartered what we could—in the beginning, exchanges of that sort were tolerated—but very soon, we had nothing left to exchange. Contrary to the popular notion, it’s not true that there’s always “something left” to swap. I’ve seen a country stripped completely bare, where a fork was a possession too precious to give away, where a hammock was a treasure. Nothing’s more real than nothing.

* * *

During our conversation, Duch makes a marvelously inhuman remark, but does he know it? He says, “It’s not me who doesn’t have a mother.” And he laughs.

My family on the road: my parents, my oldest sister, my two unmarried sisters, my three young nephews, and me. Phal, a boy two years my senior who’d been living in our house for several months, accompanied us. He was a poor orphan whom my parents, in accordance with Cambodian tradition, had taken in; they were feeding him, clothing him, and giving him a proper upbringing. Phal did his share of the household chores. We all took turns collecting eggs, feeding the ducks and the dogs, washing the floor, and doing the laundry. This was only to be expected in a house where some fifteen people lived.

We stopped for two days in a pagoda at Koh Thom, not far from an immense automobile graveyard where displaced persons had abandoned their vehicles. We were shut up inside the pagoda, and it was there that the first count was made. (After that the counts never stopped.) How many of us were there? Where did our family come from? What was my father’s profession? The Khmer Rouge were insistent, almost aggressive.

Then—together with our luggage, which seemed to be getting heavier and heavier—we were put on a boat at night, and we approached the Vietnamese frontier. Phnom Penh was far away.

* * *

We disembarked at a pagoda in Koh Tauch. Everything was mysterious. Up until then the idea of Buddhist monks engaged in rice production would have been unthinkable, but bonzes from that pagoda were hard at work in the paddies. Others were being consulted by all sorts of people. We learned that a general was under house arrest. We could barely make out his silhouette. He seemed immobile. Then he disappeared, having been “taken away to study.” It was the first time we’d heard this expression, and we honestly thought it referred to reeducation.

* * *

Every instant is cruel. One evening the Khmer Rouge demand that we unpack our baggage. Without a word we spread out all our things, flat on the ground and spaced well apart. The Khmer Rouge want to know who we are. They find no document, no sign of collaboration with the enemy. There are some pieces of fabric, a few jewels, and some money, which they don’t even take. One of them shrugs his shoulders and barks at us, “This is all over, this stuff.” Money, all over? We’re amazed.

I haven’t forgotten their stares when they came across my sisters’ brassieres. The fifteen-year-old child soldiers were like men. And we were, so to speak, naked.

One of them took apart a little notebook in which my sister had glued various souvenirs and removed an old visiting card. He showed it to us without a word: “Panh Lauv, Chief Undersecretary, Ministry of National Education.” The card even showed his telephone number—much more compromising than a bunch of neckties. We were terrified.

* * *

Then we were turned over to a family of “old people.” An elderly couple took us into their house, which was built on stilts. Two of my sisters, who were above the age of fourteen, left to live in a “youth group.” With Phal, but also with the old couple’s son-in-law, a Khmer Rouge, I discovered peasant life. I didn’t know how to do anything. Nothing at all. I didn’t know how to fish or identify edible roots or unearth a snail. I couldn’t even row. I discovered a harsh world where you had to plunge into cold water bristling with reeds, feel around the muddy bottom, and empty the fish traps. We planted rice, corn, and cassava root.

Phal suffered from terrible attacks of diarrhea, one of which nearly killed him in the course of a few hours. I can still remember my eldest sister washing his soiled pants in the river several times a day. He couldn’t control himself. We were close, the two of us, and I was very sad, but he finally recovered.

Phal was familiar with peasant life, and so he gained a sort of ascendancy. We’d both begun to frequent the evening study groups organized by the Khmer Rouge. Topics of discussion: the class struggle, its procession of injustices, and revolution. In a month Phal changed. He became bitter. His consciousness had been raised. Or was it his resentment? He went to the person in charge of the village and explained that he’d been mistreated, that my parents were slave drivers, that they should be punished. The man jotted down everything in his notebook.

