Eleanor and Hick: The Love Affair That Shaped a First Lady: A Review

Quinn, S. (2016) Eleanor and Hick: The Love Affair That Shaped a First Lady. Penguin Press, New York.

In the years since the death of Eleanor Roosevelt, all the skeletons appear to have come out of her and her husband President Franklin D. Roosevelt's closet.  Eleanor herself appears to have been forced out of the closet, her sexual persuasion now a subject of debate.  The BIG question surrounding the former First Lady is 'Was Miss Ellie gay?  Was she maybe bisexual?'  Eleanor and Hick cannot answer the question of whether she and her friend/associate Lorena Hickok had a sexual relationship.  There is simply no solid proof of such a thing.

Eleanor and Hick does show that there was a deep, profound, even romantic relationship between Roosevelt and Hickok, but romantic attachments does not always mean sexual relations or even physical desire. One can feel passionate, even romantic about someone without it becoming physical. Eleanor and Hick makes a strong case that without Hickok, Eleanor would not have become the iconic, activist First Lady she became.  

There could not be two women as vastly different as the patrician Eleanor and the hard-scrabble Lorena.  The former was born into wealth and privilege, daughter of one of the oldest New York families and niece of the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.  The latter was born into squalor, abused by her father and forced out into the world.  Despite their radically different social circumstances, the two were kindred souls.

Eleanor, nicknamed 'Granny' by her own mother for her dour demeanor, was brought up in a pretty chaotic world.  The glamorous Alice Roosevelt looked askance at her daughter and openly called her unattractive.  Eleanor's father Elliott had a very serious drinking problem and while he was devoted to his 'Little Nell', it wasn't enough to save him.  Eleanor's childhood was filled with fine homes but ones full of emptiness and even danger.

Hickok's early years were equally chaotic.  With essentially no parents, she dropped out of school and worked in other people's homes until a distant relative, Aunt Ella, rescued Hick, helping her get an education and eventually a career as a journalist.  It was as a journalist that Hickok and Roosevelt got reacquainted (Hickok having previously interviewed Eleanor when the latter was the spouse of an up-and-coming politician named Franklin); Hickok got a chance to board a train carrying the Roosevelts on a campaign tour and she got an interview.  Despite their differing backgrounds, they immediately bonded.

Hickok was as openly lesbian as one could be in the 1930s, and she fell in love with Eleanor as well as the New Deal the Roosevelts personified.  Knowing that it would be impossible to be impartial, Hick gave up her career as a journalist to be with Roosevelt in both official and unofficial capacities. Eleanor's own private life was not as clear: in her posh French school, Allenswood, many girls were attracted to her in various degrees, from mere infatuation to perhaps sexual desire.  Whether she actually returned the affections is unknown.

For a time, the two were very close companions, bosom buddies if you will.  Again, whether it ever turned sexual, even once, is something Eleanor and Hick does not give a firm affirmative or negative.  Roosevelt did associate with a large group of lesbians, who were a major part of Democratic Party outreach, especially to women.  One of her enterprises, Val-Kill, was a cooperative between Eleanor and a lesbian couple with whom she eventually had a bitter falling out.

Hick encouraged Eleanor to be more assertive, working with her to break out of her shell more and take risks.  It was Hick who suggested that Eleanor use her diaries and letters to her to create what would become Eleanor's daily My Day newspaper column, making Eleanor's voice and views known around the world, for good or ill to FDR (who was too busy with both the business of government and his own wandering eye to be hovering over 'the missus').

Quinn's argument is that Eleanor would not have become the First Lady of the World if not for the help of this squat little woman next to the almost six-foot-tall Eleanor.  Eventually though, whatever passion they felt for each other, be it romantic, sexual, or something in between, faded.  There was still respect, admiration, and affection, but the thrill was gone.  Eleanor had found other people (men, interestingly enough), while Hick found love with another woman.

Eventually, old age caught up with Eleanor Roosevelt, and she died in 1962, revered and admired.  Lorena Hickok died five years later, pretty much forgotten by history, yet in those five years, on Eleanor Roosevelt's birthday, Hick would go to her old companion's grave and leave a tribute: a yellow rose.

The Third Doctor on Doctor Who, Jon Pertwee, observed that there wasn't during his time on the show any hint or suggestion of romance between the Doctor and his Companion.  He was fond of the Companions, Pertwee said, but fondness is different from desire.  I find this to be the case when it comes to a love affair between Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok.  There may have been a love affair between them.  I think there was one.  Yet, does this mean there was a sexual one between them?

There is a difference between affection and attraction.  They are not one and the same.  I believe one can be fond of someone, even feel great emotion for them, without it ever entering the world of physical intimacy.  It may be possible that Eleanor Roosevelt had great passion for Lorena Hickok, finding in her someone to confide in, to free up emotions.  Their letters do indicate something very strong: Eleanor treasuring a ring Hick had given her, reminiscing about their trips together.

One letter even speaks about how Eleanor wanted "to put my arms around you and hold you close".  Read today, they strongly suggest a physical relationship.

So, was Eleanor into a gay life?  Again, no proof has yet confirmed or wholly denied a physical relationship, and my memory of Eleanor and Hick doesn't ever say "Yes, they had sex".  I imagine that for many people, particularly the LGBT community, having someone as prominent as a First Lady be in 'the sewing circle' would be of great symbolic use.

As a side note, these are probably the same people who stretch to find that either President James Buchanan or his successor, Abraham Lincoln, might have been gay based on circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in certain ways to fit the supposition.

However, on a personal level, I'm disinclined to think that Mrs. Roosevelt did indeed carry on a sexual relationship with Lorena Hickok or with anyone outside Franklin.

There are a few things to consider.  First, Mrs. Roosevelt came from an era where women could be more openly affectionate without there being any suggestion of 'untoward or unnatural' activities.  Second, Eleanor and Franklin had five children together, hardly a suggestion that Eleanor didn't, at least on some level, enjoy heterosexual sex.  There might have been more intimacy between them if not for Franklin's devastating affair with Eleanor's social secretary, Lucy Mercer (later Mrs. Rutherford), which totally broke that part of their life together.  Third, would Eleanor, as old-fashioned in some ways as she was, and who had endured the horror of an unfaithful spouse, herself opt to be unfaithful?

There had been rumors of an affair between herself and a bodyguard,  Earl Miller.  He had a smaller but still influential role in the First Lady's life, showing her how to shoot and making her laugh.  When asked about the possibility of an actual sexual relationship, he answered, "You don't go to bed with someone you call 'Mrs. Roosevelt'".  In her latter years, the Widow Eleanor was also extremely fond of her doctor, David Gurewitsch, with the suggestion she was in love with him.

Whether Eleanor Roosevelt was gay or bisexual is known to only one person, and she isn't giving interviews outside a seance.

If the idea that Eleanor Roosevelt was schtupping a rather frumpy middle-aged woman is the reason one picks up Eleanor and Hick, it would be a sad turn, because the book is not some sordid tabloid gossipy tome.  It is instead, a very interesting read about the relationship between two women, whatever form it took, helping and shaping each other, as well as shaping world history.  One learns quite a bit, such as how influential lesbians were in the Democratic Party of the Roosevelt years.

One also learns about these two very interesting women, who rose from very punishing circumstances to become strong, capable, and historic figures.  That, I would argue, is more interesting than any sexual tidbits about long-dead people.

Crisis of Character: A Review

Byrne, G. (2016) Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience With Hillary, Bill, and How the Operate. Center Street, New York.

*Editor's Note: this review is for the audiobook, reading by Brian Troxell.

