It could be the name of a prehistoric beast
that roamed the Paelozoic earth, rising up
on its hind legs to show off its large vocabulary,
or some lover in a myth who is metamorphosed into a book.
It means treasury, but it is just a place
where words congregate with their relatives,
a big park where hundreds of family reunions
are always being held,
house, home, abode, dwelling, lodgings, and digs
all sharing the same picnic basket and thermos;
hairy, hirsute, wooly, furry, fleecy, and shaggy
all running a sack race or throwing horseshoes,
inert, static, motionless, fixed, and immobile
standing and kneeling in rows for a group photograph.
Here father is next to sire and brother close
to sibling, separated only by fine shades of meaning,
And every group has its odd cousin, the one
who traveled the farthest to be here:
astereognosis, polydipsia, or some eleven
syllable, unpronounceable substitute for the word tool.
Even their own relatives have to squint at their name tags.
I can see my own copy up oa high schel.
I rarely open it, because I know there is no
such thing as a synonym and because I get nervous
around people who always assemble with their own kind,
forming clubs and nailing signs to closed front doors
while others huddle alone in the dark.
I would rather see words out on their own, away
from their families and the warehouse of Roget,
wandering the world where they sometimes fall
in love with a completely different word.
Surely, you have seen pairs of them standing forever
next to each other in the same line inside a poem,
a small chapel where weddings like these,
between perfect strangers, can take place.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Beartalk by Mr. B
If you want to be a poet,
first you must become a bear.
Get wild and furry and big.
Trade your hands for paws;
your choices for actions.
Give up work for life;
words for moments.
Sense each moment fully, intimately, directly.
Eat everything.
Live in solitude.
Rest and wait.
And wait.
And when the time has come, you must die.
1)
I posed for the picture when I was a young bear. Some kid with a camera pointed and shot. And ran. I’ve always had that effect on people - the approach-avoidance thing. I guess it goes with the species. Anyway, that photo got around. I like to think it had something to do with my dark, mysterious eyes, but I know it was one of those shit-happens kind of processes - somebody knows somebody who knows somebody, and ages and ages later, my face shows up on the front cover of a book of poetry by Billy Collins erstwhile poet laureate of America..
I’m an oil painting now. Rrnhr. Hanging in some Seattle gallery it says on the dustjacket. Behind the canvas me, translucent fluffy golden clouds replace the boarded up back window of the Enco station where the photo was taken. It used to mark the western edge of Las Vegas, New Mexico. Time was, the best tamales in Northern New Mexico were sold out of that gas station. Gas was twenty, thirty cents a gallon.
That’s the trouble with the whole human race - cheap gas. It’s not just that you got it in the first place- overpopulation, pollution, instant gratification, rush hour, and the smell – Ngrrh! - the smell alone cancels out whatever benefit you might have gotten from it! There’s no way to get that smell out of your fur by the way. Grrnrh. It’s not just that you got it - cheap gas just killed poetry, you know - it’s that once you got it you thought you had to have it. And when humans think they have to have something it’s Katy bar the door. Katy bar the freaking door! Nrrh.
I know it’s me in the picture. I hate that smarmy school photo smile. It’s so unnatural. I don’t think I ever smiled like that when there was no camera around. The cubs and grandcubs do it, too. My mother used to avert her eyes and tuck her snout down in front of a camera. Sometimes she’d put a paw over her mouth.
“Mother,” I used to say, “all bears have menacing teeth! What do you want to hide them for?”
But that was when I was older. As a younger bear, I smiled that beautiful smarmy smile you can see on the cover of Billy Collins’ book.
You can also see Grandaddy Bear’s golden eyebrows in the painting, his gift and curse to me. I can’t tell you how many times in my post-existential lifetime a bear I never met before has come up to me and said, “You have the most beautiful eyebrows.”
“Where’s the curse in that?” you ask.
They aren’t mine! I did nothing to develop, nurture, discover, or reveal them. I did not choose them. I did nothing to deserve them. I take no credit for them. They belong to my grandfather and probably his. I’m just wearing them. My cubs have them. And one of the grandcubs, too. He’ll understand in a few years. Nobody sees me. They see beautiful golden eyebrows.
Hello! There’s a bear inside!
Of course, I myself only discovered the Bear Within after many years of bear life. The inner life is something that humans take for granted just as completely as bears take the momentous life that way. But then, even the ideas of “for granted” and “take” don’t get bears. Bears don’t take anything; that’s a human concept. It comes with the hands.
You think that you always have to take things in hand, grasp them, get a handle on them, take charge, get a grip, hold on. Nnrrrn! Opposable thumb talking! Your lives are so consumed with consuming and so done in by doing that you neglect to live them. Get a life? You already have one. Live it. Buying and selling you lay waste your powers. Little you see in nature that is yours unless you take it for yourself. Rrhg! I didn’t mean to go all Wordsworth on you. (Good name for a poet though, eh?) I’m not talking about consumerism here. Well, yes I am. Grrn rhg. What I’m not talking about is your stupid ideas about ownership and possessions. I’m talking about your living as though nothing happens unless you do something. Or someone else does.
It’s not that you live in a world of action alone. That’s a laugh! You never met an action you couldn’t put off, avoid, or get somebody else to do. Rrrrgh, rrrr... This is hard. It’s not the doing, not the action, that so limits you... Rhrrn, rrrhg... It’s your agency! Grrhng! Words are absolutely nothing like paws! “Agency” works, but... rrgh, rrn... Instrumentality! It’s your effing sense of instrumentality! You see yourselves as instrumental in everything! If you don’t do it (see it, think it, make it, invent it, imagine it, build it) it won’t get done. If you build it, they will come. If not, nothing. Your science may claim that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (or whatever that law is!), but your lives claim that every action has an instrument or agent that initiates it. Even thinking, your proudest ability.
When you’re most thoroughly human is when you sense that something must be done. And what do you do? You think! Humans who want to have richer, deeper, more meaningful lives always seem to turn inward. Contemplating their navels, nurturing their inner child, discovering who they really are. Hrrn-rrh-hr. (By the way, you’ve never seen a bear’s navel, have you? It’s there under all the fur where you can’t see it. But it’s there.) You humans always think you can think your way into new ways of living. Most of the time, you can’t even think yourselves into new ways of thinking! It’s the thinking that separates you from life. From living. That’s what life is for – living! Not grasping, grabbing, getting, or taking. Not analyzing, reflecting, theorizing, observing, describing, testing, and all those things you so love to do.
I love that story you tell about imagining the ship in a bottle and then imagining how to get it out without breaking it. However it goes! The punch line is that you just imagine – there, it’s out. You imagined it in; you just imagine it out. Hr-hrn-hrr-rr. That’s so human! Even when you recognize and reveal your laughable instrumentality, you have to do something about it. You are so trapped in your ideas and perceptions and conclusions. What do you call those who are not likewise trapped? Out of their minds! Hrrnh! That’s exactly where you need to go!
2)
“Out of sight; out of mind,” you say, meaning that if you can’t see it you forget it. That is so human! Bears never forget. Neither do elephants or cicadas or any of the other non-speaking species. They never try to remember anything either. All mnemonic devices are the invention of speaking beings. Forgetting and remembering assume that it is words alone that can store experience. Even if something is in sight (in touch, in earshot) if it is not also in mind, if you can’t quite put it into words, you think you don’t quite have it. You have to pay attention, take notice, give heed to, and if you don’t, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of things that are right there in front of you. It’s more like “out of mind, out of sight”! If you can’t name it, you can’t even see it!
You know that thing you do with “it’s right on the tip of my tongue”? Ridiculous! Whatever “it” is, your being able to put it into words does not establish its existence. Rrrnh. Your life experience is utterly, hopelessly driven by your perception that what’s on the tip of your tongue or at the tip of your fingers can only be known by you if you can use breath from your lungs to move it from the tip of your tongue through your teeth and lips to become speech. Verbocentric! Nnrhn! That’s what you are! And now that I have named it for you, you think it exists. Or could conceivably exist. Rrrr. My neologism is not an act of creation; it is an act of – what shall I call it? – identification? signification? encapsulation?
Whatever else it is, my putting something into words or into a single word is inescapably an act of limitation! Whatever is meant by “verbocentric” is more than the word itself, more than the many words I could say about it. Because you humans rely so heavily on words, the breadth and depth of your life experience is about a bottlecap’s worth of water poured out on the westward lanes of I-25 at noon on the Fourth of July and flattened by a 1983 Chevy Impala just south of Romeroville, New Mexico, in 1999. Burning cheap gas. Nnrhn rrrhn rr.
For what it’s worth, I witnessed that very thing happen to a horned lizard. It was so hot that day! I felt like I was wearing a fur coat! Rrrh-rrh-rrh-rr. “But it’s a dry heat,” you’re always saying, “And it really cools down at night in the mountains.” Right. Just like a sauna. Wrap yourself up in a couple of blankets and spend your day in there! Rrnhnn! Now that I think about it, I don’t know why we don’t hibernate in the summer. I’ve been cold enough before and after to know, and there is nothing cold enough to match the daytime heat in northern New Mexico in July. Nnh rrn nrrhn! Where’s the cosmic suggestion box when you need it?
About that horned lizard... I know you will find it somewhat offputing that I do not call it a horned frog or a horny toad, but there is some misinformed ignorant American English vernacular that even a bear writing a memoir can’t swallow! That day in 1999, I was lying in the deep shade inside a split in the pink granite face of a wannabe mountain not too far north of the interstate. There were ponderosa pines up top and a couple of fat cedars covering the bottom. I was lying there, bone weary and feeling the first stages of thirst, flat out on the ground with my head up near the uphill cedar’s trunk. (You know what’s the difference between a cedar and a juniper? Me either. Rrr rn, rhrg) That little varmint just zipped out there and squish.
You talking types think that reptiles and other nonverbals who venture onto your highways are just plain stupid and deserve to die. That’s your instrumentality talking. I’m still working on my math skills, but consider this: say two lanes of interstate highway are about 24 ft. wide, and the width or a horned lizard is 3 inches. If the lizard runs more of less straight across the highway, his total area of vulnerability is 6 square feet. And it takes him -what? - 20 seconds to cross. So six square feet of death zone for 20 seconds on a coast to coast interstate highway. Seems like pretty good odds to me. Not that any horned lizard ever did the calculations. It's just not as stupid as you people think.
3)
It’s not just your thinking too much that hampers you people. It’s the kind of thinking you do. You are always generalizing.
Bears are not given to generalizing, and often lately I find myself looking for some stereotype to maul. Even so, I’m going to say this: people nowadays think all bears look alike. Rrnrh. I know perfectly well that there are plenty of exceptions to that unbearly generalization, and I imagine that you may be one yourself. But give me this for now. Not for all time. Not as some immutable truth about the human race. Just for now, let it slip past your proud defenses: humans nowadays think all bears look alike.
Oops! Sorry. I didn’t mean to remind you of the race thing! I forgot. Everything is an allusion to you. You’re always connecting. You can’t read this sentence without connecting it to other sentences. I am not alluding to that human meanness about race or races. You people get really defensive about that these days, and I’m glad about that. I’m not alluding to that old all-Blacks-look-alike-to-me business; seen one, seen ‘em all, whatever it is you say. I did not intend to remind you of that. I know you’re getting past it. Rrrh – about damn time. But, listen, that is so human! You live by generalizations. Think about it: your whole freaking worldview is based on them. Your language! Without generalizations it’s nothing. Growls, grunts, roars, sighs, snorts, huffs, puffs. Without generalization the whole human house blows down! Rhr-hr.