We have to believe that the revolutionary movement wasn’t so radical early on because Phal got himself bawled out by the old man who owned the house we stayed in: “This is the way you treat your family? Look at your sister, who washes your clothes when they’re drenched in shit! And the way everyone takes care of you! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!” Later on talking like that would become inconceivable.

* * *

I watched the countryside being carried off by the gigantic Bassac River. Its flooding waters, muddy and lugubrious, reached the edge of the forest. That river was the center of our existence. The school year was lost, but my father was apparently the only one of us who still gave any thought to that.

* * *

My mother received permission to stay in the house and take care of my young nephew and niece. Because I was only thirteen, I was allowed to remain with my parents. The old man entrusted his oxen to me. Those enormous beasts, which would breathe down my neck and come to sudden stops for no reason at all, made me uncomfortable. I’d speak to them. I’d implore them. They would disregard me like divinities gazing dry-eyed upon the earth. A child told me I should stay behind them and strike them with a stick. When I did so, they’d start to move again, stirring up the air with their dirty tails. They’d plow in the morning, and then around noon, I’d lead them to the low forest, where they could stay cool. In the evening, I’d go back to the cowshed and make a fire of twigs and peat to chase away the mosquitoes. Then I’d collapse on a mat. Still today I can feel my mother’s hand stroking my forehead.

* * *

I also crossed a branch of the gigantic river, suffocated by whirlwinds of mud, with one hand on an ox’s halter and the other on his ear. Then a peasant’s son explained to me the only feasible method: grab a beast’s tail and let myself be pulled along, taking care to avoid being struck by a hoof.

We were in the service of the cooperative, but our lives weren’t entirely communal. I ate my meals, for example, with my family—my parents and my niece and nephew—and no one else. When a pig was slaughtered each family in attendance would be called by name and given a bit of fat. Food distribution always took place in two stages: first came the “new people,” who were quickly provided for, and then the “old people.” The quantity and quality of the meat you got depended on the category you belonged to. Money was still refusing to disappear, and some among us were dreaming of becoming millionaires. “New people” could use jewelry or fabrics to negotiate with “old people.” A kilogram of pork cost hundreds of thousands of riels. Then everything stopped.

The atmosphere of those first months, as I perceived it, was characterized more by distrust than by fear. Everything surprised me. But the revolution hadn’t yet reached its radical phase, or to be more precise, its terror phase.

Around the same time, we received some sacks of hard corn, an official gift from our Chinese comrades. The kernels were huge, pale, and infested by insects. In the old days, such corn was usually fed to pigs, but we picked over those kernels, one by one. A peasant who saw how hungry I was offered me some dog. A man eats a dog, I thought. What an idea.

Two friends and I spotted a peninsula, and I swam out to it. I found fish and shellfish there: a treasure! I tied my catch around my neck and swam back, nearly drowning from sheer fatigue in the process. The river was ferrying along parts of trees, great blocks of earth, exhausted animals . . . Why deny it? It was an adventure. I discovered peasant life in all its harshness and power. I learned to lay traps and to smoke tobacco wrapped in sangker leaves, just as the children of the “old people” did. I said to myself, “Will my friends in Phnom Penh believe me when I tell them about all this? When I describe how I caught fish with my bare hands?” I was already thinking about telling my story. The road has been long, and I doubt that “my friends in Phnom Penh” are still alive.

Soon the prohibitions and vexations began to multiply. Communal living grew harder. The “old people” ate well and spoke harshly to us.

One morning I saw a harrowing sight: a swollen corpse floating on the river. I thought about the famine and all the fighting. Weeks passed. More bodies appeared in the river. Some of them got caught on steel-hard roots near the bank. We went closer. There was no blood, but the bodies had large purple bruises and deep cuts. Those men and women had been executed.

Revolutions are hungry. The prospect of telling my great adventure story began to fade in my mind, as did the hope of returning to my former life.

* * *

We ended up sleeping in the old couple’s house, right beside them. I remember that they prayed to Buddha and their ancestors at night, but they didn’t dare burn incense. Militiamen hid under the bamboo floor to listen in on our conversations. They heard my father wondering about Ieng Sary. Where was he now? Was he aware of the turn the revolution was taking? Would the two of them meet again? That celebrated name petrified the Khmer Rouge, who spared my parents.