Bill and Hillary Clinton can be seen two ways, depending on your political persuasion.  They can be seen as a loving couple who have devoted their lives to public service, working towards making the world a better place (that would be the liberal point of view).  They can be seen as a cold, calculating pair interested only in holding on to the power they think is their divine right, enriching themselves in the process (that would be the conservative point of view).  Crisis of Character comes from former Secret Service Agent Gary J. Byrne, who was part of then-President Bill Clinton's protection detail and was ensnared in the tumultuous Starr investigation that nearly brought down his Presidency. 

Those on the Right or Left who might expect a no-holds-barred takedown/monstrous slur of the Clintons may be in for a surprise.  While we do get some disturbing new information about President Clinton's liaison with former intern Monica Lewinsky, Crisis of Character reads more like the unpublished memoirs of MITCH RAPP than a tell-all on the machinations, real or imagined, of the 42th and almost 45th President.

Most of Crisis of Character is really about Byrne himself and his experiences working at the Secret Service and later, the Air Marshall Program.  He talks often about how inept the Secret Service was when kowtowing to political correctness (such as putting physically unfit people in guard positions to fill quotas) or in how their hands were tied due to civilians who thought they knew better (such as when staff to then-candidate Bill Clinton would push the Service to wave in people instead of inspecting them, or when a gay activist visiting the White House became incensed when told he couldn't put gay-themed stickers around the Mansion or the artifacts within them, insisting that 'they had won').

It should be noted that whenever the Service would screw up, or indeed whenever anyone would screw up, Byrne himself was not the person who did the actual screwing up.  When it came to President Bill Clinton's extramarital assignations, Byrne didn't do the screwing either.

Instead, we see that to a point, Crisis of Character actually backs up the former President and First Lady's story: White House intern Monica Lewinsky, not the brightest bulb who if Byrne had had his way wouldn't have ever set foot on the grounds, was a stalker of sorts.  She would go into restricted areas, constantly coming up with weak excuses to be where she knew she shouldn't be (she got lost, she was looking for the restroom, she was visiting a friend, she was dropping things off).  It was an irritant to Byrne and the other agents, but eventually she managed to snare herself a President (and was unaware that she wasn't the only mistress gallivanting about, former Second Daughter Eleanor Mondale getting in on the action too).

The grotesque nature of the liaison (I'm not sure it would qualify as an actual affair) involves having the President's semen not just on that infamous blue dress, but on White House hand-towels that a Navy officer was forced to wash as part of his duties.  This whole thing disgusted our agent, especially given the difference between our Baby Boomer President and the last President from The Greatest Generation, dear Poppa Bush, who was dignity and kindness itself.

We then get the long, sordid saga of the Clinton impeachment, and how it wrecked his life when he got dragged into it.

Apart from this and the assertion that then First Lady Hillary Clinton knew of the liaisons (down to throwing things at the President), Crisis of Character really has little to nothing to do with the Clintons, in particular with how Hillary Clinton plotted for sixteen years to return to power in her own right as the first female President.

Instead, Crisis of Character tells us of the various exploits (both exciting and mundane) that Byrne went through.  I couldn't help think of the late Vince Flynn's most famous character: superspy and super-Patriot MITCH RAPP, a man who is the embodiment of the American Assassin.

Let me digress slightly to say that as much as I liked Flynn personally and found him to be highly talented, I never liked MITCH RAPP (the caps are always because he struck me as a staccato, monotone, monosyllabic person).  MITCH RAPP, in the two novels I read/heard about him, has no personality.  He has no family, no friends, no outside hobbies, no quirks, no sense of humor, no personal foibles, no life apart from kicking ass and killing people, especially if it means going against those in power.

Sure, he might have been motivated by his girlfriend being killed in the Pan Am bombing, but MITCH RAPP, at least the one I encountered, doesn't even appear capable of any human emotion, let alone love.  He doesn't appear to enjoy sports, doesn't read books, binge-watch shows, have any guilty pleasures, laugh at anything...in short, he to me is so cold and unlikable I really have a hard time getting through a MITCH RAPP book.

Listening to Crisis of Character, one feels that Byrne seems himself as a MITCH RAPP-type: tough, take-no-prisoners, at permanent guard, a master at weaponry and hunting down evil beings.  It borders on the comic, and to be honest, I skipped some parts because he went on and on about his various trainings, which might have been interesting if I went into the book wanting to learn that.

I went into the book wanting a reason to not have Madam Clinton be Madam President, why Hillary Clinton was unfit to follow Poppa Bush or even her own husband a la Evita Peron.  What I got was how great Gary Byrne was at his job.

If you want to learn about the machinations of the Clintons (real or imagined) or why she was not fit to have been Commander-in-Chief, skip Crisis of Character. 

Hope: Entertainer of the Century: A Review

Zoglin, R. (2015) Hope: Entertainer of the Century. Simon & Schuster, New York.

In the nearly fifteen years since his death at age 100, I venture to say that the name Bob Hope is slowly being forgotten.  I'm old enough to remember Bob Hope specials, even his last USO tour during the First Persian War.  If he is remembered, it is with a certain disdain, a relic who was both politically incorrect and politically repulsive to the current leading lights of laughter.  With left-wing comics Bill Maher, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Sarah Silverman, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, Will Ferrell, and Jon Stewart ruling comedy, Hope's brazen conservatism is essentially the final nail of the coffin of his reputation as a comedy master. 

Richard Zoglin would have a long argument with you on Hope's legacy and importance.  Hope: Entertainer of the Century is an impeccable biography of the all-around star who found success in every field of entertainment he entered: vaudeville, Broadway, film, radio, and television.  Hope's fortunes (financial) were assured, but his fortunes (career and reputation-wise) faded thanks to a mix of time and Hope's own inability to stay with them.  Hope: Entertainer of the Century covers both Hope's public and private life, one that was filled with sex, ego, and pettiness, but also one that had kindness, generosity, and shrewd management.

Leslie Towns Hope (Zoglin insists that the more traditional "Townes" spelling is wrong, even when Hope did it) was an immigrant, born in England but who was brought along with the rest of his family to join his father in Ohio.  He was a bit of a scrapper, not one for school (Zoglin uncovered that Les, as he preferred to be called, had even done a stint in juvenile correction school), but one who loved his family.

Encouraged by his mother, who loved playing her piano, Les started entering dance competitions and soon built up an act with other partners, who for various reasons, didn't stay long.  Still, Les Hope kept plugging away at showbiz, and soon he was working his way up the various vaudeville circuits, from regional to national.  He also started honing his comedy skills, where it was his quips, not his dancing, that got the attention. 

Already at this point, Zoglin would argue, Hope was creating a new style for comedy, one that didn't depend on what had gone on before in vaudeville (comedy duos, ethnic stereotypes, or standard jokes).  Instead, Hope started doing more topical humor, tailoring quips for the regional audiences.  As a side note, Hope was among the first to not try any ethnic humor, his Midwestern manner being an odd fit to try anything ethnic, though he tried once with such awful results he never ventured into it again.

As his career kept building, Hope indulged his other great passion: women.  He had a secret first marriage, and his marriage to Dolores Reade (born Dolores De Fina) is shrouded in mystery.  Despite a wide-ranging search, no marriage license or wedding photo has ever been found or produced.  Zoglin argues that as a devout Catholic, Dolores would not have 'lived in sin' for long, so the likelihood of a Church-sanctioned wedding must have happened, but when, how, and under what circumstances no one outside Bob and/or Dolores knows.

Hope, for his part, continued his rise in showbiz, and after a failed first attempt finally got into the movies at a relatively old age of 34.  Not a splash at the beginning, it was The Big Broadcast of 1938 that bolted Hope's career: not the movie itself, but its theme, Thanks For the Memory (a title which most people erroneously refer to as Thanks For the Memories), which he lucked into to be his signature song.