The basis of your human language is generalization. You see one of my kind, and you make the sound “bear.” Other people hear that sound and see “bear.” But there is no such thing as “bear.” There are only bears: me, my golden-eyebrowed grandfather, the grandcub whose mother died, my own snaggle-toothed mother. Life comes to all of us in absolutely unique moments, not one the same as another. By your very humanness - your great gift and your curse - you group those moments with others you see to be like them. You separate them from each other and from yourselves and reconfigure them according to similarities you perceive/conceive/imagine. Instead of moments, to you guys they’re objects, subjects, ideas, words, nouns, truths. It is your humanness that empowers this genius of yours (though it is no more your own than my golden eyebrows are mine). It is what you do, and others, especially humans, find it beautiful. And rightfully so. But there is more inside.
All humans do not look alike to bears. You cannot imagine how insanely twisted, how utterly bearlessly, painfully uncomfortable it is for me to say that. Rrrgr. My brain actually hurts.
You know that game you play where you converse in questions? Each one must reply to the other with a question and if you make a declarative response you lose?
You want to play?
Play what?
Don’t you know?
Do you?
Do I what?
Are we playing already?
Did you want to?
Wasn’t it you who wanted to?
Wasn’t it I who wanted to do what?
Wasn’t it you who asked if I wanted to play this brain fucking head game?
Was it really I?
How can you muster such innocence?
Mustard? Did you say “mustard”?
Is that what you heard?
Why else would I ask you?
Could you be trying to win the game?
What game?
You know how you can physically feel the strain it puts on your brain the longer you play? Thinking - well, thinking and then saying - that sentence causes me that same kind of physical pain. In the brain. All humans do not look alike to bears. Grrrr.
It is so wrong in so many ways. The same one human does not look alike to a bear in the next moment. Bears do not look at humans - we sense you. With the usual five and others you don’t understand. We do not comprehend you; we apprehend you. We don’t even apprehend you; we prehend you. Hell, we don’t prehend you, we just flat out hend you. Rhr… We don’t hend you; we h – just kidding. Rhrhr-r-hr.
Bears live by moments; humans by generalizations. I know it makes us seem dull to you. “Trapped in the shallow present,” you would write. But here’s the truth of the thing: bears are poets. We live poetry. Every moment is a poem.
Human poets write all the time about capturing moments in words. Capturing moments! Hnrrnff! As if… Moments capture bears! Without the experience of being captured by an absolutely unique, unconnected, unrefined, unexamined, unexplained moment, what do you think you are going to capture?
4)
Hands are overrated. You people are as enamored with your opposable thumb as you are with your great generalizing brain. They’re a nice combination I grant you, and they complement each other quite well, but there is so much that just doesn’t get you.
For my money, the best thing about hands has to be writing. If I knew what I know now and I had hands, that would be golden. I know you’re thinking: why don’t you just go out and hire some hands? Sounds easy enough, but really, holding a pen between your celebrated opposable thumb and those other nimble fingers of yours or pecking away at your keyboards like you do, that’s not it… hrrh. It’s not just the hands; it’s what they do. Duh! How can I say this?
I’ve been resting with this for a long time, and it’s not as unified as you would like. When our cubs are born, we do not have to teach them anything, show them anything, do anything for them. No words to teach. No stimulating environment to build around them. No books to read to them.
You would say, without really grasping the complexity of your own meaning, that when they needed their mother’s teat they found it, that they walked and rolled and climbed and scraped and fought on their own. You would call the way we bears grasp the world “instinct,” but, without realizing it, you’d be talking with your hands.
Bears do no grasp life; life grasps us. When you have hands, they become your metaphor for everything. You don’t experience the moment; you take hold of it. You seize the day instead of living it. You seek and find and reach. You only connect with that which you connect to. Rrrrrrh. You even try to get hold of yourself! Rrr-rr-rrr This is so hard to explain.
If bears had words, there would be no word for “concentrate”. That’s the thing, though, bears don’t have words. Don’t need ‘em. Words are just the hands you use to grasp what’s already grasped you and moved on. With hands comes the great human metaphor- grasping, and with grasping comes the Great Human Dominion Project. And the great human failure.
Look at Orion. How many centuries have he and his dogs been up there hunting bears? Ursa Major is right there next to him in the sky, but he never catches her. Or the little one either. And he never will. He’s so human. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
Seinfeld. Rrrrrrh. There was some poetry! Every time Kramer exploded into Jerry’s apartment was a moment. Always a surprise. Always happening right now. It was a TV show in the 90s. They always said it was a show about nothing. Bearish idea. Life is a show about nothing? It doesn’t sound so good in words. Rrrrrhhh. Anyway, if you’re reading this in a world that’s even remotely similar to the one I’m in, there is a Seinfeld episode airing in syndication right now on a television near you. That’s it! Tele-freaking-vision. Television is hands.
TV is the embodiment of the great human metaphor! I can explain this. Marshall Macluhan, it’s about time you got in touch again! The story of humankind is the story of television:
In the beginning, with your opposable thumb in your brain as much as at the end of your arm, you saw life and the world as things to be grasped. And you created ideas and words, generalizing, connecting. You made words as tools to extend your grasp, to extend and connect your moments one to another. You named things: bobolink, manatee, doorknob, tuna steak, ecology, basement, Fred. When everything had a name, you could grasp it! So what happened then? You didn’t belong in the same garden spot as us avocals.
Then there was the Great Flood thing. Noah, Gilgamesh, whoever. It was like the Universe’s last unified attempt to grasp you before you all floated away on your sea of words. What survived? Only what you could grasp. The Ark was the first television. It was your first big technological grasping tool for rounding up and tying down experience so it was easy to grasp. It took you a long, long time to cut it down from forty days and forty nights to thirty minutes with commercials, but you were on your way.
Remember when you build that giant ziggurat in the Old Testament? The original TV studio. You broadcast Babel a show about everything and everyone in the same language. You got everybody on the same channel. Hrrh hr. Right where you could grasp everything. But you were afraid you were missing something. (The main reason you don’t commit suicide!)
So, you invented multiple channels. An Ace Hardware store of grasping tools. Different strokes for different folks. Something for everyone. Cable. But the more you tried to get a hold of everything, the less anything still got you. What you got was the Ed Sullivan Show. Entertainment. Memory. History. Fiction. Books. You have used them all like television – first to grasp moments; then to manufacture them. Meanwhile, the real moments are just moving along, being momentous.
Television is the box you build to get a hold on life and the world on your own terms. You take handfuls of life, form them into manageable units and carry them home in your box. And you feel really good about all those channels. “This is no ziggurat,” you think, “this is diversity!” “A thousand channels.” And you bring home movies and you get TiVo and you grab control of everything. Everything you want at your fingertips. That’s what hands get you.
That and distance.
5)
The bear you see before you now is visibly different from that youngster on Billy Collins’ cover. Older, of course, with silver threads among the gold in my eyebrows. I think I look a bit… hrrr… craggier. I’m heavier, too. That has more to do with the time of year than the years. That photo was taken in early spring, so I wasn’t just adolescent thin I was just waking up from a long winter’s fast. And, you would think, hungry as a bear. But hunger doesn’t get bears. It’s a hard thing to explain.
I know. Talking about the difference between me and the cover bear…there’s an elephant in the room. The scar. I haven’t said too much about the dark side of the momentousness of bear life. When every moment bursts into your life like Kramer into Jerry’s apartment, there’s a richness that doesn’t get you guys. Living the bear’s life is tasting the concentrate from which they make orange juice concentrate. It’s life undiluted by memory or anticipation or comparison. Raw life. Life that gives you a bear hug. Life orgasmic! Rrrrh!
When I was tearing through that black plastic trash bag, October ’76 or ’77, I was in the middle of black and crinkle, slippery and sticky, wet and sweet, Aunt Jemima syrup three days outside, bee pollen, ant shit, ants, and plastic, and tuna- metal can, green foil-like wrapper, red letters, Bumble Bee Tuna in oil, rat piss, hand-powered can opener, metal echoes, sharpness. Pain!
There are not enough blasphemies in all your human languages- arrrrrrh- to measure that pain. Pain alone. Momentous pain. I chomped down hard on the jagged lid of that tuna can and took an inch of it up into my jaw- top and bottom at once. Slicing between teeth. Oh the pain.
An orgasm of pure pain as big as a bear.
There are stories you people tell that when you tell them, the pain comes back. You call your first grade teacher “Mom”, and everyone laughs. You shit your pants in class in the third grade. You tell your grandmother on her hospital bed that you’ll see her tomorrow “if you’re still here,” You report to work at Central Freight Lines and ask for your new boss, Mr. Tuff. The man you ask says, “I’m Ben Ruff.” We bears don’t experience that kind of recalled pain. But the pain we feel is like all those repeated, remembered pains rolled into one moment. And then, just as unexpectedly, just as horribly there it is again. Kramer with a chainsaw. You have no idea. Hell, we have no idea, just this enormous, concentrated, five senses and more, pain.
Indecision, anxiety, shock, fear, all those other things you humans get, don’t get bears. Not as separable elements anyway. I did not have to grasp what was going on and decide what to do next. Look, Ma! No hands. The pain grabbed me, shook my head, pawed at the lid - almost sliced off the last claw on my right paw digging at the thing. The pain rubbed my face against the side of the house. The pain dragged my shaggy ass to the hibernating cave and put me down a month early. The pain kept opening my mouth but never wide enough to release the lid. The pain split the end of my tongue trying to push it out. The pain knocked me out at last, and when spring woke me up in late February it was gone. Along with the lid.
I don’t know. If I were not talking to you, it would not occur to me to ask. Say it was elves.
The craggy, asymmetrical visage you see before you now is the mark of that pain. The scar divides my mouth and snout like the pain divides my life. There are no moments without some element of pain now. Not that there really were before. The scar is in me in all my moments now. It is me. And it is mine in ways my silver highlighted golden eyebrows are not.
Billy Collins is right about the trouble with poetry. It does get a hold of you. You write one poem; you want to write more. We bears don’t choose to live poetry. We chomp down on every moment like there’s no tomorrow because, for us, there isn’t. Any. Tomorrow. But you people who have to grasp moments, you have to choose. (Or at least it feels like you do.) And the question you have to answer over and over again is this: if poetry extends and deepens and intensifies your moments, for good and ill, is it worth the pain?
Even the noblest superhero poets cannot use their powers only for good.
6)
Omnivorous is a relative term. There are some things a bear will not eat.
Anything that smells like gasoline, for instance. If you want to keep me out of your trash cans, pour a little of your cheap gas over the trash. Nrrnh! I hate that smell! It blurs everything. Whatever gas touches – or even gets close to – it robs of its own native aroma and replaces it with its that overpowering gas stink.
At the old Esso station, I used to hold my breath going for the leftover tamales. You could smell the rubber of the old tires out back for miles around, but the gas smell didn’t just run in the air. It got into the ground, the rocks, the trees, the water. Rrrnhr. But those tamales were worth it! Hrrr… I’d shower in gas for those tamales.