The cold season came, heralded by the north wind and the subsidence of the big river. I gazed hungrily upon several kilos of fish in an enormous bomb crater, a souvenir from the B-52 bombardments, but I couldn’t catch any of them. I didn’t have the strength. I went home in tears, trembling with fever and staggering in the clayey mud.

The rice ripened, the cassava matured, and all the plants gave their fruits. But the Angkar decided that we had to leave. So we went on foot from Koh Tauch to where a motor boat was waiting for us, and we were taken to the other bank of the Bassac.

* * *

The Khmer Rouge used many terms I didn’t recognize. Frequently these were invented words based on existing ones; they mixed up sounds and meanings in disconcerting ways. Everything seemed to glide. To slip. Why did they use santebal, not the traditional word nokorbal, to designate the police? Another new word I discovered was kamaphibal. Kamak may be translated as “activity” or “action”—a kamakor is a worker—and phibal means “guard.” Literally a kamaphibal was a “guard of work,” a “guard of action.” The word denoted members of the Khmer Rouge cadres, who were our masters and jailers and had over us the power of life and death.

* * *

One night about twenty trucks appeared. The Khmer Rouge made many families, including mine, climb into these vehicles. The drivers, who were very young, didn’t speak to us. We drove into the suburbs of Phnom Penh. Everything looked empty. But many of the passengers in the trucks rejoiced, thinking they were going to return to their homes and—why not?—their former lives.

The convoy of trucks made a sudden turn. I remember an old man gazing at the stars and murmuring, “We’re going away from the city.” Then we fell silent. We were hungry and thirsty. The truck we rode in rattled along a dirt road that seemed to have no end. It stopped at last in the middle of the rice fields. The trucks discharged their passengers—the air was heavy with dust and gasoline vapors—and the convoy drove off. I tried to make out a village or some kind of shelter, but in vain. Nothing. The old people, the women, and we children sat down on the road. You could hear people murmuring and sighing. Nobody dared to speak. From time to time a Khmer Rouge came out of nowhere, made sure we were all there, and left without a word.

I remember the night was starry. Rustling, hissing, croaking sounds rose up from all around us. The countryside seemed to be in heat. And I couldn’t sleep.

Then the terrible sun began to climb the sky. We still didn’t know what was going on. A soldier brought us some bread and left us there in the middle of the immense rice field. A few days later, we got into some cattle cars in a rail yard. The doors slid closed with a metallic sound, and the train headed north. We were all on our feet and packed in tight. After several silent, exhausting hours I had the impression I could see into the darkness. The train kept stopping for no apparent reason. We’d wait alongside the tracks in the middle of the night. Some people started to cook a little rice, but a man shouted an order, we climbed back into the cars in a panic, and the train set out again.

* * *

The train eventually let us off near Mong, in the northwest part of the country. My mother handed Phal his bag and said simply, “It’s over now. Be on your way.” He begged us to keep him. It was horrible. He became a child again. He implored my mother, wringing his hands, but she remained inflexible. He’d betrayed us at a difficult moment; she couldn’t forgive him. Moreover she sensed that the worst was yet to come. We’d need to trust one another fully. And so he left. I can still see his tearful face, and then his silhouette disappearing into the night.

We climbed into some carts in which we bounced across the rice fields. It was an incredible trip, and at the end of it the Khmer Rouge ordered us out of the carts. It wasn’t possible to go any farther. We sat down in some ditches. When the dawn came we could see a stony, arid plain and an oasis of mango trees with a border of bamboo. We walked to a house, which belonged to the “old people” who would be in charge of us. We had to build everything, or almost everything, together with the few persons who seemed to be living there already. We were forbidden to use the well. The water in the canal was brown, and many of us fell sick.

We searched in vain for rice. The famine was getting worse. The authorities began to distribute bowls of lukewarm broth with green threads floating in it. That was our daily meal.