Out of his movie success came radio, where Hope became a pioneer: having to create a whole radio show out of whole cloth versus other radio comics like Jack Benny and Burns & Allen, who already had definitive personas.  Hope's humor was also unique in that it was more down-to-earth, more the 'everyman' than a particular type like the cheapskate Benny or cerebral Steve Allen.

Hope managed his career smoothly, open about using writers (whom he wasn't the most generous with and whom he expected to be on call 24/7).  His radio and film career built up, and eventually a "Bob Hope" type emerged: the brave coward, one who appears courageous but turns chicken at first sign of danger, who pursues women but crumbles when he manages to get a response.

This of course was different from Bob Hope in real life, who had no problem getting almost any woman into bed (if it is believed, among his conquests were Ethel Merman and Doris Day, the latter never commenting on this curious liaison).  What Dolores knew, or wanted to know, is also unknown.

The Second World War was Hope's finest hour.  A man who didn't have any great angst, he thrived on the live crowds and threw himself into entertaining the troops (having done a wide variety of charity events for years prior).  Hope was undeterred, crisscrossing Europe and Asia to find an audience (even if sometimes troops would rather get home than get Hope).

After the war, things slowly changed, but Hope didn't.  He didn't become an ideologue until the Nixon years, and his support of both Nixon and the Vietnam War, along with his mocking of the youth movement in his various USO and television specials, began to sour larger groups of audiences.  His film career began to fade, and his specials became the like man himself: more rigid, more scripted, more cautious, and finally a sad parody.

Bob Hope ruled NBC, with only Johnny Carson being anywhere near his equal.  However, whenever Hope wanted to promote something, Carson had to give him time on The Tonight Show.  Carson, more withdrawn and moody, didn't gel with the generally bon vivant Hope, and Carson hated how scripted their 'spontaneous encounters were', to where if Carson skipped a question Hope would answer it anyway.

Bob Hope, once nicknamed 'Rapid Robert' for his quick-fire monologues, would not give up the limelight.  As he entered his 90s, he stubbornly insisted on doing his TV specials, where it was getting harder and harder to hide his advancing age, poor eyesight, and hearing difficulties.  Hope, to the end, wanted to be the center of attention, even if it was accidental.  When Dolores, who had given up her singing career to be Mrs. Bob Hope (and where despite the ability to Bob would not put her in his specials until very late in his career), made a 'comeback', Hope's hearing caused him to virtually shout when she sang.  Even worse, he would loudly order Dolores to stop being romantic with him after her set.

Given that at least until his 60s or 80s (I can't remember which), he had no problem being romantic with other women, it seems all so unfair.

In the end, after meeting his goal of living to 100, he died a couple of months later in 2003.  By that time, Bob Hope might have been an institution, but one that fewer and fewer remembered (his death merited one page in Time Magazine, but that of 'third-best Beatle' George Harrison got the cover).  Zoglin argues that Bob Hope had simply lingered too long: the prepared obituary for The New York Times had been sitting there so long that the author of the obituary himself had been dead three years).

I figure that many people nowadays do not know who Bob Hope is, or why he matters.  Zoglin's brilliant biography brings Hope back to life, showing us both his comedic brilliance and the hard, sometimes unfeeling man he was.

I say sometimes because Hope was more complex than 'selfish comic'.  Hope could be unpleasant (such as an early stunt where he would make paper planes out of his writer's paychecks and send them floating down, a practice he quickly dropped once it made the rounds).  He had no qualms about not just seeing other women on the side but forcing others to be party to such antics (in one incident Zoglin compared to a real-life The Apartment, he cajoled a young writer to let him have the key to his apartment for an assignation, leaving at the arranged time). 

However, Zoglin tells a story that reveals another side of Bob Hope.  Hope, unlike other stars then and now,  would reply to almost all his fan mail, adding personal touches, particularly whenever a soldier or his/her family were involved.  In 1967, as the Vietnam War escalated (and Hope's popularity diminished), he got a letter from a friend of a seven-year-old girl he had posed with for a cystic fibrosis campaign.  The letter detailed that she was dying and that if he could write to her it would mean so much. 

Bob Hope replied, and not just with a form letter, but with a brief note that even threw in some humor at his expense (opening with, "Remember me?").

Hope was complex and complicated, at times self-centered, even vain.  He was also, Zoglin would insist, a true genius: not just in comedy, but in the art of career management.  He set up Hope Enterprises to further his career, always venturing into new media when given the chance (he didn't run away from television when others were terrified of it).  He invested wisely in real estate (though bristling at reports of exactly how wealthy he was).  He brought an intimacy between himself and his audiences that made him appear approachable, even if he wasn't.

For all the disdain Colbert, Maher, Silverman et al may have towards Hope's politics, there would be none of them if not for Hope.  He set the standard of the modern late-night talk show: the monologue, the skits, those were all from Hope.

Bob Hope should not be forgotten or relegated to a small place in comic history.  Apart from Woody Allen, no major comedian/comedienne mentions Bob Hope.  With Hope: Entertainer of the Century, Richard Zoglin gives us the whole Hope: brilliant, petty, easy-going and difficult.  Bob Hope was a true comedic genius.

With luck, Hope: Entertainer of the Century will spark a revival to restore him to his rightful place in comedy.

Bob, Thanks For the Memory...

1903-2003

Binge: A Review

Oakley, T. (2015). Binge. Gallery Books, New York.

According to the back flap of Binge, the author, Tyler Oakley, is both a 'pop culture tastemaker' and 'an Internet icon'.  The logical question therefore might be, "Who is Tyler Oakley"? 

A more pertinent question should be, "Why should anyone outside Tyler Oakley's circle genuinely care what he thinks on anything?"  By his own admission, he doesn't have the skills that would normally vault someone into a sphere of influence: he doesn't sing, he doesn't act, he doesn't dance (though he's given them a crack in his high school days).  Oakley's claim to fame is the way most Millennials gain fame: he is on YouTube.   In his various YouTube videos, he follows, or perhaps leads, the Millennial march into oversharing, discussing everything that pops into his little head with nary a thought as to whether everything that pops into his little head should be discussed.

Oakley, in various essays, does so, giving us his thoughts on everything from sex (among his favorite topics) to his high school days (where he would get sex), his early work experiences (which inevitably led to more sex) and the constant surprises of his life as a YouTuber (one of those being, surprisingly, not sex, but on how fickle a fanbase can be).  Oakley, however, doesn't make a case as to why HE in particular should be heard.  Apart from a few moments where we can see genuine hurt and joy, where we got a bit of Mathew Tyler Oakley, Binge seems a trifle calculated, as if it isn't a real revelation into Oakley's life but a continuation of how he is on YouTube: cheery, irreverent, and willing to have lots of laughs.

This may be how he is in real life as opposed to YouTube life (and I figure he'd argue there's no difference between Tyler Oakley: YouTube Icon and Tyler Oakley: After Dark), but again, Binge won't answer the more important question, not 'Who is Tyler Oakley?' or even 'Why is he famous?', but rather, 'Why should he be famous?'

In various chapters we're told what are embarrassing stories that I was told would be 'hilariously sidesplitting'.  I didn't laugh while reading Binge.  My reaction instead was one of slight puzzlement as to how someone so young (he's a mere 27 at the time of this writing) can insist his views, his experiences, can be of such importance to anyone whom he isn't personally connected.

Sometimes though, my reaction was slight repulsion.  Of particular note is the appropriately titled section Fecal Matters, which starts out "Over my lifetime, I've had an interesting relationship with poop".  After regaling us with his various nicknames for the anus, he talks about how in his earlier days he had difficulty defecating.  As a Gen-Xer, though not one as filled with angst and apathy as most of my peers, I'm not sure how to read something like Fecal Matters.  It wasn't funny to me.  It was both bizarre and a bit disturbing.