There are lots of words that work like gas. Hell, all words work like gas. They make things that are richly unique into blurry sameness. And that stinks! You humans think that what connects you with each other is your sameness. “We all make mistakes. We all put our pants on one leg at a time. We’re all sinners. Everybody loves the circus. Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee.” You love that stuff! But when everything smells the same, well, everything smells the same. There’s no connection to be made; it’s already there. Conclusions are not connections.
You grind your minds looking for great, unifying principles, analyzing life instead of living it. Grasping, naming, ordering, cataloguing, identifying, defining. Nnnrnh! That’s not the way to connect. That’s the way to ignore the need for connection, to make connecting superfluous. When everything smells like gas, what other smells can you sniff for?
first you must become a bear.
Get wild and furry and big.
Trade your hands for paws;
your choices for actions.
Give up work for life;
words for moments.
Sense each moment fully, intimately, directly.
Eat everything.
Live in solitude.
Rest and wait.
And wait.
And when the time has come, you must die.
1)
I posed for the picture when I was a young bear. Some kid with a camera pointed and shot. And ran. I’ve always had that effect on people - the approach-avoidance thing. I guess it goes with the species. Anyway, that photo got around. I like to think it had something to do with my dark, mysterious eyes, but I know it was one of those shit-happens kind of processes - somebody knows somebody who knows somebody, and ages and ages later, my face shows up on the front cover of a book of poetry by Billy Collins erstwhile poet laureate of America..
I’m an oil painting now. Rrnhr. Hanging in some Seattle gallery it says on the dustjacket. Behind the canvas me, translucent fluffy golden clouds replace the boarded up back window of the Enco station where the photo was taken. It used to mark the western edge of Las Vegas, New Mexico. Time was, the best tamales in Northern New Mexico were sold out of that gas station. Gas was twenty, thirty cents a gallon.
That’s the trouble with the whole human race - cheap gas. It’s not just that you got it in the first place- overpopulation, pollution, instant gratification, rush hour, and the smell – Ngrrh! - the smell alone cancels out whatever benefit you might have gotten from it! There’s no way to get that smell out of your fur by the way. Grrnrh. It’s not just that you got it - cheap gas just killed poetry, you know - it’s that once you got it you thought you had to have it. And when humans think they have to have something it’s Katy bar the door. Katy bar the freaking door! Nrrh.
I know it’s me in the picture. I hate that smarmy school photo smile. It’s so unnatural. I don’t think I ever smiled like that when there was no camera around. The cubs and grandcubs do it, too. My mother used to avert her eyes and tuck her snout down in front of a camera. Sometimes she’d put a paw over her mouth.
“Mother,” I used to say, “all bears have menacing teeth! What do you want to hide them for?”
But that was when I was older. As a younger bear, I smiled that beautiful smarmy smile you can see on the cover of Billy Collins’ book.
You can also see Grandaddy Bear’s golden eyebrows in the painting, his gift and curse to me. I can’t tell you how many times in my post-existential lifetime a bear I never met before has come up to me and said, “You have the most beautiful eyebrows.”
“Where’s the curse in that?” you ask.
They aren’t mine! I did nothing to develop, nurture, discover, or reveal them. I did not choose them. I did nothing to deserve them. I take no credit for them. They belong to my grandfather and probably his. I’m just wearing them. My cubs have them. And one of the grandcubs, too. He’ll understand in a few years. Nobody sees me. They see beautiful golden eyebrows.
Hello! There’s a bear inside!
Of course, I myself only discovered the Bear Within after many years of bear life. The inner life is something that humans take for granted just as completely as bears take the momentous life that way. But then, even the ideas of “for granted” and “take” don’t get bears. Bears don’t take anything; that’s a human concept. It comes with the hands.
You think that you always have to take things in hand, grasp them, get a handle on them, take charge, get a grip, hold on. Nnrrrn! Opposable thumb talking! Your lives are so consumed with consuming and so done in by doing that you neglect to live them. Get a life? You already have one. Live it. Buying and selling you lay waste your powers. Little you see in nature that is yours unless you take it for yourself. Rrhg! I didn’t mean to go all Wordsworth on you. (Good name for a poet though, eh?) I’m not talking about consumerism here. Well, yes I am. Grrn rhg. What I’m not talking about is your stupid ideas about ownership and possessions. I’m talking about your living as though nothing happens unless you do something. Or someone else does.
It’s not that you live in a world of action alone. That’s a laugh! You never met an action you couldn’t put off, avoid, or get somebody else to do. Rrrrgh, rrrr... This is hard. It’s not the doing, not the action, that so limits you... Rhrrn, rrrhg... It’s your agency! Grrhng! Words are absolutely nothing like paws! “Agency” works, but... rrgh, rrn... Instrumentality! It’s your effing sense of instrumentality! You see yourselves as instrumental in everything! If you don’t do it (see it, think it, make it, invent it, imagine it, build it) it won’t get done. If you build it, they will come. If not, nothing. Your science may claim that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (or whatever that law is!), but your lives claim that every action has an instrument or agent that initiates it. Even thinking, your proudest ability.
When you’re most thoroughly human is when you sense that something must be done. And what do you do? You think! Humans who want to have richer, deeper, more meaningful lives always seem to turn inward. Contemplating their navels, nurturing their inner child, discovering who they really are. Hrrn-rrh-hr. (By the way, you’ve never seen a bear’s navel, have you? It’s there under all the fur where you can’t see it. But it’s there.) You humans always think you can think your way into new ways of living. Most of the time, you can’t even think yourselves into new ways of thinking! It’s the thinking that separates you from life. From living. That’s what life is for – living! Not grasping, grabbing, getting, or taking. Not analyzing, reflecting, theorizing, observing, describing, testing, and all those things you so love to do.
I love that story you tell about imagining the ship in a bottle and then imagining how to get it out without breaking it. However it goes! The punch line is that you just imagine – there, it’s out. You imagined it in; you just imagine it out. Hr-hrn-hrr-rr. That’s so human! Even when you recognize and reveal your laughable instrumentality, you have to do something about it. You are so trapped in your ideas and perceptions and conclusions. What do you call those who are not likewise trapped? Out of their minds! Hrrnh! That’s exactly where you need to go!
2)
“Out of sight; out of mind,” you say, meaning that if you can’t see it you forget it. That is so human! Bears never forget. Neither do elephants or cicadas or any of the other non-speaking species. They never try to remember anything either. All mnemonic devices are the invention of speaking beings. Forgetting and remembering assume that it is words alone that can store experience. Even if something is in sight (in touch, in earshot) if it is not also in mind, if you can’t quite put it into words, you think you don’t quite have it. You have to pay attention, take notice, give heed to, and if you don’t, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of things that are right there in front of you. It’s more like “out of mind, out of sight”! If you can’t name it, you can’t even see it!
You know that thing you do with “it’s right on the tip of my tongue”? Ridiculous! Whatever “it” is, your being able to put it into words does not establish its existence. Rrrnh. Your life experience is utterly, hopelessly driven by your perception that what’s on the tip of your tongue or at the tip of your fingers can only be known by you if you can use breath from your lungs to move it from the tip of your tongue through your teeth and lips to become speech. Verbocentric! Nnrhn! That’s what you are! And now that I have named it for you, you think it exists. Or could conceivably exist. Rrrr. My neologism is not an act of creation; it is an act of – what shall I call it? – identification? signification? encapsulation?
Whatever else it is, my putting something into words or into a single word is inescapably an act of limitation! Whatever is meant by “verbocentric” is more than the word itself, more than the many words I could say about it. Because you humans rely so heavily on words, the breadth and depth of your life experience is about a bottlecap’s worth of water poured out on the westward lanes of I-25 at noon on the Fourth of July and flattened by a 1983 Chevy Impala just south of Romeroville, New Mexico, in 1999. Burning cheap gas. Nnrhn rrrhn rr.
For what it’s worth, I witnessed that very thing happen to a horned lizard. It was so hot that day! I felt like I was wearing a fur coat! Rrrh-rrh-rrh-rr. “But it’s a dry heat,” you’re always saying, “And it really cools down at night in the mountains.” Right. Just like a sauna. Wrap yourself up in a couple of blankets and spend your day in there! Rrnhnn! Now that I think about it, I don’t know why we don’t hibernate in the summer. I’ve been cold enough before and after to know, and there is nothing cold enough to match the daytime heat in northern New Mexico in July. Nnh rrn nrrhn! Where’s the cosmic suggestion box when you need it?
About that horned lizard... I know you will find it somewhat offputing that I do not call it a horned frog or a horny toad, but there is some misinformed ignorant American English vernacular that even a bear writing a memoir can’t swallow! That day in 1999, I was lying in the deep shade inside a split in the pink granite face of a wannabe mountain not too far north of the interstate. There were ponderosa pines up top and a couple of fat cedars covering the bottom. I was lying there, bone weary and feeling the first stages of thirst, flat out on the ground with my head up near the uphill cedar’s trunk. (You know what’s the difference between a cedar and a juniper? Me either. Rrr rn, rhrg) That little varmint just zipped out there and squish.
You talking types think that reptiles and other nonverbals who venture onto your highways are just plain stupid and deserve to die. That’s your instrumentality talking. I’m still working on my math skills, but consider this: say two lanes of interstate highway are about 24 ft. wide, and the width or a horned lizard is 3 inches. If the lizard runs more of less straight across the highway, his total area of vulnerability is 6 square feet. And it takes him -what? - 20 seconds to cross. So six square feet of death zone for 20 seconds on a coast to coast interstate highway. Seems like pretty good odds to me. Not that any horned lizard ever did the calculations. It's just not as stupid as you people think.
3)
It’s not just your thinking too much that hampers you people. It’s the kind of thinking you do. You are always generalizing.
Bears are not given to generalizing, and often lately I find myself looking for some stereotype to maul. Even so, I’m going to say this: people nowadays think all bears look alike. Rrnrh. I know perfectly well that there are plenty of exceptions to that unbearly generalization, and I imagine that you may be one yourself. But give me this for now. Not for all time. Not as some immutable truth about the human race. Just for now, let it slip past your proud defenses: humans nowadays think all bears look alike.
Oops! Sorry. I didn’t mean to remind you of the race thing! I forgot. Everything is an allusion to you. You’re always connecting. You can’t read this sentence without connecting it to other sentences. I am not alluding to that human meanness about race or races. You people get really defensive about that these days, and I’m glad about that. I’m not alluding to that old all-Blacks-look-alike-to-me business; seen one, seen ‘em all, whatever it is you say. I did not intend to remind you of that. I know you’re getting past it. Rrrh – about damn time. But, listen, that is so human! You live by generalizations. Think about it: your whole freaking worldview is based on them. Your language! Without generalizations it’s nothing. Growls, grunts, roars, sighs, snorts, huffs, puffs. Without generalization the whole human house blows down! Rhr-hr.
The basis of your human language is generalization. You see one of my kind, and you make the sound “bear.” Other people hear that sound and see “bear.” But there is no such thing as “bear.” There are only bears: me, my golden-eyebrowed grandfather, the grandcub whose mother died, my own snaggle-toothed mother. Life comes to all of us in absolutely unique moments, not one the same as another. By your very humanness - your great gift and your curse - you group those moments with others you see to be like them. You separate them from each other and from yourselves and reconfigure them according to similarities you perceive/conceive/imagine. Instead of moments, to you guys they’re objects, subjects, ideas, words, nouns, truths. It is your humanness that empowers this genius of yours (though it is no more your own than my golden eyebrows are mine). It is what you do, and others, especially humans, find it beautiful. And rightfully so. But there is more inside.