* * *

Starvation is the premier mass crime, always so difficult to establish with certainty, as if its very causes have been eaten up. Stalin starved his peasants by the millions. He persecuted his elites. His generals, his doctors, his friends, his relations, his family. Massacres are part of revolutions. Those who call for society to be upended know this fact very well and never condemn violence. Their argument is always the same: only new violence can drive out previous violence. The previous violence is hideous and cruel. The new violence is pure and beneficent; it transforms (not to say transfigures). It’s not violence aimed at an individual; it’s a political act. And blood purifies. Angkar’s slogan, which Duch so admired: “The blood debt must be repaid by blood.”

For an identifiable reason or no reason at all, the purges swoop down on some and leave others alone. They’re impossible to stop. The doctrines change, and so do the hands, but there’s always a blade and a guilty throat to cut in the name of justice, in the name of safeguarding the regime, in the name of some name. In the name of “proletarian morale,” Duch says. In the name of nothing: if a throat is slit, that in itself indicates the presence of some fault. Much is attributed to great criminals, and the following extraordinary statement is attributed to Stalin: “No people, no problems.”

* * *

The Khmer Rouge observed us constantly. They noticed my slender fingers. One of them snapped at me, “You’ve got bourgeois fingers. You’ve never held a hoe!” I’m a “new people”; I have a “new people’s” body; my new body, therefore, needs work. But hard labor, injuries, calluses change nothing. My fingers are still too slender. So I move away from the front rows. I learn to hide my hands, to clench my fists, to melt away, to disappear.

* * *

During our interviews, I was amazed to see how relaxed and attentive Duch was. He was an extremely calm man, however inhumane his crimes might have been. One could have imagined he’d forgotten them. Or that he hadn’t committed them. The question today is not to find out whether he’s human or not. He’s human at every instant; that’s the reason why he can be judged and condemned. No one can rightly authorize himself to humanize or dehumanize anyone. But no one can occupy Duch’s place in the human community. No one can duplicate his biographical, intellectual, and psychological trajectory. No one can believe he was a cog among other cogs in the killing machine. There’s a contemporary notion that we’re all potential torturers. This fatalism tinged with smugness exercises literature, film, and certain intellectuals. After all what’s more exciting than a great criminal? No, we’re not all a fraction of an inch, the depth of a sheet of paper, from committing a great crime. For my part I believe in facts and I look at the world. The victims are in their place. The torturers too.

* * *

From the book The Elimination: A survivor of the Khmer Rouge confronts his past and the commandant of the killing fields, published 2013.

The Twisted History of Your Favorite Board Game

$
0
0

Jessica Gross | Longreads | March 2015 | 16 minutes (4,113 words)

 

Mary Pilon spent several years reporting on finance for the Wall Street Journal, and several more reporting on sports for The New York Times. In her first book, The Monopolists: Obsession, Fury, and the Scandal Behind the World’s Favorite Board Game, Pilon debunks the myth—long perpetuated by Parker Brothers—that Monopoly was invented by a man named Charles Darrow during the Great Depression. Really, three decades prior, a woman named Lizzie Magie had created The Landlord’s Game, an obvious ancestor. A surprising twist: Lizzie’s game included a set of rules that was anti-monopoly, in which the object was to spread wealth around. In the 1970s, a professor named Ralph Anspach unknowingly carried Magie’s torch by creating a game called Anti-Monopoly, which rewarded players for trust-busting. It was via a very long lawsuit with Parker Brothers that Anspach unearthed the game’s buried history—and through reporting on a wholly unrelated article that Pilon became aware of it. I spoke with Pilon by phone about this complex, multi-layered story, her reporting and writing process, and the surprising Monopoly tricks she discovered.

* * *

You came across this story while reporting a Wall Street Journal article in 2009. Can you tell me how that all came about?

Sure. I was a reporter on the Money & Investing team, and as you probably remember, in 2009, there was just one depressing story after another. We all, kind of by default, ended up doing a lot of unemployment coverage.