Another section is Disney Princes; I should have mentioned off the bat that Tyler Oakley is gay.  Nothing wrong with that, we're all free to live our lives however we wish so long as no lives are actually being taken or abused, but Oakley does remind me of that quip, 'the love that dares not speak its name is now the love that won't shut up'.  Hence, Disney Princes, where Oakley marks down his Top Twelve Princes in Disney animated films according to how attractive he found them.

One of them, Eric from The Little Mermaid, loses points because he killed, "the best Disney villain of all time, the drag queen that is Ursula.  Unforgivable. RIP" (emphasis his).

Allow me to digress to say that when I saw The Little Mermaid, a.) I didn't think of sexually desiring any character, b.) I wouldn't know what a drag queen was, and c.) I think Maleficent and the Queen from Snow White are greater Disney villains.  Furthermore, while I can't say I know many gay men, the few I know don't talk or haven't mentioned their erotic fixations on animated figures.  I guess I could ask.

I suppose it's just because my viewpoint comes from someone older who didn't obsess about sex at age 12 (or obsess about it now).  That brings me to yet another chapter, Brace Yourself.  Here, he talks about how his parents made him get braces and that they took Oakley to have them tightened by dental students to save money (his family's poverty being something he mentions often).  At age twelve, he finds nirvana.  A quote:

"Dental students used poor kids like me as their practice dummies, and when I met mine, I was ready to surrender all control.  My student was tall, handsome, charming, and had muscles bulging under his scrubs.  He had to be more than a decade older than me, but that didn't stop me from thirsting".

Already fantasizing about living a life together with this dental student, his body finally allowed him to taste a touch of temptation.  Tightening braces requires the person to spit, so in his own words, "I did what any twelve-year-old flirting with a man twice his age might do--I licked his fingers".

The dental student quickly pulled his hands from Oakley's mouth, asked (perhaps nervously) if he needed to spit, and when told no, kept going.

Again, be it me, but at age 12, I wouldn't have known what the concept of flirting was, let alone flirting with anyone twice my age or wanting reciprocation from someone twice my age. 

The entire essay, one of the shortest, was one I found rather uncomfortable.  The idea a twelve-year-old would 'thirst' for an adult, male or female, dream of a life together as the closest thing possible to 'wedded bliss', or flirting with a man twice his age is, well, I leave it up to you to decide what you think of such things.

Most of Binge follows in that vein: Oakley discussing his favorite things (sex), absolutely mundane things (one section revolves about what he'd do if he were Beyoncé for a day, another on holidays he'd get rid of), and the rigors of being a YouTuber (mentioning other people I've never heard of, whom I figure are famous via YouTube).  It even shows him to be a bit of a diva: one section is about how he threatened an employee over his Cheesecake Factory order, another when he threw his name around a Verizon shop, and one where he berated fans at a convention when they surrounded the bus he was in to sing him Happy Birthday (a song he doesn't care for).

When I say sex is a big deal in Binge, it isn't an understatement.  Let me refer you to his essay, Ten Cummandments.  Among his tips are to shave the armpits, not squeal like a fangirl when/during/after sex with Oakley (he states one encountered ended with him asking for a selfie, another Millennial invention I don't understand), and know whom you are actually having sex with.

I figure that is one of the primary difference between Oakley and myself: I wouldn't discuss my sex life with anyone, let alone everyone.  Further, I don't see a need to do so. 

However, there was one section that had me if not riveted, at least gave me a greater insight into Mathew as opposed to Tyler.  The One That Got Away, the longest of his essays, details his first great love affair with a man named Adam.  Adam said he was straight, but as time went on it took only one drunk St. Patrick's night to show that at least he was flexible.  As time went on, Adam came to admit slowly to himself and Oakley that he was gay and that he was in love with Tyler.  However, Adam was not ready to come out to his family, and Tyler respected that...at first.

However, the push and pull of the relationship began to wear on Oakley.  Oakley wasn't ashamed of who he was (rightly so) but also knew that you shouldn't push someone to come out until they are ready.  Still, they were boyfriends, and this cloak-and-dagger business of having to hide their relationship from the world, especially as Oakley was gaining fame as an LGBTQ+ advocate, was making things impossible for Oakley. 

Eventually, they did break up, but a break up is hard no matter who you are or how old you are.  Oakley cried for hours, days on end, even contemplated suicide.  Eventually, with some help from the Trevor Project, he pulled through.

The One That Got Away was one of his best sections because it wasn't about something silly or superfluous.  It was about something I understood, about something deeper than a romp or his latest run-in with a famous (or at least somewhat known) person.  It was about the joy and pain of love, in its confused, confusing form.

Speaking of pain, there is one last section I'd like to tackle.  That is Pleasure and Payne, referring to his ups and downs with former boy band One Direction.  Now, again, while I know of them, and even have learned their names (Harry, Zayn, Liam, Niall, and Louis), I wouldn't know one from the other, but that's beside the point.  Being introduced to 1D by friends, Oakley because obsessed (part of being in his own words, a 'professional fangirl').  He promoted them on his social media, went on about them, and eventually got their good graces.

The One Directioneers (I think that's what the fans are called) soon embraced him as one of their own, a high priest/priestess in the cult of these former Britain's Got Talent participants (if memory serves correct), even chanting HIS name when spotted at a 1D concert, with Oakley getting swept into the mania by waving his ass at them while wearing his "Professional Fangirl" shirt. 

However, how fickle are fangirls, even professional ones.  After rereading Pleasure and Payne, it's still a bit murky what exactly happened, but from what I understand, one of them (Liam Payne, hence the title) retweeting something from someone who said things that were interpreted as homophobic, and Oakley, out and proud, tweeted Payne and expressed concern/hoped for clarification.

Payne took issue with this, tweeted that Oakley was never a real fan, and the Directioneers, lemmings to the end, went after Oakley.  The tweets against Oakley were harsh to say the least (things like #WeWantTylerOakleyDead and #RIPTylerOakleysCareer were probably the nicer things), so much vitriol slung that even Oakley was unnerved and pulled away from social media for a while.  Eventually he came back, stronger and more sure that one had to stand their principles no matter what...even if it meant getting cut off from five pretty British boys.

Lesson learned.   

Binge, I suppose, is interesting reading to those who think Tyler Oakley and/or his views are important.  He isn't going to discuss such things as what steps to take to disarm North Korea, how to improve American education or whether it's macaroni & cheese or cheese & macaroni.  As I finished Binge, I got some sense of who Tyler Oakley is: a person who likes to talk a lot about himself and how he meets famous people, can accidentally throw away expensive clothes used for some red-carpet event, and his early fixation with penises that continues unabated.

I just never got a sense as to why I, or anyone, really should care. 

It brings to mind something I heard on NPR, I think, a profile of Girls.  In the clip, Lena Dunham's character is shocked when her parents cut her off financially.  She protests that they shouldn't, using the idea that "I don't think I'm the voice of my generation.  I think I am a voice, of a generation".  I figure Tyler Oakley thinks if he isn't the voice of Millennials, he is a voice, of a generation.

Maybe next time, he can tell me why I, Generation X, or anyone not Millennial, should listen.

And we wonder how Mama Hillary lost...

I Am Scout: The Biography of Harper Lee: A Review

Childs, C.J. (2008). I Am Scout: The Biography of Harper Lee. Henry Holt & Co., New York.

As part of the recent Youth Literature class, as well as the fact that after fifty-plus years, Harper Lee is coming out with a second book (Go Set a Watchman), I think it would be nice to look over the life of this intensely private but pugnacious person: Miss Nelle Harper Lee, author of one of the Greatest Books of the Twentieth Century: To Kill a Mockingbird.   I Am Scout: The Biography of Harper Lee, is the juvenile version of Charles J. Shields' adult biography, Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee, is an excellent read for the target audience.  It gives wonderful information and insight into the intensely private author but is written in such a way that it doesn't sensationalize or delve into generally unpleasant matters (the murder of the Clutter Family in Kansas which was the basis of her frenemy Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, which Lee was instrumental in creating but which Capote downplayed her assistance).