All humans do not look alike to bears. You cannot imagine how insanely twisted, how utterly bearlessly, painfully uncomfortable it is for me to say that. Rrrgr. My brain actually hurts.
You know that game you play where you converse in questions? Each one must reply to the other with a question and if you make a declarative response you lose?
You want to play?
Play what?
Don’t you know?
Do you?
Do I what?
Are we playing already?
Did you want to?
Wasn’t it you who wanted to?
Wasn’t it I who wanted to do what?
Wasn’t it you who asked if I wanted to play this brain fucking head game?
Was it really I?
How can you muster such innocence?
Mustard? Did you say “mustard”?
Is that what you heard?
Why else would I ask you?
Could you be trying to win the game?
What game?
You know how you can physically feel the strain it puts on your brain the longer you play? Thinking - well, thinking and then saying - that sentence causes me that same kind of physical pain. In the brain. All humans do not look alike to bears. Grrrr.
It is so wrong in so many ways. The same one human does not look alike to a bear in the next moment. Bears do not look at humans - we sense you. With the usual five and others you don’t understand. We do not comprehend you; we apprehend you. We don’t even apprehend you; we prehend you. Hell, we don’t prehend you, we just flat out hend you. Rhr… We don’t hend you; we h – just kidding. Rhrhr-r-hr.
Bears live by moments; humans by generalizations. I know it makes us seem dull to you. “Trapped in the shallow present,” you would write. But here’s the truth of the thing: bears are poets. We live poetry. Every moment is a poem.
Human poets write all the time about capturing moments in words. Capturing moments! Hnrrnff! As if… Moments capture bears! Without the experience of being captured by an absolutely unique, unconnected, unrefined, unexamined, unexplained moment, what do you think you are going to capture?
4)
Hands are overrated. You people are as enamored with your opposable thumb as you are with your great generalizing brain. They’re a nice combination I grant you, and they complement each other quite well, but there is so much that just doesn’t get you.
For my money, the best thing about hands has to be writing. If I knew what I know now and I had hands, that would be golden. I know you’re thinking: why don’t you just go out and hire some hands? Sounds easy enough, but really, holding a pen between your celebrated opposable thumb and those other nimble fingers of yours or pecking away at your keyboards like you do, that’s not it… hrrh. It’s not just the hands; it’s what they do. Duh! How can I say this?
I’ve been resting with this for a long time, and it’s not as unified as you would like. When our cubs are born, we do not have to teach them anything, show them anything, do anything for them. No words to teach. No stimulating environment to build around them. No books to read to them.
You would say, without really grasping the complexity of your own meaning, that when they needed their mother’s teat they found it, that they walked and rolled and climbed and scraped and fought on their own. You would call the way we bears grasp the world “instinct,” but, without realizing it, you’d be talking with your hands.
Bears do no grasp life; life grasps us. When you have hands, they become your metaphor for everything. You don’t experience the moment; you take hold of it. You seize the day instead of living it. You seek and find and reach. You only connect with that which you connect to. Rrrrrrh. You even try to get hold of yourself! Rrr-rr-rrr This is so hard to explain.
If bears had words, there would be no word for “concentrate”. That’s the thing, though, bears don’t have words. Don’t need ‘em. Words are just the hands you use to grasp what’s already grasped you and moved on. With hands comes the great human metaphor- grasping, and with grasping comes the Great Human Dominion Project. And the great human failure.
Look at Orion. How many centuries have he and his dogs been up there hunting bears? Ursa Major is right there next to him in the sky, but he never catches her. Or the little one either. And he never will. He’s so human. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
Seinfeld. Rrrrrrh. There was some poetry! Every time Kramer exploded into Jerry’s apartment was a moment. Always a surprise. Always happening right now. It was a TV show in the 90s. They always said it was a show about nothing. Bearish idea. Life is a show about nothing? It doesn’t sound so good in words. Rrrrrhhh. Anyway, if you’re reading this in a world that’s even remotely similar to the one I’m in, there is a Seinfeld episode airing in syndication right now on a television near you. That’s it! Tele-freaking-vision. Television is hands.
TV is the embodiment of the great human metaphor! I can explain this. Marshall Macluhan, it’s about time you got in touch again! The story of humankind is the story of television:
In the beginning, with your opposable thumb in your brain as much as at the end of your arm, you saw life and the world as things to be grasped. And you created ideas and words, generalizing, connecting. You made words as tools to extend your grasp, to extend and connect your moments one to another. You named things: bobolink, manatee, doorknob, tuna steak, ecology, basement, Fred. When everything had a name, you could grasp it! So what happened then? You didn’t belong in the same garden spot as us avocals.
Then there was the Great Flood thing. Noah, Gilgamesh, whoever. It was like the Universe’s last unified attempt to grasp you before you all floated away on your sea of words. What survived? Only what you could grasp. The Ark was the first television. It was your first big technological grasping tool for rounding up and tying down experience so it was easy to grasp. It took you a long, long time to cut it down from forty days and forty nights to thirty minutes with commercials, but you were on your way.
Remember when you build that giant ziggurat in the Old Testament? The original TV studio. You broadcast Babel a show about everything and everyone in the same language. You got everybody on the same channel. Hrrh hr. Right where you could grasp everything. But you were afraid you were missing something. (The main reason you don’t commit suicide!)
So, you invented multiple channels. An Ace Hardware store of grasping tools. Different strokes for different folks. Something for everyone. Cable. But the more you tried to get a hold of everything, the less anything still got you. What you got was the Ed Sullivan Show. Entertainment. Memory. History. Fiction. Books. You have used them all like television – first to grasp moments; then to manufacture them. Meanwhile, the real moments are just moving along, being momentous.
Television is the box you build to get a hold on life and the world on your own terms. You take handfuls of life, form them into manageable units and carry them home in your box. And you feel really good about all those channels. “This is no ziggurat,” you think, “this is diversity!” “A thousand channels.” And you bring home movies and you get TiVo and you grab control of everything. Everything you want at your fingertips. That’s what hands get you.
That and distance.
5)
The bear you see before you now is visibly different from that youngster on Billy Collins’ cover. Older, of course, with silver threads among the gold in my eyebrows. I think I look a bit… hrrr… craggier. I’m heavier, too. That has more to do with the time of year than the years. That photo was taken in early spring, so I wasn’t just adolescent thin I was just waking up from a long winter’s fast. And, you would think, hungry as a bear. But hunger doesn’t get bears. It’s a hard thing to explain.
I know. Talking about the difference between me and the cover bear…there’s an elephant in the room. The scar. I haven’t said too much about the dark side of the momentousness of bear life. When every moment bursts into your life like Kramer into Jerry’s apartment, there’s a richness that doesn’t get you guys. Living the bear’s life is tasting the concentrate from which they make orange juice concentrate. It’s life undiluted by memory or anticipation or comparison. Raw life. Life that gives you a bear hug. Life orgasmic! Rrrrh!
When I was tearing through that black plastic trash bag, October ’76 or ’77, I was in the middle of black and crinkle, slippery and sticky, wet and sweet, Aunt Jemima syrup three days outside, bee pollen, ant shit, ants, and plastic, and tuna- metal can, green foil-like wrapper, red letters, Bumble Bee Tuna in oil, rat piss, hand-powered can opener, metal echoes, sharpness. Pain!
There are not enough blasphemies in all your human languages- arrrrrrh- to measure that pain. Pain alone. Momentous pain. I chomped down hard on the jagged lid of that tuna can and took an inch of it up into my jaw- top and bottom at once. Slicing between teeth. Oh the pain.
An orgasm of pure pain as big as a bear.
There are stories you people tell that when you tell them, the pain comes back. You call your first grade teacher “Mom”, and everyone laughs. You shit your pants in class in the third grade. You tell your grandmother on her hospital bed that you’ll see her tomorrow “if you’re still here,” You report to work at Central Freight Lines and ask for your new boss, Mr. Tuff. The man you ask says, “I’m Ben Ruff.” We bears don’t experience that kind of recalled pain. But the pain we feel is like all those repeated, remembered pains rolled into one moment. And then, just as unexpectedly, just as horribly there it is again. Kramer with a chainsaw. You have no idea. Hell, we have no idea, just this enormous, concentrated, five senses and more, pain.
Indecision, anxiety, shock, fear, all those other things you humans get, don’t get bears. Not as separable elements anyway. I did not have to grasp what was going on and decide what to do next. Look, Ma! No hands. The pain grabbed me, shook my head, pawed at the lid - almost sliced off the last claw on my right paw digging at the thing. The pain rubbed my face against the side of the house. The pain dragged my shaggy ass to the hibernating cave and put me down a month early. The pain kept opening my mouth but never wide enough to release the lid. The pain split the end of my tongue trying to push it out. The pain knocked me out at last, and when spring woke me up in late February it was gone. Along with the lid.
I don’t know. If I were not talking to you, it would not occur to me to ask. Say it was elves.
The craggy, asymmetrical visage you see before you now is the mark of that pain. The scar divides my mouth and snout like the pain divides my life. There are no moments without some element of pain now. Not that there really were before. The scar is in me in all my moments now. It is me. And it is mine in ways my silver highlighted golden eyebrows are not.
Billy Collins is right about the trouble with poetry. It does get a hold of you. You write one poem; you want to write more. We bears don’t choose to live poetry. We chomp down on every moment like there’s no tomorrow because, for us, there isn’t. Any. Tomorrow. But you people who have to grasp moments, you have to choose. (Or at least it feels like you do.) And the question you have to answer over and over again is this: if poetry extends and deepens and intensifies your moments, for good and ill, is it worth the pain?
Even the noblest superhero poets cannot use their powers only for good.
6)
Omnivorous is a relative term. There are some things a bear will not eat.
Anything that smells like gasoline, for instance. If you want to keep me out of your trash cans, pour a little of your cheap gas over the trash. Nrrnh! I hate that smell! It blurs everything. Whatever gas touches – or even gets close to – it robs of its own native aroma and replaces it with its that overpowering gas stink.
At the old Esso station, I used to hold my breath going for the leftover tamales. You could smell the rubber of the old tires out back for miles around, but the gas smell didn’t just run in the air. It got into the ground, the rocks, the trees, the water. Rrrnhr. But those tamales were worth it! Hrrr… I’d shower in gas for those tamales.
There are lots of words that work like gas. Hell, all words work like gas. They make things that are richly unique into blurry sameness. And that stinks! You humans think that what connects you with each other is your sameness. “We all make mistakes. We all put our pants on one leg at a time. We’re all sinners. Everybody loves the circus. Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee.” You love that stuff! But when everything smells the same, well, everything smells the same. There’s no connection to be made; it’s already there. Conclusions are not connections.
You grind your minds looking for great, unifying principles, analyzing life instead of living it. Grasping, naming, ordering, cataloguing, identifying, defining. Nnnrnh! That’s not the way to connect. That’s the way to ignore the need for connection, to make connecting superfluous. When everything smells like gas, what other smells can you sniff for?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tao Te Ching
The First 14 of 81 Chapters
Translated from the Chinese circa 1891
by James Legge
1.
1. The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the
enduring and unchanging name.
2. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator
of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is
the Mother of all things.
3. Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
4. Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as
development takes place, it receives the different names.
Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is
the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.
2.
1. All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and
in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they
all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have
(the idea of) what the want of skill is.
2. So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the
one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease
produce the one (the idea of) the other; that length and
shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other; that
(the ideas of) height and lowness arise from the contrast of
the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones
become harmonious through the relation of one with
another; and that being before and behind give the idea of
one following another.
3. Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing
anything, and conveys his instructions without the use of
speech.
4. All things spring up, and there is not one which
declines to show itself; they grow, and there is no claim
made for their ownership; they go through their processes,
and there is no expectation (of a reward for the results). The
work is accomplished, and there is no resting in it (as an
achievement). The work is done, but how no one can
see;’Tis this that makes the power not cease to be.
3.
1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the
way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not
to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to
keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is
likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds
from disorder.
2. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government,
empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills,
and strengthens their bones.
3. He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge
and without desire, and where there are those who have
knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it).
When there is this abstinence from action, good order is
universal.
4.
1. The Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our
employment of it we must be on our guard against all
fulness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the
Honoured Ancestor of all things!
2. We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the
complications of things; we should attemper our brightness,
and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of
others. How pure and still the Tao is, as if it would ever so
continue!
3. I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have
been before God.
5.
1. Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any
wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs
of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish
to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of
grass are dealt with.
2. May not the space between heaven and earth be
compared to a bellows?
’Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power;
’Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.
6.
The valley spirit dies not, aye the same; The female
mystery thus do we name.Its gate, from which at first they
issued forth,Is called the root from which grew heaven and
earth.Long and unbroken does its power remain,Used
gently, and without the touch of pain.
7.
1. Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The
reason why heaven and earth are able to endure and
continue thus long is because they do not live of, or for,
themselves. This is how they are able to continue and
endure.
2. Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it
is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it
were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved. Is it
not because he has no personal and private ends, that
therefore such ends are realised?
8.
1. The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The
excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and
in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low
place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that
of) the Tao.
2. The excellence of a residence is in (the suitability of)
the place; that of the mind is in abysmal stillness; that of
associations is in their being with the virtuous; that of
government is in its securing good order; that of (the
conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation
of) any movement is in its timeliness.
3. And when (one with the highest excellence) does not
wrangle (about his low position), no one finds fault with
him.
9.
1. It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt
tocarry it when it is full. If you keep feeling a point that has
been sharpened, the point cannot long preserve its
sharpness.
2. When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot
keep them safe. When wealth and honours lead to
arrogancy, this brings its evil on itself. When the work is
done, and one’s name is becoming distinguished, to
withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven.
10.
1. When the intelligent and animal souls are held together
in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one
gives undivided attention to the (vital) breath, and brings it
to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a (tender)
babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious
sights (of his imagination), he can become without a flaw.
2. In loving the people and ruling the state, cannot he
proceed without any (purpose of) action? In the opening and
shutting of his gates of heaven, cannot he do so as a female
bird? While hisintelligence reaches in every direction,
cannot he (appear to) be without knowledge?
3. (The Tao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it
produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does
all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet
does not control them.This is what is called ’The mysterious
Quality’ (of the Tao).
11.
1. The thirty spokes unite in the one nave; but it is on the
empty space (for the axle), that the use of the wheel
depends. Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their
empty hollowness, that their use depends. The door and
windows are cut out (from the walls) to form an apartment;
but it is on the empty space (within), that its use depends.
Therefore, what has a (positive) existence serves for
profitable adaptation, and what has not that for (actual)
usefulness.
12.
1. Colour’s five hues from th’ eyes their sight will take;
Music’s five notes the ears as deaf can make;
The flavours five deprive the mouth of taste;
The chariot course, and the wild hunting waste
Make mad the mind; and objects rare and strange,
Sought for, men’s conduct will to evil change.
2. Therefore the sage seeks to satisfy (the craving of) the
belly, and not the (insatiable longing of the) eyes. He puts
from him the latter, and prefers to seek the former.
13.
1. Favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared;
honour and great calamity, to be regarded as personal
conditions (of the same kind).
2. What is meant by speaking thus of favour and
disgrace? Disgrace is being in a low position (after the
enjoyment of favour). The getting that (favour) leads to the
apprehension (of losing it), and the losing it leads to the fear
of (still greater calamity): - this is what is meant by saying
that favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared.
And what is meant by saying that honour and great
calamity are to be (similarly) regarded as personal conditions?
What makes me liable to great calamity is my having
the body (which I call myself); if I had not the body, what
great calamity could come to me?
3. Therefore he who would administer the kingdom,
honouring it as he honours his own person, may be
employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with
the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted
with it.
14.
1. We look at it, and we do not see it, and we name it ’the
Equable.’ We listen to it, and we do not hear it, and we name
it ’the Inaudible.’ We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it,
and we name it ’the Subtle.’ With these three qualities, it
cannot be made the subject of description; and hence we
blend them together and obtain The One.
2. Its upper part is not bright, and its lower part is not
obscure. Ceaseless in its action, it yet cannot be named, and
then it again returns and becomes nothing. This is called the
Form of the Formless, and the Semblance of the Invisible;
this is called the Fleeting and Indeterminable.
3. We meet it and do not see its Front; we follow it, and
do not see its Back. When we can lay hold of the Tao of old
to direct the things of the present day, and are able to know
it as it was of old in the beginning, this is called (unwinding)
the clue of Tao.
Translated from the Chinese circa 1891
by James Legge
1.
1. The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the
enduring and unchanging name.
2. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator
of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is
the Mother of all things.
3. Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
4. Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as
development takes place, it receives the different names.
Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is
the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.
2.
1. All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and
in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they
all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have
(the idea of) what the want of skill is.
2. So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the
one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease
produce the one (the idea of) the other; that length and
shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other; that
(the ideas of) height and lowness arise from the contrast of
the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones
become harmonious through the relation of one with
another; and that being before and behind give the idea of
one following another.
3. Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing
anything, and conveys his instructions without the use of
speech.
4. All things spring up, and there is not one which
declines to show itself; they grow, and there is no claim
made for their ownership; they go through their processes,
and there is no expectation (of a reward for the results). The
work is accomplished, and there is no resting in it (as an
achievement). The work is done, but how no one can
see;’Tis this that makes the power not cease to be.
3.
1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the
way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not
to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to
keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is
likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds
from disorder.
2. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government,
empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills,
and strengthens their bones.
3. He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge
and without desire, and where there are those who have
knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it).
When there is this abstinence from action, good order is
universal.
4.
1. The Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our
employment of it we must be on our guard against all
fulness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the
Honoured Ancestor of all things!
2. We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the
complications of things; we should attemper our brightness,
and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of
others. How pure and still the Tao is, as if it would ever so
continue!
3. I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have
been before God.
5.
1. Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any
wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs
of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish
to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of
grass are dealt with.
2. May not the space between heaven and earth be
compared to a bellows?
’Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power;
’Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.
6.
The valley spirit dies not, aye the same; The female
mystery thus do we name.Its gate, from which at first they
issued forth,Is called the root from which grew heaven and
earth.Long and unbroken does its power remain,Used
gently, and without the touch of pain.
7.
1. Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The
reason why heaven and earth are able to endure and
continue thus long is because they do not live of, or for,
themselves. This is how they are able to continue and
endure.
2. Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it
is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it
were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved. Is it
not because he has no personal and private ends, that
therefore such ends are realised?
8.
1. The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The
excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and
in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low
place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that
of) the Tao.
2. The excellence of a residence is in (the suitability of)
the place; that of the mind is in abysmal stillness; that of
associations is in their being with the virtuous; that of
government is in its securing good order; that of (the
conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation
of) any movement is in its timeliness.
3. And when (one with the highest excellence) does not
wrangle (about his low position), no one finds fault with
him.
9.
1. It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt
tocarry it when it is full. If you keep feeling a point that has
been sharpened, the point cannot long preserve its
sharpness.
2. When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot
keep them safe. When wealth and honours lead to
arrogancy, this brings its evil on itself. When the work is
done, and one’s name is becoming distinguished, to
withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven.
10.
1. When the intelligent and animal souls are held together
in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one
gives undivided attention to the (vital) breath, and brings it
to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a (tender)
babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious
sights (of his imagination), he can become without a flaw.
2. In loving the people and ruling the state, cannot he
proceed without any (purpose of) action? In the opening and
shutting of his gates of heaven, cannot he do so as a female
bird? While hisintelligence reaches in every direction,
cannot he (appear to) be without knowledge?
3. (The Tao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it
produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does
all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet
does not control them.This is what is called ’The mysterious
Quality’ (of the Tao).
11.
1. The thirty spokes unite in the one nave; but it is on the
empty space (for the axle), that the use of the wheel
depends. Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their
empty hollowness, that their use depends. The door and
windows are cut out (from the walls) to form an apartment;
but it is on the empty space (within), that its use depends.
Therefore, what has a (positive) existence serves for
profitable adaptation, and what has not that for (actual)
usefulness.
12.
1. Colour’s five hues from th’ eyes their sight will take;
Music’s five notes the ears as deaf can make;
The flavours five deprive the mouth of taste;
The chariot course, and the wild hunting waste
Make mad the mind; and objects rare and strange,
Sought for, men’s conduct will to evil change.
2. Therefore the sage seeks to satisfy (the craving of) the
belly, and not the (insatiable longing of the) eyes. He puts
from him the latter, and prefers to seek the former.
13.
1. Favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared;
honour and great calamity, to be regarded as personal
conditions (of the same kind).
2. What is meant by speaking thus of favour and
disgrace? Disgrace is being in a low position (after the
enjoyment of favour). The getting that (favour) leads to the
apprehension (of losing it), and the losing it leads to the fear
of (still greater calamity): - this is what is meant by saying
that favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared.
And what is meant by saying that honour and great
calamity are to be (similarly) regarded as personal conditions?
What makes me liable to great calamity is my having
the body (which I call myself); if I had not the body, what
great calamity could come to me?
3. Therefore he who would administer the kingdom,
honouring it as he honours his own person, may be
employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with
the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted
with it.
14.
1. We look at it, and we do not see it, and we name it ’the
Equable.’ We listen to it, and we do not hear it, and we name
it ’the Inaudible.’ We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it,
and we name it ’the Subtle.’ With these three qualities, it
cannot be made the subject of description; and hence we
blend them together and obtain The One.
2. Its upper part is not bright, and its lower part is not
obscure. Ceaseless in its action, it yet cannot be named, and
then it again returns and becomes nothing. This is called the
Form of the Formless, and the Semblance of the Invisible;
this is called the Fleeting and Indeterminable.
3. We meet it and do not see its Front; we follow it, and
do not see its Back. When we can lay hold of the Tao of old
to direct the things of the present day, and are able to know
it as it was of old in the beginning, this is called (unwinding)
the clue of Tao.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Tview Cowboy Poetry
Here's a sample of excellent cowboy poetry written by Timberview students in Mr. B's classes over the last several years. You can find previous drafts of William C.'s 2007 poem "The Lost Cowboy" at tviewlalab.blogspot.com in the post "Cowboy Poems" and see how Will kept making improvements until he finally ran out of time. "Cowboy Poker" by John S. and "My Cowboy's Return" by Katie K. along with "The Lost Cowboy" were submitted to the 2007 Red Steagall Cowboy Gathering Youth Poetry Contest. In 2006, Elizabeth C.'s poem "How the West Began" (also published here) won first place in that contest, and in 2004, "Picture" Marissa H.'s poem won second place. It's here, too.