In the story I was working on, I was going to include a throwaway line about Monopoly being invented during the Great Depression. I always have loved games and puzzles, I grew up playing games with my family, and my brother and I were big video game players. And I thought, oh, this will be easy, and there is so much irony because Monopoly is all about money and real estate. But I kept looking around, and the story just wasn’t adding up—it wasn’t making any sense. I was totally frustrated and I felt like an idiot. I was like, “Gosh, here we are writing about derivatives and I can’t get a board game anecdote right? What’s wrong with me?”

So I came across Ralph Anspach and his lawsuit against Monopoly, and figured he might know something. I contacted him on a whim and said, “Hey, I’m a reporter at the Journal and I’m trying to find out the truth about Monopoly.” He immediately got back to me and said, “Oh, I know all about the history of Monopoly!” And he started telling me all about it, and his lawsuit, and what it had unearthed and I thought, “This is crazy.”

So I wrote a story about Ralph Anspach’s lawsuit and Monopoly’s history. Usually, when you lock up a story, you’re kind of sick of it, right? You’re totally exhausted, and you know way more than you ever would have printed. But when the story closed, it was the first time I felt like I still had questions. And so I started reporting it from there on out.

Why was this the one story you couldn’t let go?

I asked myself many times as I was reporting the story, “Why hasn’t anybody else done this?” And the further I got into the weeds with it, I realized it was because it’s really complicated, there are a lot of angles, it involves business and law and history and humans. There was a narrative that I was very sucked into. It’s not a book about board games, it’s a book about people. Also, a lot of my writing has a business bent to it, and I love history—I have always loved U.S. history. So it blended a lot of things that I was very interested in anyway.

As I went on with the process, I had a lot of people read drafts of the book who weren’t journalists: screenwriters, family members, people who were novelists, people who couldn’t care less about books. And I read up a lot on screenwriting to help me work out the structure. Because the amount of time it takes for somebody to read a book—it’s just a tremendous ask. I love reading a book that I love, but when somebody wastes my time, I get a little upset. I think my original draft was maybe 50,000 words longer. And I knew it had to be trimmed down. Sometimes people—especially with historical books—think, “the longer the better.” I’m the opposite. I was kind of set on making this 100,000 words. I thought, yes it’s a century of history, and yes there are all these plot lines and all these characters, but it needs to be digestible. And I love the idea of making history and this story digestible to people who might not even realize they’re getting sucked into learning about that stuff.

Mary Pilon. Photo by Nikola Tamindzic.

Mary Pilon. Photo by Nikola Tamindzic.

Was there anything that you felt particularly upset about taking out in those 50,000 words?

No, because most of it was kind of the throat clearing that you do as a reporter. For example, I had to learn a lot about patent and trademark law, but in a narrative book, that really drags things down. And I really didn’t want to make it a business school or law school textbook, so I cut a lot of that stuff. I was pretty happy to take a weed whacker to it, to be honest.

But it’s funny, now I’m actually doing some freelancing where I can weave in some of the knowledge I cut out. I don’t believe in wasted knowledge. I feel like there’s reporter karma and all those phone calls you have with people you don’t quote in a story, or documents you come across that don’t end up in the final story, they all help to inform something or come back in all these interesting ways.

The book starts in the ’70s, when Ralph Anspach comes up with his Anti-Monopoly board game in a fit of anger about the OPEC monopoly and the oil crisis. The book then moves back in time to Lizzie Magie’s original invention of The Landlord’s Game, Monopoly’s antecedent, and then makes its way forward in time up to and then through the point where the story began. How did you come to that structure?

When I started reporting, because it was so unwieldy, I was just making a timeline of what happened. Writing it chronologically first was really, really helpful. Once I started getting a handle on the facts and the reporting, I started writing scenes. I would take note cards and put a scene on each, and then kind of shuffle them around. And I think, even when I was writing the story, I had various Word documents where I would just copy and paste and move things around. It was like playing with Legos as a kid.

But before the book gets to Ralph, it actually opens with the myth that Charles Darrow invented Monopoly. Originally, I think I wanted to open with Ralph, but it turns out that starting with the Darrow myth was a little clearer, because that’s how most people are introduced to the game of Monopoly. So it ended up mimicking how people are actually told the story—or mis-told the story.