Nelle Harper Lee's life is covered, beginning with her early years in Monroeville, Alabama.  She's the daughter of the South, but no Southern belle by any stretch.  Much like her main character in TKAM, she was a tomboy: willing to stand up and fight any boy, as well as play football like one.  She forced her way to a game once, and she didn't go down but instead knocked others down.  When the captain yelled that they were playing touch, she yelled back, "Y'all can play that sissy game if you want to, but I'm playing tackle!"

In what might be a contradiction, while she was rough-and-ready, she also had a deeply intellectual side.  In one of those fortuitous turns of literature, her next-door neighbor was another future American literary legend, Truman Capote (then known by his birth name of Truman Streckfus Persons).  He had essentially been dumped by his parents: the vain status-seeking Lillie May and the ne'er-do-well Archie, in the care of relatives.  They were neighbors to the Lee family, which couldn't be further from Capote's chaotic life. 

Lee's father, A.C. Lee, was a successful lawyer, Alabama state representative, and newspaper publisher.  His oldest daughter Alice followed her father's footsteps, and at first Nelle tried to do likewise.  However, her non-traditional ways in forms of dress and disinterest in being the embodiment of the proper lady (she smoked, she swore, and didn't have many if any real friendships/relationships) put her at odds with almost everyone around her.  She also had a great passion: to write.  The two came into conflict, and eventually, despite the misgivings of her family, she went to New York, where her old friend Truman, now known as Truman Capote (adopting his stepfather's surname), had made a big noise. 

Capote, who referred to themselves as 'apart people', was one of the few in her early years to be a kindred soul.  As children, they wrote together and were engulfed with books.  They would carry around a new typewriter almost everywhere (except to the treehouse, as it was too heavy).  As an adult, Lee started out as the prototypical struggling writer, finding a job with BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation) ticket seller and trying to write.  A fortuitous friendship allowed her to quit her job thanks to a gift of money that would allow her to live while she devoted herself full-time to writing.

With revisions and editing, she cranked out To Kill a Mockingbird, which came at the same time that her old friend Capote came to her and asked her to be his "assistant researchist" (his term) on his 'nonfiction novel'.  Her quiet manner and Southern charm smoothed the way for her loud, flamboyant, egocentric friend, who frankly irritated and shocked the conservative Kansans, who were in shock over the Clutter killings.  She and Capote didn't record their interviews, relying on their memories which they shared in evenings.  Often, Capote would write "See NL's notes" for clarification.

While she helped Capote, she also turned her attention to her novel, To Kill A Mockingbird.  She expected it to 'die a merciful death at the hand of reviewers', but instead she appeared to hit the zeitgeist of the rising civil rights movement.   The book became an immediate success, eventually winning the Pulitzer, a rare honor for a first-time novelist who hadn't published before.  The book redeemed her in her eyes to not having pursued law, and the film version cemented the legend.

As time went on however, Harper Lee became irritated by all the attention she was getting because of TKAM.  She worked on a second novel, but with all the publicity for Mockingbird, time just slipped by.  Later on, she did declare she was working on a second book, to be titled The Reverend, in the style of Capote's In Cold Blood.  Perhaps this was a way to get back at her friend, who downplayed Lee's contribution to his work (and this genteel antagonism might have been mutual, as Capote never "went to any strenuous lengths to deny" having written part or all of To Kill a Mockingbird.  Lee's disillusionment with her friend, dislike to be connected with In Cold Blood, and general dislike of attention was such that she did not attend the legendary Black and White Ball Truman threw for Washington Post editor Katherine Graham.

As time went on though, the idea of publishing another book slipped.  She would not speak at presentations, and her relationship with Monroeville, which has capitalized on their 'golden goose', has been fraught with tension.  At one point, she threatened to sue the local historical society when it thought of publishing Calpurnia's Cookbook, basing it on own of the novel's characters.  The entire run of the book had to be destroyed.  Now in her 80s, she is at peace about her curious place in literature: one book (so far), yet a legend.  As Miss Lee wrote to a friend, "People who have made peace with themselves are the people I most admire in the world".

I Am Scout gives us really interesting information both about her and her legendary book; for example, her choice for Atticus Finch was Spencer Tracy, even writing to him to suggest he play the role.  The studio for its part, wanted Rock Hudson.  Even after Gregory Peck was cast, there were subtle problems.  Peck, who had a strong financial hand in the film, insisted on building up his part at the expense of the children's viewpoint (Peck insisted on removing a scene where Jem reads to a dying Mrs. DuBose because it again put the emphasis on the children and not on Atticus Finch, much to the director's sadness).  She also lived in New York for several years, but disliked the city itself (she wouldn't go to Manhattan), not living lavishly despite the wealth she probably accumulated through the book.   More curiously, though she lived close to friends she did not visit them or encourage visits.  It is as if she, like Greta Garbo, wants to be alone. 

Lee also has a curious hostility to Mary Badham, who played Scout in the film version.  "(Harper Lee) rebuffed attempts by (Badham)...to communicate with her. 'Mary acts like that book is the Bible', Nelle mentioned to Kathy McCoy, the former director of the Monroe County Heritage Museums.  According to a terse not in the museum's archives, '(Gregory Peck) told M.B. not to try to contact N.L.".  One gets the idea that Lee respects her work, but also thinks that it is simply too difficult to live up to the legend.  It is her Citizen Kane, but unlike Orson Welles, she quit while she was ahead.

Then again, she really didn't quit.  She had full intention of writing many books, of telling many stories.  However, the publicity, the notoriety, the passion Mockingbird was held by the public, in a way pushed Lee to not write.  Shields comments that the two essays she wrote for magazines post-Mockingbird had "a strong whiff of self-righteousness", calling them too self-conscious, as if she were trying to already live up to a legend she didn't want and couldn't carry.  

Harper Lee has pretty much resigned herself to both the praise and curse of To Kill a Mockingbird, a book that is good, that she knows is good, but that has also pretty much condemned her to endless comparisons, which might have frightened her from going into publishing another one...until now.  At age 89, a second Harper Lee book, Go Set a Watchman, is set for publication this July (I already have it on order, though it won't arrive until a few days after initial publication.  I'm not in that much of a hurry). It is called a sequel to her first book, though it apparently was written prior to Mockingbird and only recently rediscovered (even Lee apparently forgot all about it).

I Am Scout is perfect for the target audience, providing an interesting portrait of the author who has earned a place in history with only one book to her name (at least until July 2015), written in a simple tone that children will find easy. Adults can also enjoy I Am Scout as a fascinating portrait of the mostly-reclusive writer, who gave the world a wonderful story, then watched it overtaken by others whose intensions were both good and bad.        

Nelle Harper Lee
Born 1926

Module 15--Daddy's Roommate: A Review

DADDY'S ROOMMATE by Michael Willhoite

Willhoite, M. (1991) Daddy's Roommate.  Alyson Book, New York.

Daddy's Roommate, almost fifteen years after publication, is still a source of controversy.  It is listed by the American Library Association as the second most challenged book between 1990 and 1991.  Despite all the gains of gays in America (including the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the country), the issue of homosexual relations is still touchy to a segment of the population.  The rightness or wrongness of a homosexual relationship is not the subject of Daddy's Roommate.  It is instead about one child's-eye view of the circumstances he finds himself in.