My Cowboy’s Return
by Katie K., 2007
I knew the drive would take a while, how long he couldn’t say.
I hoped that he’d be comin’ back before the end of May.
He said, “I’ll try to hurry home so I’ll be back with you
And pretty soon our baby girl or little buckaroo.
We thought he would be back in time; she wasn’t due till June.
The pains, they started comin’though a month or so too soon.
Long hours of pain ‘n’ pushin’ and our baby girl appeared
Her daddy not beside me, just as I had feared.
My heart was filled with dread and fear ‘cause she was itty bitty.
Although she was so small and weak, her tiny face was pretty.
Seven days had come and gone before I heard the neigh
Of my sweet cowboy’s chestnut mare I’d prayed for every day.
An anxious look upon his face, with trail dust in his hair,
He looked at his new baby girl, her skin so very fair,
And when he took her in his arms, I knew that she’d be fine
‘Cause daddy’s brand new little gal smiled for the very first time.
Cowboy Poker
by John S., 2007
Five fine gamblers sit around a table,
Five gents from cities back East,
Five high-class card-sharks, minds sharp and able,
And one bunkhouse player cowboy.
Five stone cold faces, showing not one thought,
Five faces born of eastern creed,
Five expressions with emotions naught,
And one wide, cocky cowboy smirk.
Five expensive suits with black and gold threads,
Five pairs of brand new leather shoes,
Five regal hats set high upon their heads,
And one rough, dusty cowboy hat.
The cards are drawn, the ante’s in,
The poker players examine their hands.
Eyes glare out from behind the cards,
To see a broad grin learned from western lands.
Indeed, the cowboy grinned with heart,
His face shone bright with mirthful confidence.
The gamblers shrunk beneath its glow,
But each man’s hand gave him assurance.
The pot was large and filled with green,
And each showed his hand in a nervous rush,
But the cowboy’s hand crushed them all,
For he showed a royal flush.
The cowboy grinned and pulled in his due
Then smiled, “Hey don’t y’all whine a peck!
You got no reason to be so blue.
You just couldn’t win with a western deck.”
The Lost Cowboy
By Will C., 2007
Where have all those cowhands gone,
those men with the calloused hands,
the untamed souls who tend the cattle,
and thrive in our native lands?
Those stubborn ol' righteous cowboys,
all set in their mulish ways,
keepin' to their sacred code.
every night and every day?
Where’s that devoted tough ol' bunch,
with spurs that never die,
their leathery bodies hard at work,
with minds tough and tried?
They worked the ranches and rode the range,
with sweat runnin' down their side,
the hardest workin' lot of men,
their hearts swollen with pride.
Now where have all them cowboys gone,
away from the place they called home,
the vacant space they left behind,
where the cattle no longer roam?
Maybe those folk who live their lives,
always ridin' so free,
never have been really gone,
but live inside you and me.
How the West Began
by Elizabeth C., 2006
I’m not so sure just how the West began,
But I’ll tell you what I know:
Cowboys have been here forever
Through the rain, the sleet, and the snow.
Ropin’ the cattle, keepin’ the wild horses tame,
Livin’ life and hopin’ things will always be the same.
We look at the stars when life becomes a bore,
But them cowboys look up and see a little bit more.
They made a trail where not many go
And looked to the West when them wild winds blow.
They passed on their stories, legends, and ideals,
So when the past opens up, we’ll know they were real.
I’m not sure how the West began,
So I’ll tell you what I know:
The cowboy’s heart is forever,
And a cowboy’s forever never ends.
Picture
By Marissa H., 2004
Lookin' at that young'n in this picture
you could hardly tell that little girl is me -
bright eyes squintin' in the blazin' hot sun
'bove a wide smile so warm and carefree.
My silky, dark hair's a'blowin' in the wind
streamin' 'neath Pa's ol' rawhide hat,
reminds me of his patched and tattered clothes
and that peculiar way he always spat.
I got my favorite pony's reins in hand.
Her po' elderly head's a hangin' low.
Through her old age she never called it quits
though her pace grew real nice and slow.
Chips are scattered all around the grass
just waitin' for me to gather 'em up.
Wood's scarce there on the prairie where we lived,
we always used cow chips to cook our sup'.
I'm sportin' my brand-new calico dress
that MeeMa finished sewin' night before.
It was the only one she made that year.
Our crops was thin, and we was really poor.
My li'l white home stands solid there behind me.
The paint is peelin', and the wood is old.
My Gramps and his and his had all been born there.
'Least that's the windy I've always been told.
I don't rightly know where Pa's hat got to.
There's only a few strands left of my hair.
My blessed horse left her stall long ago.
That lovely homemade dress's gone threadbare.
Yet my eyes is just as lively and as brown.
My broad grin still lights up the darkest rooms.
True, my worn skin now has a web of wrinkles,
but the cowgirl spirit of my youth still blooms.
My Cowboy’s Return
by Katie K., 2007
I knew the drive would take a while, how long he couldn’t say.
I hoped that he’d be comin’ back before the end of May.
He said, “I’ll try to hurry home so I’ll be back with you
And pretty soon our baby girl or little buckaroo.
We thought he would be back in time; she wasn’t due till June.
The pains, they started comin’though a month or so too soon.
Long hours of pain ‘n’ pushin’ and our baby girl appeared
Her daddy not beside me, just as I had feared.
My heart was filled with dread and fear ‘cause she was itty bitty.
Although she was so small and weak, her tiny face was pretty.
Seven days had come and gone before I heard the neigh
Of my sweet cowboy’s chestnut mare I’d prayed for every day.
An anxious look upon his face, with trail dust in his hair,
He looked at his new baby girl, her skin so very fair,
And when he took her in his arms, I knew that she’d be fine
‘Cause daddy’s brand new little gal smiled for the very first time.
Cowboy Poker
by John S., 2007
Five fine gamblers sit around a table,
Five gents from cities back East,
Five high-class card-sharks, minds sharp and able,
And one bunkhouse player cowboy.
Five stone cold faces, showing not one thought,
Five faces born of eastern creed,
Five expressions with emotions naught,
And one wide, cocky cowboy smirk.
Five expensive suits with black and gold threads,
Five pairs of brand new leather shoes,
Five regal hats set high upon their heads,
And one rough, dusty cowboy hat.
The cards are drawn, the ante’s in,
The poker players examine their hands.
Eyes glare out from behind the cards,
To see a broad grin learned from western lands.
Indeed, the cowboy grinned with heart,
His face shone bright with mirthful confidence.
The gamblers shrunk beneath its glow,
But each man’s hand gave him assurance.
The pot was large and filled with green,
And each showed his hand in a nervous rush,
But the cowboy’s hand crushed them all,
For he showed a royal flush.
The cowboy grinned and pulled in his due
Then smiled, “Hey don’t y’all whine a peck!
You got no reason to be so blue.
You just couldn’t win with a western deck.”
The Lost Cowboy
By Will C., 2007
Where have all those cowhands gone,
those men with the calloused hands,
the untamed souls who tend the cattle,
and thrive in our native lands?
Those stubborn ol' righteous cowboys,
all set in their mulish ways,
keepin' to their sacred code.
every night and every day?
Where’s that devoted tough ol' bunch,
with spurs that never die,
their leathery bodies hard at work,
with minds tough and tried?
They worked the ranches and rode the range,
with sweat runnin' down their side,
the hardest workin' lot of men,
their hearts swollen with pride.
Now where have all them cowboys gone,
away from the place they called home,
the vacant space they left behind,
where the cattle no longer roam?
Maybe those folk who live their lives,
always ridin' so free,
never have been really gone,
but live inside you and me.
How the West Began
by Elizabeth C., 2006
I’m not so sure just how the West began,
But I’ll tell you what I know:
Cowboys have been here forever
Through the rain, the sleet, and the snow.
Ropin’ the cattle, keepin’ the wild horses tame,
Livin’ life and hopin’ things will always be the same.
We look at the stars when life becomes a bore,
But them cowboys look up and see a little bit more.
They made a trail where not many go
And looked to the West when them wild winds blow.
They passed on their stories, legends, and ideals,
So when the past opens up, we’ll know they were real.
I’m not sure how the West began,
So I’ll tell you what I know:
The cowboy’s heart is forever,
And a cowboy’s forever never ends.
Picture
By Marissa H., 2004
Lookin' at that young'n in this picture
you could hardly tell that little girl is me -
bright eyes squintin' in the blazin' hot sun
'bove a wide smile so warm and carefree.
My silky, dark hair's a'blowin' in the wind
streamin' 'neath Pa's ol' rawhide hat,
reminds me of his patched and tattered clothes
and that peculiar way he always spat.
I got my favorite pony's reins in hand.
Her po' elderly head's a hangin' low.
Through her old age she never called it quits
though her pace grew real nice and slow.
Chips are scattered all around the grass
just waitin' for me to gather 'em up.
Wood's scarce there on the prairie where we lived,
we always used cow chips to cook our sup'.
I'm sportin' my brand-new calico dress
that MeeMa finished sewin' night before.
It was the only one she made that year.
Our crops was thin, and we was really poor.
My li'l white home stands solid there behind me.
The paint is peelin', and the wood is old.
My Gramps and his and his had all been born there.
'Least that's the windy I've always been told.
I don't rightly know where Pa's hat got to.
There's only a few strands left of my hair.
My blessed horse left her stall long ago.
That lovely homemade dress's gone threadbare.
Yet my eyes is just as lively and as brown.
My broad grin still lights up the darkest rooms.
True, my worn skin now has a web of wrinkles,
but the cowgirl spirit of my youth still blooms.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Film Noir Visual Motifs - Lecture Notes 2
Visual Styles of Film Noir: Iconography
Notes from a Lecture by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. Presented Sept. 26, 2007 at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth as part of a series titled: American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film.
Whether one thinks of film noir as a style of moviemaking or a genre of movies (and that question is debated by the experts) [Ed. Though I myself can't understand the importance of the distinction without further enlightenment.] the film noir films do have distinctive visual motifs. As Hollywood had moved away from silent films with their inserted titles clarifying and focusing everything for the audience, the early talking pictures were hesitant to move away from balanced, conventional visuals, fearing that audiences might not be able to stay properly focused. Visually, film noir was a reaction against this formal, predictable, comfortable, balanced focusing. The film noir films of the 1940s and 50s, in contrast to their lightweight forbears, sought to develop an internal dimension, more introspective and psychological. Subjective effects like the voice over and flashback helped develop this internal dimension, and film noir used these techniques extensively. Noir filmmakers challenged the comfortable passivity of audiences by creating intentional stress and near strangulation with moods venturing into claustrophobia, paranoia, fear, despair, and nihilism. And their primary tool for creating these moods and establishing this unsettling discomfort was not dialogue so much as style, especially visual style.
1. Keeping things close. Though usually set in a city, film noir seldom used wide establishing shots of an expanse of buildings or a wide span of view. Many shots reaching beyond the close confines of a room were shot through a window.