In an interview you gave about a New York Times piece you’d written, Tomato Can Blues, the interviewer asked for your advice to fellow journalists. You said, “It sounds obvious, but try and report the hell out of a story and be okay with not knowing where a story is going to take you.” Which seems like the approach you took to your Monopoly reporting, too. Is that how you are in life—content with uncertainty? Or is it specific to your journalism?

I think it’s hard to separate the two. I think that what’s so strange about this book is that in the five years it takes you to do something like this, a lot of life happens. Right? And there are things you can predict and things you can’t. I couldn’t have predicted I was going to chop off a foot of my hair and go on X number of bad dates and switch jobs twice and then get laid off from The New York Times two months before my book tour and go to these people’s funerals and these people’s weddings.

I think that for me, particularly in the last six months to a year, embracing uncertainty has been a huge personal lesson. With the book and with my career, quite frankly, I don’t know where it’s going. When I first got laid off from the Times in December, I was terrified. I found out at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday, and I didn’t know what to do with myself, so I stepped outside the Times building and went to MOMA. I was like, “I just need to look at people making things. I need to look at pretty things and people looking at them.” The Matisse cut-outs were on exhibit. You look at that and you think, “Here’s a guy towards the end of his life and he can’t stop creating.” Somehow, in spite of war and huge things that are way bigger and crazier than layoffs, things get made.

But I don’t know where it’s going. I don’t know where I fit into that, and I think that needs to be okay. Maybe in six months when I’m, I don’t know, running my dog farm or something, I’ll feel differently. But I think that that’s something you have to embrace if you’re going be working in this profession. I guess it’s a tax you pay for getting to do the creative part of it.

In the book, you chart how in Lizzie Magie’s original iteration of the game, she devised two sets of rules. There wasn’t only the pro-monopoly set that we play by today—there was also a parallel set of rules that rewarded players for spreading wealth, which was in line with Lizzie’s political beliefs. I think that will surprise some readers.

Yeah, it’s so ironic, right? We don’t really know why the monopolist rule set took off more than the anti-monopolist set, but I do find it kind of revealing and funny.

Do you have any thoughts about why it did?

Well, I think that there is a theatrical element to board games. They allow us to do things in real life that we can’t do ordinarily. And being a monopolist and clobbering everybody, that’s something most of us don’t get to do every single day, let alone with friends or family involved.

I think there are a lot of examples of things in pop culture that are pretty crazy and horrible. I mean, think about horror movies. Why do we go sit and watch these things and do these things? I’m not a psychologist, but I think on some level we’re curious, or looking for a cathartic release, or they represent extremes of parts of our personalities. So I think that the monopolist rules play into that, right?

There is something about Monopoly, in particular, that brings out aggression and vitriol and competitiveness. At least, it did in my family.

Absolutely. It’s been very funny to hear people’s personal stories about this because you’re right, it does get totally insane. A friend of mine whose brother is an Olympian was like, “You never want to play Monopoly with my brother.” I realized, of course athletes are horrible to play board games with! In my family, we play Settlers of Catan a lot, too, and on Thanksgiving my cousin had to issue a handwritten apology to his uncle because of stealing his ore. And my cousin is in his 30s, by the way. We all love each other, we all get along, but it’s totally insane.

I wanted to talk about the tone of the book. You didn’t presume your readers would have a deep knowledge of American history, and clued us in at various points along the way, sometimes with basic information. How did you decide to include that level of background?

I struggled with that a lot, how much history to include and how much background and context, because I didn’t want it to weigh down the plot, but I still wanted people to understand. A lot of readers, I knew, were going to be very smart and sophisticated. So everybody knows in the early ’70s, somebody in the Bay Area would be talking about the Vietnam War and Watergate. But you kind of need to remind people that that’s what’s in the air. So the history I included was meant to be a reminder. It was kind of more of a weeding job than it was creating an encyclopedia.