Told in a first-person voice, the boy (never named) tells us about his father (also never named, but simply referred to as "Daddy").  Mommy and Daddy got a divorce 'last year' The Boy tells us, and now Daddy is living with his 'roommate', Frank (oddly, despite being the title character, he's the only person who gets a name in Daddy's Roommate).  Daddy and Frank do all sorts of things together: work, eat. sleep, shave, and even fight together (but always make up).  Frank, The Boy reports, likes him, and Frank and The Boy spend time together (Frank reads to The Boy and makes "great peanut butter and jelly sandwiches", emphasis the book's).  On weekends, the three of them (Frank, The Boy, and Daddy) do all sorts of things together: go to baseball games, the zoo, the beach, work in the yard, and have sing-alongs by the piano.  Mommy tells The Boy that Daddy and Frank are gay.

"At first I didn't know what that meant.  So she explained it.  Being gay is just one more kind of love.  And love is the best kind of happiness.  Daddy and his roommate are very happy together.  And I'm happy too!"

While reading Daddy's Roommate, I played around with it.  I substituted Frank for Francine, and thought what if Daddy's roommate were a woman.  The mind boggles at the idea of Francine and Daddy 'shaving together', but apart from that, would it make much difference if Daddy's roommate were a woman?  I think yes, but perhaps not in the way people might imagine.

The connotation between a male-female living arrangement and a male-male living arrangement like the one presented in Daddy's Roommate surprisingly leaves much ambiguity in the latter.  I think children have a basic understanding that when a man and a woman sleep together, they know it involves something akin to romance.  When it comes to a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) sleeping together, not so much.  Personally, I think we give children far too much credit if we imagine that they automatically know that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love.

If it were Francine and Daddy rather than Frank and Daddy in Daddy's Roommate, I think children would more quickly and easily grasp that the new relationship is a romantic one.   The way Frank and Daddy's relationship comes across, there isn't what I would call 'romance', just good buddies living together.  It's almost as if Willhoite, for all his intents, wanted to make a same-sex relationship palatable and understandable to elementary school children but instead almost hid the true nature and depth of the relationship.

The imagery of Daddy and Frank in Daddy's Roommate is to my mind almost comical in how innocuous it is.  Looking at the illustrations and text, what I saw in the relationship between Daddy and Frank was not romance, but just a very good friendship.  Apart from the next-to-last panel, where Frank and Daddy were watching television together, with Frank's arm over Daddy's shoulder in what is an intimate gesture, I have done pretty much everything Daddy and Frank did with my best friend.

Yes, I've even slept with my best friend (who is a man), if by 'sleeping' you mean 'shared the same bed'.  If by 'sleeping' you mean 'have sex', then no, I haven't 'slept' with my best friend.  Granted, I also haven't put lotion on his back at the beach, but minus that pretty much the relationship between Daddy and Frank is the same as mine with my best friend.  A child of a gay father who has come out (especially to his son) would understand what was going on in Daddy's Roommate.  A child of either a closeted gay father or a heterosexual father I think wouldn't get it, or get it so quickly. 

It does make me wonder who Willhoite's target audience is.  If he wrote Daddy's Roommate for children of gay fathers, more power to him.  If he wrote it for a more general audience, I think he missed the mark.

One aspect of Daddy's Roommate that I could never shake was just how easily everyone accepted things.  Despite being the primary guardian (The Boy mentions that he sees Daddy on weekend), Mommy has virtually nothing to do with The Boy apart from telling him Daddy and Frank are gay and that it's "just one more kind of love".  That may be true, but for myself I found the idea of an ex-spouse who took all this in stride extremely bizarre.  Here she was, marrying a man she loved, having a child with him, only to divorce due to her husband's homosexuality.

At least, I figure this was the reason for the divorce.  Whether he or she initiated it there's no way of knowing.  In any case, after what is suppose to be a mere year later, Mommy seems rather cool with the idea that her ex is now with Frank.  Maybe it's just the circle I roll with, but I've never met any divorcee, man or woman, who a mere year later was thrilled to see his/her ex with anyone new, let alone someone of the same gender.  It could also be the excessively detailed person in me, but I kept wondering about Mommy.  Has she found someone new?  How can she be so accepting of her ex-husband's new relationship regardless of gender? Yes, I figure there are many people who do accept the failure of their marriage due to their ex's acceptance of their sexuality, and even some that are happy for their exes.  However, for there not to be any sense of resentment, of regret, of sorrow, just doesn't ring true.

I also thought the same of The Boy.  Willhoite presents an idealized version of reality.  A divorce can be traumatic to a child.  A new stepparent can be difficult for a child.  Throw in that his new stepmother is a man and The Boy's casual acceptance of this again doesn't ring completely true.  Willhoite won't acknowledge that these changes may be difficult for a child.  He won't acknowledge that a child may not think it's Same Love as Macklemore thinks.  Rather than recognize that a child may find all or any of this hard to take (the divorce, the new relationship, the same-sex nature of the new relationship), or even entertain the idea that a child may not be happy about anything involving this not related to sexuality, Willhoite's Boy seems rather nonchalant.  Daddy loved a woman, now he loves a man, OK.  Yes, some children can take this easily, but some children cannot. 

Daddy's Roommate could have been a great book about helping kids deal or accept their father's new same-sex partner.  It could have helped children by guiding them through what could be traumatic experiences (divorce, a new partner for his/her father).  Instead, Daddy's Roommate idealizes what, regardless of sexual orientation, can be a difficult situation.  Divorce is hard on children, no matter what the circumstances.  How all the adults in Daddy's Roommate appear so casual about everything to me suggests that in this world, a child's questions about the various changes can be answered with a rather pat answer: "it's just one more kind of love."  That may be true, but even today, when seven-year-olds can be certain they are transgender (and as a side note, I admit that at age seven, I had no concept of transgender or any kind of sexual identity as straight or gay, only the difference in boys and girls), I think Daddy's Roommate is a little disingenuous.

Maybe Tolstoy is right.  Maybe ALL happy families are alike. 

Would I ban Daddy's Roommate?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  I'm someone who loathes censorship and would not ban something unless it called for violence or was a deliberately racist/sexist/homophobic work (books that denied the Holocaust or supported ISIS for example).  I however, think the nonfiction section is the most appropriate area for Daddy's Roommate.  If it were placed in the Easy section, it would lead to a lot of questions that parents may not want to answer or have asked, because I think that the world outside Daddy's Roommate is more complicated than the one Willhoite created.

I personally don't find much to object to in Daddy's Roommate (apart from its rather simplistic text and view of the world).  I would carry it in the system, because same-sex partnerships are a real part of life.

BRIEF REVIEW DISCUSSION

As if that weren't enough, I think the Entertainment Weekly review of Daddy's Roommate, which earned a C+, is pretty accurate and one I agree with. 

The books’ clear goal is to show homosexual relationships as a real-world complement to the mom-and-dad model. Unfortunately, Daddy’s Roommate suffers from the same failing as the old Dick-and-Jane books: It’s so relentlessly blithe that it could almost be called Dick and Dick. As if divorce or re-coupling — especially when gay partners are involved — were ever so untroubled.  

I don't think Michelle Landsberg realized the unintentional double entendre of Dick and Dick with regards to Daddy's Roommate.  It's a little reminiscent of when ESPN's Anthony Federico used the term 'chink in the armor' to refer to Jeremy Lin's role in the New York Knick's loss at a game.  I believe Federico's version, that he was not aware that 'chink' was a racial slur regarding Chinese (I for one had never heard that slur used regarding Asians) and the term 'chink in the armor' is a common one.  Similarly, the Dick and Dick comment I think was not intended as anything other than a joke, not a bizarre comment on the subject matter.

I found the text rather simplistic, which is perfect for the target audience (very small children), though perhaps a bit too simplistic, even a bit condescending, to where it might be a bit boring for children (the Dick-and-Jane style being the best description for it).