2. Low key lighting. Lighting experts identify "key lighting" (that lights the main subject) and "fill lighting" (that lights other areas that would otherwise be in shadow) with traditional film lighting designed to reduce contrast and shadow. Low-key lighting used in film noir increases the contrast and intentionally creates and uses shadows.
3. Darkness. Film noir (French, literally "black film") makes use of darkness, not just in the high contrast effect of low-key lighting, but by creating dark spaces in its scenes. In the darkness other rooms and faces exist, but until they enter the light there is a sense that there is nothing beyond the light source. The prominence of darkness in film noir increases its psychological impact with a fear of the unknown and a mysteriousness about what is or is not. In the visual and figurative darkness, a character's motives and true identity remain uncertain and unrevealed. Film noir's use of darkness suggests that light is on the verge of being overcome by the darkness. And likewise hope and joy and peace and comfort.
4. Mise en scène. Film noir often employs a distinctive mise en scène (another somewhat slippery French language term meaning literally "putting on stage"). In the context of this lecture, mise en scène seems to mean "everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement – sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting." (Wikipedia) As a visual motif, the term seems to suggest everything that is within the frame of a shot, perhaps as if the frame duplicates the arch of a proscenium stage. But the creation of what is framed in a shot is not fixed as on a stage. Thus, mise en scène refers to "all elements of visual style — that is, both elements on the set (or within the frame) and aspects of the camera (that create it)." (Wikipedia) The mise en scène of film noir involves off balance composition, and off angle shots creating compositional tension. It often conveys "the information of a scene primarily through a single shot – often accompanied by camera movement" rather than "multiple angles pieced together through editing." (Wikipedia) Thus, the audience enters an unsafe, unstable, uncomfortable world and may find itself asking, "Why do I feel this way?" The film noir mise en scène is often the answer.
5. Choker shots. Choker shorts are extreme close-ups of a face alone often used in film noir to intentionally create discomfort by staying too close for too long. Twitching lips, shifting eyes, and tiny facial details both close and disclose the character while the extended visual invasion of another's space creates dis-ease in the audience and a sense that there is no backing off from reality here.
6. Extended depth of field. Film noir often uses an extended depth of field, that is, it extends the distance in front of and behind the subject that appears to be in focus in a shot . Thus, a character's face and the buildings behind it may all be in focus. The effect of this on the viewer is a sense of equal weight of both the character and his or her environment. The forces acting on a character, the pressures of enclosing circumstances and encircling doom, are intensified by a deeper depth of field.
7. Minimal camera movement. The limited camera movement of film noir also emphasizes the forces of a character's environment, suggesting that a scene moves around a character instead of the other way around.
8. Nighttime lighting. A great deal of the action in film noir occurs at night. As a visual motif rather than a necessity of plotting, this works to reinforce other motifs mentioned above along with the addition of water (with its heaviness and confinement) in street scenes. According to the contract of union lighting workers of the period, all night shots must include water. [Ed. Huh? Go figure.]
9. Vertical lines. Of particular note in Out of the Past the noir film screened in connection with this lecture, the use of oblique vertical lines dramatically splinters the screen as the mounting tension splinters the characters' psyche.
Notes from a Lecture by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. Presented Sept. 26, 2007 at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth as part of a series titled: American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film.
Whether one thinks of film noir as a style of moviemaking or a genre of movies (and that question is debated by the experts) [Ed. Though I myself can't understand the importance of the distinction without further enlightenment.] the film noir films do have distinctive visual motifs. As Hollywood had moved away from silent films with their inserted titles clarifying and focusing everything for the audience, the early talking pictures were hesitant to move away from balanced, conventional visuals, fearing that audiences might not be able to stay properly focused. Visually, film noir was a reaction against this formal, predictable, comfortable, balanced focusing. The film noir films of the 1940s and 50s, in contrast to their lightweight forbears, sought to develop an internal dimension, more introspective and psychological. Subjective effects like the voice over and flashback helped develop this internal dimension, and film noir used these techniques extensively. Noir filmmakers challenged the comfortable passivity of audiences by creating intentional stress and near strangulation with moods venturing into claustrophobia, paranoia, fear, despair, and nihilism. And their primary tool for creating these moods and establishing this unsettling discomfort was not dialogue so much as style, especially visual style.
1. Keeping things close. Though usually set in a city, film noir seldom used wide establishing shots of an expanse of buildings or a wide span of view. Many shots reaching beyond the close confines of a room were shot through a window.
2. Low key lighting. Lighting experts identify "key lighting" (that lights the main subject) and "fill lighting" (that lights other areas that would otherwise be in shadow) with traditional film lighting designed to reduce contrast and shadow. Low-key lighting used in film noir increases the contrast and intentionally creates and uses shadows.
3. Darkness. Film noir (French, literally "black film") makes use of darkness, not just in the high contrast effect of low-key lighting, but by creating dark spaces in its scenes. In the darkness other rooms and faces exist, but until they enter the light there is a sense that there is nothing beyond the light source. The prominence of darkness in film noir increases its psychological impact with a fear of the unknown and a mysteriousness about what is or is not. In the visual and figurative darkness, a character's motives and true identity remain uncertain and unrevealed. Film noir's use of darkness suggests that light is on the verge of being overcome by the darkness. And likewise hope and joy and peace and comfort.
4. Mise en scène. Film noir often employs a distinctive mise en scène (another somewhat slippery French language term meaning literally "putting on stage"). In the context of this lecture, mise en scène seems to mean "everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement – sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting." (Wikipedia) As a visual motif, the term seems to suggest everything that is within the frame of a shot, perhaps as if the frame duplicates the arch of a proscenium stage. But the creation of what is framed in a shot is not fixed as on a stage. Thus, mise en scène refers to "all elements of visual style — that is, both elements on the set (or within the frame) and aspects of the camera (that create it)." (Wikipedia) The mise en scène of film noir involves off balance composition, and off angle shots creating compositional tension. It often conveys "the information of a scene primarily through a single shot – often accompanied by camera movement" rather than "multiple angles pieced together through editing." (Wikipedia) Thus, the audience enters an unsafe, unstable, uncomfortable world and may find itself asking, "Why do I feel this way?" The film noir mise en scène is often the answer.
5. Choker shots. Choker shorts are extreme close-ups of a face alone often used in film noir to intentionally create discomfort by staying too close for too long. Twitching lips, shifting eyes, and tiny facial details both close and disclose the character while the extended visual invasion of another's space creates dis-ease in the audience and a sense that there is no backing off from reality here.
6. Extended depth of field. Film noir often uses an extended depth of field, that is, it extends the distance in front of and behind the subject that appears to be in focus in a shot . Thus, a character's face and the buildings behind it may all be in focus. The effect of this on the viewer is a sense of equal weight of both the character and his or her environment. The forces acting on a character, the pressures of enclosing circumstances and encircling doom, are intensified by a deeper depth of field.
7. Minimal camera movement. The limited camera movement of film noir also emphasizes the forces of a character's environment, suggesting that a scene moves around a character instead of the other way around.
8. Nighttime lighting. A great deal of the action in film noir occurs at night. As a visual motif rather than a necessity of plotting, this works to reinforce other motifs mentioned above along with the addition of water (with its heaviness and confinement) in street scenes. According to the contract of union lighting workers of the period, all night shots must include water. [Ed. Huh? Go figure.]
9. Vertical lines. Of particular note in Out of the Past the noir film screened in connection with this lecture, the use of oblique vertical lines dramatically splinters the screen as the mounting tension splinters the characters' psyche.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Hard-Boiled Detective - Lecture Notes 1
Literary Influences: The Hard Boiled Detective Novel
Notes from a Lecture by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. Presented Sept. 5, 2007 at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth as part of a series titled: American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film.
[The sources of this material include a history of Black Mask magazine written by Keith Alan Deutsch and available in full at BlackMaskMagazine.com]
The hard-boiled detective novel is a genre developed by American writers in the 1920s. Among the first hard-boiled detectives was Terry Mack who first appeared in Carroll John Daly’s story “ Three Gun Terry” in the May 15,1923, issue of Black Mask, a popular fiction magazine founded by H.L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan in April, 1920.
Mencken and Nathan ( a well-known literary figure and drama critic respectively) started Black Mask to make money when their more intellectual, high-brow periodical Smart Set failed to do so). The first issue offered, "Five magazines in one: the best stories available of adventure, the best mystery and detective stories, the best romances, the best love stories, and the best stories of the occult." After only eight issues (priced at 15 cents per issue), the founders sold Black Mask for a huge profit.
Where the original magazine had only a few pages of detective stories (along with all its other attractions) and they were like the standard British detective stories of Arthur Conan-Doyle , Agatha Christie, and others, [Did you know that A.A. Milne, creator of Winnie the Pooh, wrote “one of the glories of this literature, an acknowledged masterpiece” of the genre The Red House Mystery?] it was a new editor of Black Mask hired in 1926 who really emphasized the realistic, tough-guy detective stories of the new genre. “Cap” Joseph Shaw brought a gritty, blue-collar outlook that became the new identity of the magazine. As Shaw wrote in a 1927 editorial. "Detective fiction as we see it has only commenced to be developed. All other fields have been worked and overworked, but detective fiction has barely been scratched." By 1933, Black Magic was publishing nothing but crime stories. And hugely successful!
It was Daly’s “Three Gun Terry” that had started the new wave. The Americanized vocabulary and tough-guy vernacular illustrated by the quote below remain characteristic of the genre to this day:"I have a little office which says 'Terry Mack, Private Investigator,' on the door; which means whatever you wish to think it. I ain't a crook, and I ain't a dick. I play the game on the level, in my own way."
“Daly followed Terry Mack with a detective called Race Williams and it was this violent and wisecracking character who really set up the prototype for the hard boiled sleuth. The detective stories appearing in Black Mask grew more violent, the style harder, the dialogue blacker, and the wit dryer.” But it was Dashiel Hammitt whose writing seemed most to influence the detective genre and the magazine. “He alone seemed to have first realized the full potential of hard boiled detective fiction beyond its gunslinging appeal. As an ex-Pinkerton detective turned self-taught writer, Hammett was uniquely qualified to give his characters the three dimensions of which other writers of the tough detective story were largely incapable.” Another legendary author of the genre, Raymond Chandler, was first published in Black Mask in 1933.
[see excerpts from Chandler’s essay “The Simple Art of Murder” elsewhere on tviewlalabplus.blogspot.com]
Among the identifying characteristics of hard-boiled detective fiction are its use of rough, American vernacular and the tough guy exterior of its detectives. The detectives have their own soft spots and their own code of justice, but their code of justice is not the same as that of the society. One of the devices of the genre is the unfolding and testing of this code of justice.
Each hard-boiled detective has his own city, and his city is like a character in his tale. His relationship with his city is like his relationship with women, both as love object (salvation) and fatal attraction (destroyer). She is beautiful, but in his relationship with her, he peels back the layers of her reality and reveals her flaws and dangers.
Perhaps the development of the portrait of women in this genre owes something to the post-war change in the status of women. Remember, it was 1920 when women could first vote in federal elections, and, while their men were away at war, women at home had developed a new level of independence and self-reliance that would grow alongside the genre through the coming decades.
It is useful to contrast hard-boiled detective fiction with traditional English detective fiction of Arthur Conan Doyle and others (and to recall that among the earliest writers of such fiction was Edgar Allan Poe whose “Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841) featured the ratiocination of Inspector C. Auguste Dupin).