In my reading, we were meant to root for Ralph Anspach in his fight against Parker Brothers. Did you come to this with an anti-monopoly bent? Did it emerge through the reporting, as you became captivated by Ralph’s story?

TheMonopolists-HC-cat

The Monopolists.

Well, Ralph had a lot of advantages. This is the first project I’ve ever done where the majority of characters, or a lot of them, at least, were long since dead. And Ralph is, God, we should all hope to be as feisty in our 80s as he is. I mean, he has more energy than children I know. He’s incredible.

In his legal case, and in his perspective, the antagonist was Parker Brothers. But I also wanted to learn about the history of this company, because I think that it’s really easy to paint in black and white, but the truth is there is a lot of grey. So getting an understanding of who George Parker was and how he built his company and that whole chain of events where the sons were dying—I mean, they were real people, too.

I tried to be careful not to just say, “Oh, they’re this evil giant company,” because in my experience as a journalist, I know that’s often not the case. They’re real people making real decisions and they have a real stake in various outcomes as well. So Ralph was kind of the original in to the case and he unearthed this whole story, but the fact that Parker Brothers had a complicated history made the story more compelling to me.

I’m going to say something a little rude. I agreed with Ralph’s case and his anti-monopoly bent and was really moved by it. But at the same time, I wondered if, in person, I would find him a bit annoying. You write sympathetically about friends of the family—of Ralph and his then-wife Ruth—who snubbed them, “their patience for hearing about legal battles having worn out.” And I thought, well, if I had a friend who was single-mindedly obsessed with his legal case and couldn’t find anything else to talk about, I would find that pretty tiresome, too. So as much as I agreed with his case, I wondered about his relationships with family and friends in the face of it—if maybe he couldn’t see beyond it.

In person I find that Ralph—and again, I stepped into the picture way late; he was in his 80s the entire time I was reporting this—he comes off as very professorial. He basically became a paralegal because of this case, and before that he was an economist. So he is no stranger to taking complicated things, synthesizing them and then talking about them and being able to explain them.

So he doesn’t come off as an angry person or eccentric or anything like that. There were some moments during the case when he was definitely friendly with opposing counsel. He was very endearing to a lot of reporters who covered this story at the time, some of whom I interviewed. And when he was talking to me, I felt like I had to understand his motives a lot more. His sons, William and Mark, both described how in their house there was always a crusade of some kind, whether it was rallying against the Vietnam War or this big lawsuit. So I think that Ralph and Ruth [who later divorced] were both very purpose-driven people, and even when the anti-Monopoly case consumed the household, Ralph was consulting with his wife and his children about how they should move forward. Ruth unfortunately passed away a couple years ago, but I interviewed her, and she was very much on the same wavelength with him in turning down this original settlement, and a lot of the key decisions about the case.

Parker Brothers is now owned by Hasbro, and in the appendix to the book, you say that you couldn’t get access to any Hasbro executives for interviews. Did that hamper the reporting process?

It’s always frustrating when somebody says no, they don’t want to participate. And anybody who has written knows that you often get a lot of nos in journalism, and the show must go on. You still have to write your story.

Hasbro acquired Parker Brothers in 1991, so a lot of this story happened way before they came into the picture. The Anspach case hatched open all these documents, including letter exchanges, so whenever I had a chance to give somebody a voice though those, I did. When a company isn’t going to comment, isn’t going to engage with you, you have to—you want to be as fair as possible, always. So in that case I wanted to go off of what I did know and what I did have. There was also enough written about Parker Brothers that I was able to piece it together.

Do you think this will be turned into a movie at some point? Because I do.

Well, thanks for the good mojo, I appreciate it. There is a producer attached to it, and it is in discussions, but nothing has been finalized. But I think like anybody who has written a book, if you read every review, every Google alert, everything that comes out, you kind of like tense up a little bit at first. The movie process was like that, too, where there is so much talk, there is so much excitement—and now I’m kind of like, “All right, when somebody is on board, great, let me know.” I feel like, I wrote a book, that was my job, so that’s out there.

To get into some of the nitty-gritty of the game itself, I was shocked to read that a game of Monopoly, when it’s played according to the actual, written rules, usually lasts less than 90 minutes. That was insane to me.