PROGRAMMING IDEAS

This one is the hardest for me, because Daddy's Roommate-related programs will in my view inevitably bring confrontation between groups.  Pro-gay groups are not immune from being as vitriolic and confrontational as their counterparts.  I would suggest a Family Day celebration where all families are welcome and leave it as that.        

Michael Willhoite
Born 1946

REFERENCES:

Landsberg, M. (2015, January 17). Daddy's Roommate.  Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ew.com/article/1993/01/29/daddys-roommate

Module 14--October Mourning: A Song for Matthew Shepard: A Review

MODULE 14
OCTOBER MOURNING:

A SONG FOR MATTHEW SHEPARD

by Leslea Newman

Newman, L. (2012). October Mourning: A Song for Matthew Shepard.  Candlewick.

There are certain facts not in dispute.  On October 6, 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay man, was savagely beaten and left to die.  The next morning, he was found by a passing runner.  Matthew Shepard died five days after he was found, never having regained consciousness.

Matthew Shepard is now all but canonized, a secular martyr.  He is to the gay community what Emmett Till is to the African-American community: a young man murdered with such particular brutality and savagery that it shocked the nation and galvanized people to act against bigotry. There have been plays written about Matthew Shepard (The Laramie Project), songs written about Matthew Shepard (such as Melissa Etheridge's Scarecrow), whole choral works written about Matthew Shepard (Elegy for Matthew) .  The poem cycle October Mourning: A Song for Matthew Shepard, is thoroughly immersed in this canonization, presenting in verse various 'voices' on the Shepard case.  Some of the poems are moving, even beautiful.  Some fall flat and are heavy-handed.  Some work amazingly well despite what at first is an odd premise for some of them. The inside flap noted that Ms. Newman's poems "explores the impact of the vicious crime through fictitious monologues from various points of view, including the fence to which Matthew was tied...".

I read that and thought, "Seriously? The point of view of the fence?  How does one get the point of view of an inanimate object?"  Newman does it extremely well.  Whatever flaws in some of the sixty-eight poems in October Mourning (ranging from a mere 12 words to two pages), all of them come from the heart.

The poems are divided into four parts: Prologue, Part One, Part Two, and Epilogue, with an Introduction and Afterword by the poetess.  Each poem reflects a myriad of views on both Shepard and the two men convicted of his murder: Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.  The first poem, The Fence (before) is a brilliant piece of writing. 

It first appears the fence is talking about itself when it says, "the sun warms me/the wind soothes me", but then it shifts to what can be seen as what could be Shepard's own ideas (or that of any person): "will I always be out here/exposed and alone? will somebody someday stumble upon me? will anyone remember me after I'm gone?"  The transition is so smooth one barely notices it.

Another brilliant poem was The Armbands (yes, about armbands used in support of Shepard).  "Though we are worn/we are not weary...though we are yellow/we are not afraid...though we are tattered/we are not broken...though we are many/we are standing as one".  The double meaning within the poem is clear ('worn' as in wardrobe and 'worn' as in 'exhausted'), especially when put against 'weary'.  They 'wore' the armbands, but they themselves were not 'worn out'.

Of course, with sixty-eight poems, not all of them were as smooth or as clever or as gentle as others.  There is Thirteen Ways of Looking at Matthew.  It is divided into thirteen words, each punctuated with a Roman numeral.  When we get to X, we slip from respecting and honoring Matthew Shepard and slip into virtual worship.  X: Martyr.  XI: Hero. XII: Legend.  XIII: Star. 

Another poem that caused me concern was The Defense's Job, which is a companion piece to The Prosecutor's Job.  They mirror each other in style, but they also mirror each other in hatred towards Henderson and McKinney.

his job

his only job

his one and only job

 

is to protect

is to preserve

is to spare

 

the client's

the criminal's

the killer's

 

life

 

even if no one else thinks

even when no one else thinks

even though no one else thinks

 

the brute's

the bastard's

the son of a bitch's

 

life

 

is barely worth

is hardly worth

is just not worth

 

saving

redeeming

a damn

Perhaps it is my own background (one that firmly opposes the death penalty as I oppose abortion, seeing them as two sides of the same coin: namely, state-sanctioned killing not in defense of the country or self), but I am a firm believer in redemption for all.  It is not within my heart to say that even the most loathsome individual is beyond salvation (however he/she interprets that). What McKinney and Henderson were convicted of is evil, and the gruesome details are sickening.  However, unlike another poem, Jury Selection, I cannot condone killing one man for having killed another.

Jury Selection: the poem consists of the line, "No I would not hesitate to kill the killer in a heart beat  in a heart beat", with each line adding an extra word until it forms the complete sentence, then taking a word away after the sentence is formed.

Of course, this is what I think good poetry should do: affect us on a personal level.  There were many poems in October Mourning that did so.  A Chorus of Parents is like all the poems in the book, an imagined conversation, this time putting us in the minds of several parents who broke off relations with their gay sons and now wish to reestablish them in the wake of Shepard's murder.  So many stories collide ("I called my sixteen-year-old, eighteen-year-old, twenty-five-year old, thirty-seven-year old, fifty-six-year old son", "I called my son who came out when he was fourteen, fifteen, nineteen, twenty-two, thirty-two, fifty-two, a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, five years ago, half a century ago").

I placed myself in their shoes, thinking if I had a gay son who came out to me what would my reaction have been.  I personally know of no parent who danced in the streets when their son/daughter told them they were gay.  I don't know of any parent who said, "I'm thrilled that my son is gay.  It's a dream come true, everything I've always hoped he would be.  My greatest desire was to have a gay child."  I know parents who are very accepting of this news, but I also know that within every single parent I know who has faced this news, there has been at least a touch of sadness in the news.  To say that there isn't is to lie. 

We as a society have not progress to the point where a parent rejoices in the news that their child is gay/lesbian.  We have parents who accept it and love their children no matter what, but I have yet to hear one parent ever say they wanted their son/daughter to be gay.  Acceptance of a gay child is not the same as desiring to have a gay child.

Recently, there has been a whisper of a disparaging word against the Legend of Saint Matt.  Stephen Jimenez's The Book of Matt presents an alternate version of the motive in Shepard's murder.  Instead of being a monstrous hate crime due to Shepard's homosexuality, Jimenez (who himself is gay) argues that his murder was a result of the drug trade Shepard was alleged to be involved with.  IF Shepard's murder was not connected to his sexual orientation but to illegal activity, it more than changes the narrative.  It all but obliterates it.  The central premise of all the works on Shepard (including October Mourning) now become grist for a myth, perpetuating a false narrative if Jimenez's allegations are true.  It doesn't rob the good poems of their power, but it does undermine the premise that they are built on, the story of an innocent now becomes a darker tale, one where the truth is not as clear.  It also has the effect of making Matthew Shepard less a saint and more a sinner like you and me, with the same flaws, faults and failings as any other mortal.  It doesn't justify, rationalize, or condone his killing, but it does make Matthew Shepard less than the sum of his official story.

It brings to mind the famous quote from the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.  "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".  Does it really matter what the motive was in Shepard's murder?  If it wasn't homophobia gone wild but instead a sordid drug-related crime, does that take away from the important symbolism of Shepard?  It certainly doesn't justify the murder, but one has to ask, would there be works like October Mourning, Elegy for Matthew or The Laramie Project to lament someone killed in a sordid meth-related crime gone hideously wrong?   

I now have serious questions about both The Book of Matt and works like October Mourning.   Is the former true or a lie?  Is the latter perpetuating a myth or a passionate reaction against a monstrous evil?  I can't answer either  with total certainty.  As Newman stated, there are only three people who know for certain what happened: two in prison, one dead. 