Right. [Laughs] Lives are changing. It’s funny how most people don’t read the Monopoly rules. I have board game nights where I invite my friends over, and a lot of times, people come from different parts of the country and bring their own rules. People tend to inject a lot of cash into the game, and that makes it go longer. It’s pretty much that simple. Beyond that, there are little ways you can modify the game if you want it to go faster, like distributing the properties at Go—shuffling them and handing them out like you would if you were playing poker.

I had never heard of the rule that you’re supposed to auction a property off if a player chooses not to buy it. That was news to me.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And that makes it go faster, too. Monopoly is so multigenerational at this point that people feel like they already know how to play it. It’s kind of like checkers or chess, but the rules happen to be complicated. So I think people just don’t read the rules because you learn it as a kid and you don’t think about it. Not to get too existential about it, but it’s kind of like the history of the game. Who thought to question it? Who thought to read the rules? Of course, none of us did.

You mention research showing that the orange properties are actually the most lucrative on the board, which was also surprising.

Right, right. Some of that’s traffic. That strip as you head into jail is pretty great. And also, it’s expensive to build on Boardwalk and Park Place. Plus, there are three oranges, and two blues.

I feel like this is dangerous knowledge for people to have, that the oranges are more lucrative, don’t you think?

[Laughs] Right. Monopoly, from a technical standpoint—I hear from a lot of game design geeks that the game is terrible. And I think it’s like there is a valid case to be made against Monopoly. Maybe this is just my experience, but when you play with people with different experience levels, the game can get lopsided. And to me, the game is the most fun when you have people who are really into the deal-making aspects of it. My dad does not want to do deals. He never wants to do deals. So it’s boring to play with him because if you skip the oranges, that’s it. When you play with people whose tactics are so lock set, that makes it a little more challenging.

Monopoly_Orange

As a freelancer, I was really intrigued by the section of your acknowledgements in which you devote an entire page to thanking coffee shops you’ve worked in.

[Laughs] Yes. So I—until very recently, obviously—worked in either the Journal‘s newsroom or the Times’. But like any reporter, you spend a lot of time out of the office, too. So you write stories in cars, you write them in airports, you write them on planes—especially with sports, you’re just out and about a lot. So coffee shops are a reporter’s best friend, because you have Wi-Fi for free, caffeine, food.

Sometimes I need absolute quiet to write, but often I need some kind of ambient noise, or to be reminded that there are other human beings. You’re not just writing to this screen, you’re writing for people that walk around and might buy your book some day, or hopefully will. And so coffee shops have been really vital. Plus, I’ve worked food services before and it changes the way you see the world. You watch what people, especially in a place like New York, who work in coffee shops go through. And I just think they’re heroes. People tip horribly and they’re crazy and they’re weird and they’re sometimes really mean. One day, when I’m a gazillionaire, I want to be that person that leaves a five hundred dollar tip everywhere I go. But I felt like, what can I do? And one thing I can do is thank these coffee shops. It’s a small way of saying thanks for putting up with me as I sat in my sweatshirt, pulling out my hair, agonizing over the second half of my book.

Speaking of your own work in food service, I read that you were a singing ice cream server?

In high school. Yes.

Meaning that if somebody tipped, you would sing a song?

You sling one, we sing one. This was in Eugene, Oregon, where I grew up. I still love ice cream as a byproduct of that. Like handmade ice cream? I know it’s February, and I just came from Boston, where there are epic amounts of snow everywhere, but I will eat ice cream as a result of that job any time, absolutely any day.

Also, my dad, among other things, worked as a Santa. I ended up having to be the elf a lot. I’ve had some really weird gigs. As a journalist, I now write about people with interesting, crazy jobs. I feel like this whole job is a boondoggle—you get paid to learn about things and write about them. How fantastic is that? I’m happier writing about singing ice cream servers, I think, than going back to it.

* * *

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

Monopoly photos by Kjell Reigstad

Monopoly photos by Kjell Reigstad

Viewing all 772 articles
Browse latest View live