However, I think we can get an idea of where Newman would stand on this if asked.  In The Prosecutor's Job, she writes of "a robbery/a kidnapping/a killing; which cannot be excused/which cannot be forgiven/which cannot be undone; the rest is irrelevant/the rest is history/the rest is baloney; he rests his case" (emphasis mine).  October Mourning was written long before The Book of Matt gave an alternate version of the story, and I'm only speculating, but perhaps Ms. Newman spoke for those who believe that even if Shepard was not the "Martyr/Hero/Legend/Star", in the end "the rest is irrelevant".

October Mourning comes from the heart, a true emotional outpouring of the author's feelings over her interpretation of the crime from various viewpoints.   No one has ever argued that Shepard's murder, whatever the motive, was right or justified.  It was a brutal, horrific crime.

BRIEF REVIEW DISCUSSION

In the Kirkus review for October Mourning, it was pointed out that "while the collection as a whole treats a difficult subject with sensitivity and directness, these poems are in no way nuanced or subtle." It also took Newman to task for being 'somewhat heavy-handed".  I find these observations to be highly accurate, but I also think that despite some stumbles (which shouldn't come as a surprise for a work that contains so many works), October Mourning, when it works, works extremely well.  October Mourning is itself a very moving Elegy for Matthew.

 

PROGRAMMING SUGGESTIONS

A great program would be to have a GLBT speaker talk about his/her experiences pre and post-Matthew Shepard.  A production of The Laramie Project would also be advisable if possible, and a display of the various social moments in America (suffragists, civil rights, gay rights) might also be good.  I also think the creation of a rainbow artwork with messages could be constructed.

Matthew Wayne Shepard:
1976-1998

REFERENCES:

Book Review: October Mourning: A Song for Matthew Shepard by Leslea Newman (2012, July). Kirkus Reviews.  Retrieved from https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/leslea-newman/october-mourning/

Module 11--Ballet For Martha: Making Appalachian Spring: A Review

MODULE 11:
BALLET FOR MARTHA:

MAKING APPALACHIAN SPRING:

by Jan Greenberg and Sandra Jordan, illustrated by Brian Floca

Greenberg, J. and Jordan, S. (2010).  Ballet for Martha: Making Appalachian Spring. Roaring Book Press, New York. 

I figure making a book about the creation of an iconic American ballet is a tough sell.  You've got to be true to history and you have two subjects that don't lend themselves naturally to the written word: the art of dance and the art of music.  Ballet for Martha: Making Appalachian Spring, does this efficiently, with beautiful illustrations and great text that together flow as easily and excellently as Aaron Copland's score and Martha Graham's choreography. 

Martha Graham:
1894-1991

We get a quick introduction to our three figures: Martha Graham, the choreographer (or creator of dance), Aaron Copland, the composer, and a generally unsung figure in the creation of the ballet Appalachian Spring, Isamu Noguchi, the artist (in this case, set designer). 

Each figure goes through a creative process and progress.  For Graham, it is coming up with both a scenario and with the dance movements.  She has to create a story that can be told in dance, and that can be both creative and one that can be performed by the dancers.  It isn't easy, as she keeps working and reworking her choreography.  Graham also has the added burden of finding her style not embraced by the times.

Aaron Copland
1900-1990

For Copland, it is in finding the right music to which to tell the story he's been given: a pioneer wedding.  He comes across a Shaker hymn, which inspires him.  He writes out the music, waits for it to be approved, and even doesn't mind when the score is rearranged to fit the dance.  For Noguchi, it is going beyond his usual sculptures and creating a minimalist set that can work with the dancers and their movements.

Finally, the big day comes: October 30, 1944, where Appalachian Spring (a title Graham found in a poem and which she liked despite having nothing to do with the ballet) premieres in Washington, D.C. at the Library of Congress.  Ballet for Martha then describes through words and illustrations the ballet itself and the great success Appalachian Spring had.  The book ends with the idea of a revival of Appalachian Spring, with new dancers coming to recreate this uniquely American story.  We know that it is a new interpretation, for we see a multicultural dance company performing the dance.  We also get a "Curtain Call" section, giving brief biographies of Graham, Copland, and Noguchi and the footnotes that credit the information.

Isamu Noguchi:
1904-1988

 

Ballet for Martha as I said has a very difficult task.  How exactly does one recreate on a page the freedom of movement or the sound of music?  Appalachian Spring is one of the seminal works of American culture: Copland's score, in particular his interpretation of the Shaker hymn Simple Gifts is among the greatest and most recognizable works in American music.  The choreography to Appalachian Spring was a landmark in American dance.  Therefore, how to show this physical work in a book?

A great deal of success to Ballet for Martha is due to Floca's illustrations.  They are simple but elegant.  In particular, Floca has a vitality when illustrating the leaping and movements of various dances.  We don't just see the illustrations to show how Appalachian Spring was, but also a previous Graham ballet, 1929's Heretic.  We don't get a description of what Heretic is about, but the fact that Floca's illustrations show Graham all in white facing a group of women towering over her all in black is a strong explanation of what Heretic entails.  We see this with Floca's illustration for Appalachian Spring as we see the exuberance and the quiet of the dancing.

Floca throughout Ballet for Martha shows us how the dancers told the story through movement.  The text by Greenberg and Jordan take great care to explain what is going on in the story.  Ballet can be a bit opaque to many people, especially children not involved in ballet.  As such, to see Greenberg and Jordan's text alongside with Floca's illustrations we get as much impact as possible for the page.

"The bridegroom leaps and bounds like an acrobat, strutting, swaggering, showing off for his bride." 

The text above is complimented with illustrations of the various athletic movements of the male lead, concluding with a full-page illustration of the Bridegroom posing in a powerful position, muscular arms thrust out, almost as if he were more prizefighter than ballet dancer.  They do the same when they describe the 'fiery' movements of the Preacher, almost as an avenging angel warning sinners of the wrath of an angry God.

Ballet for Martha also gives us not just the story of the creation of Appalachian Spring, but about the importance of collaboration.  Each figure (Graham, Copland, and Noguchi) worked together to create Appalachian Spring.  We don't read that any of them said it had to be done their way.  In fact, we read that Graham had to rewrite her scenario again and again, and that Copland didn't object when his music was rearranged.  Whether the last part was true is not in the notes, but we trust that if there was, it would have been mentioned.  As it stands, there is no sense that Appalachian Spring was anything other than three great artists collaborating and working in tandem to create a masterpiece.  

Above all else, Appalachian Spring is an AMERICAN creation: a piece that is about an American subject, drawing from American music, infused with the American spirit of freedom.  This is why it was extremely clever to end Ballet for Martha with a whole new group of dancers performing Appalachian Spring, one that featured minorities in the prominent roles.   It shows that dance companies around the world are able to perform Appalachian Spring as a work that celebrates America, or at least acknowledges that the United States has its own unique culture. 

BRIEF REVIEW DISCUSSION

In her review for Ballet for Martha, Jennifer McDonald observed that after reading it, "the book's earnestness may appeal to young dancers (and will undoubtedly send them to YouTube to see "Appalachian Spring" for themselves." I can testify that it wasn't just 'young dancers' who were intrigued to see what Appalachian Spring was all about.   I think readers will want to know more about Appalachian Spring, and fortunately, we have video of the ballet with Graham recreating her original performance. 

PROGRAMMING SUGGESTIONS

Obviously, a performance of a selection from Appalachian Spring would be an excellent program to have for Ballet for Martha.  We could also have either a band perform the score's most famous work, Copland's version of Simple Gifts, or have a choir sing this and other Shaker hymns.    

REFERENCES:

McDonald, J. (2011, January 14). Rhythms of a New Land. The New York Times Book Reviews.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/books/review/McDonald-t.html?_r=0