Patterns in Hard-Boiled Detective Fiction1. The drama of solution (on which traditional English detective fiction focused intently) is subordinated to the accomplishment of justice. It’s not so much about solving the case and seeing justice (as the detective interprets it) done.
2. The intimidation and the temptation of the detective are important elements of the plot whereas the traditional plots relied on elaborate back stories of the characters and crimes and back stories behind the back stories.
3. The hard boiled detective’s investigation of the crime always leads him to some sort of personal issue of self-doubt or self-image where the traditional English detective’s investigation typically leads him (or her) to a solution (with supreme confidence and little or no personal involvement).
4. Where his English predecessors were detached solvers of puzzles, the hard-boiled detective gets emotionally involved and morally committed to his cases, and his personal moral stance over against the criminal is highlighted. He is not merely solving a case but exorcising personal demons by bringing justice to the criminal.
Motifs in Hard-Boiled Detective Fiction
1. The detective is a marginal professional, operating in unsuccessful surroundings, living hand-to-mouth, always in debt and needing to make a little dough. Out of this setting emerges the reality of the question of what will it take to buy him off.
2. The detective chooses his marginal lifestyle because he rejects respectability and is incurably insubordinate and rebellious. This circumstance begs the question of his personal choices as vices or virtues and whether they will lead him to success or ruin.
3. The detective, though he chooses his own world, can function comfortably in various worlds: among the rich, his unintimidated honesty is prized; among the corrupt, he knows how to play the streetwise game. Among criminals and police, men and women (but often not so comfortably), he makes his confident, undeterred way. His adaptability sharpens the question of his own identity.
4. From the opening of the hard-boiled detective story or novel, the crime he sets out to investigate is never as simple as it first seems, and the detective himself entangles the detective himself in its implications. It’s not just that it gets more complicated but that his own involvement gets more complicated.
5. The detective is continually twisted emotionally, personally, even spiritually, by the changing landscapes and shifting situations revealed by his investigation.
6. There is a rhythm of exposure in the plot development as one exposed truth leads to another and that one to yet another, with each one presenting new ethical, personal challenges to the detective as much as obstacles to his solution of the case.
The Hard-Boiled Detective: The Ideal Type
He is fortyish and works alone, a man’s man with no family and a mostly unexplained past. He has many casual acquaintances emerging from that past, but few friends. He lives on fried eggs and steak, cigarettes and coffee, bourbon and Scotch. He either carries a gun or makes a point of not carrying one, and, in either case, he can take one away from almost anybody. He’s always short of cash. but he always has a few bucks to share. His relationship with the police ranges from ambivalence to contempt, and his relationship with women is similar. For him, sex is a double-edged sword of attraction and fear, and he often finds himself involved with a desirable but disturbed (and disturbing) female who is both buxom and blonde. The aggressive, dominant woman who controls weaker men is a challenge to his sexual status and himself, but like most challenges, he handles it well.
Notes from a Lecture by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. Presented Sept. 5, 2007 at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth as part of a series titled: American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film.
[The sources of this material include a history of Black Mask magazine written by Keith Alan Deutsch and available in full at BlackMaskMagazine.com]
The hard-boiled detective novel is a genre developed by American writers in the 1920s. Among the first hard-boiled detectives was Terry Mack who first appeared in Carroll John Daly’s story “ Three Gun Terry” in the May 15,1923, issue of Black Mask, a popular fiction magazine founded by H.L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan in April, 1920.
Mencken and Nathan ( a well-known literary figure and drama critic respectively) started Black Mask to make money when their more intellectual, high-brow periodical Smart Set failed to do so). The first issue offered, "Five magazines in one: the best stories available of adventure, the best mystery and detective stories, the best romances, the best love stories, and the best stories of the occult." After only eight issues (priced at 15 cents per issue), the founders sold Black Mask for a huge profit.
Where the original magazine had only a few pages of detective stories (along with all its other attractions) and they were like the standard British detective stories of Arthur Conan-Doyle , Agatha Christie, and others, [Did you know that A.A. Milne, creator of Winnie the Pooh, wrote “one of the glories of this literature, an acknowledged masterpiece” of the genre The Red House Mystery?] it was a new editor of Black Mask hired in 1926 who really emphasized the realistic, tough-guy detective stories of the new genre. “Cap” Joseph Shaw brought a gritty, blue-collar outlook that became the new identity of the magazine. As Shaw wrote in a 1927 editorial. "Detective fiction as we see it has only commenced to be developed. All other fields have been worked and overworked, but detective fiction has barely been scratched." By 1933, Black Magic was publishing nothing but crime stories. And hugely successful!
It was Daly’s “Three Gun Terry” that had started the new wave. The Americanized vocabulary and tough-guy vernacular illustrated by the quote below remain characteristic of the genre to this day:"I have a little office which says 'Terry Mack, Private Investigator,' on the door; which means whatever you wish to think it. I ain't a crook, and I ain't a dick. I play the game on the level, in my own way."
“Daly followed Terry Mack with a detective called Race Williams and it was this violent and wisecracking character who really set up the prototype for the hard boiled sleuth. The detective stories appearing in Black Mask grew more violent, the style harder, the dialogue blacker, and the wit dryer.” But it was Dashiel Hammitt whose writing seemed most to influence the detective genre and the magazine. “He alone seemed to have first realized the full potential of hard boiled detective fiction beyond its gunslinging appeal. As an ex-Pinkerton detective turned self-taught writer, Hammett was uniquely qualified to give his characters the three dimensions of which other writers of the tough detective story were largely incapable.” Another legendary author of the genre, Raymond Chandler, was first published in Black Mask in 1933.
[see excerpts from Chandler’s essay “The Simple Art of Murder” elsewhere on tviewlalabplus.blogspot.com]
Among the identifying characteristics of hard-boiled detective fiction are its use of rough, American vernacular and the tough guy exterior of its detectives. The detectives have their own soft spots and their own code of justice, but their code of justice is not the same as that of the society. One of the devices of the genre is the unfolding and testing of this code of justice.
Each hard-boiled detective has his own city, and his city is like a character in his tale. His relationship with his city is like his relationship with women, both as love object (salvation) and fatal attraction (destroyer). She is beautiful, but in his relationship with her, he peels back the layers of her reality and reveals her flaws and dangers.
Perhaps the development of the portrait of women in this genre owes something to the post-war change in the status of women. Remember, it was 1920 when women could first vote in federal elections, and, while their men were away at war, women at home had developed a new level of independence and self-reliance that would grow alongside the genre through the coming decades.
It is useful to contrast hard-boiled detective fiction with traditional English detective fiction of Arthur Conan Doyle and others (and to recall that among the earliest writers of such fiction was Edgar Allan Poe whose “Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841) featured the ratiocination of Inspector C. Auguste Dupin).
Patterns in Hard-Boiled Detective Fiction1. The drama of solution (on which traditional English detective fiction focused intently) is subordinated to the accomplishment of justice. It’s not so much about solving the case and seeing justice (as the detective interprets it) done.
2. The intimidation and the temptation of the detective are important elements of the plot whereas the traditional plots relied on elaborate back stories of the characters and crimes and back stories behind the back stories.
3. The hard boiled detective’s investigation of the crime always leads him to some sort of personal issue of self-doubt or self-image where the traditional English detective’s investigation typically leads him (or her) to a solution (with supreme confidence and little or no personal involvement).
4. Where his English predecessors were detached solvers of puzzles, the hard-boiled detective gets emotionally involved and morally committed to his cases, and his personal moral stance over against the criminal is highlighted. He is not merely solving a case but exorcising personal demons by bringing justice to the criminal.
Motifs in Hard-Boiled Detective Fiction
1. The detective is a marginal professional, operating in unsuccessful surroundings, living hand-to-mouth, always in debt and needing to make a little dough. Out of this setting emerges the reality of the question of what will it take to buy him off.
2. The detective chooses his marginal lifestyle because he rejects respectability and is incurably insubordinate and rebellious. This circumstance begs the question of his personal choices as vices or virtues and whether they will lead him to success or ruin.
3. The detective, though he chooses his own world, can function comfortably in various worlds: among the rich, his unintimidated honesty is prized; among the corrupt, he knows how to play the streetwise game. Among criminals and police, men and women (but often not so comfortably), he makes his confident, undeterred way. His adaptability sharpens the question of his own identity.
4. From the opening of the hard-boiled detective story or novel, the crime he sets out to investigate is never as simple as it first seems, and the detective himself entangles the detective himself in its implications. It’s not just that it gets more complicated but that his own involvement gets more complicated.
5. The detective is continually twisted emotionally, personally, even spiritually, by the changing landscapes and shifting situations revealed by his investigation.
6. There is a rhythm of exposure in the plot development as one exposed truth leads to another and that one to yet another, with each one presenting new ethical, personal challenges to the detective as much as obstacles to his solution of the case.
The Hard-Boiled Detective: The Ideal Type
He is fortyish and works alone, a man’s man with no family and a mostly unexplained past. He has many casual acquaintances emerging from that past, but few friends. He lives on fried eggs and steak, cigarettes and coffee, bourbon and Scotch. He either carries a gun or makes a point of not carrying one, and, in either case, he can take one away from almost anybody. He’s always short of cash. but he always has a few bucks to share. His relationship with the police ranges from ambivalence to contempt, and his relationship with women is similar. For him, sex is a double-edged sword of attraction and fear, and he often finds himself involved with a desirable but disturbed (and disturbing) female who is both buxom and blonde. The aggressive, dominant woman who controls weaker men is a challenge to his sexual status and himself, but like most challenges, he handles it well.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Choosing: The Way We Read and Write
An Essay by Mr. B. (revised)
“That’s just the way he writes,” she says.
And what seems like weeks of energetic, earnest teaching and richly evocative learning experiences swirl down the Friday afternoon toilet bowl. Oh, I comfort myself by checking the A/B Day student calendar. It’s only the fifth class period we have met. Fourth if you don’t count the first day, and what sane person would? It just feels like longer because I think I have pushed the same idea every class period of every day.
Choices, choices, choices. I’ve approached them from every angle, observed them, forced them, interpreted them, analyzed them, and challenged them. I’ve made them and allowed them and accepted them and twelve-powerful-worded them. And over and over and over again, I have connected them to this tiny crumb of essential truth:
In order to write well (i.e. to have the intended effect on the reader) every writer must make choices. If you do not choose the way you express yourself, if you do not consider other possible ways you might use, you cannot write well. Likewise, when you read, (or listen) you cannot possibly understand all that a writer seeks to communicate if you cannot imagine what choices she or he made.
It is such a simple idea to those who already know it that we forget that it must be learned and applied and used. It must be believed and trusted and implemented. Yet, taking it for granted because we rely on it so completely, we neglect to teach it. Like so many simple but essential fundamentals of the academic community, this basic concept is a doorway to everything that follows. Without passing through this door, one simply cannot write effectively or purposefully. One cannot read to analyze, make inferences, evaluate, or fully understand. Without passing through the simple portal of the academic faith, one can never be at home in a literate environment; one can only pretend. Without knowing the secret of choices, one may grasp an occasional insight or realization as it blows past in the midday breeze, but one can never enter into the comfortable conversation of those whose lives are enriched and deepened by their awareness of choices and their consequences.
When Housman writes, “The time you won your town the race /We chaired you through the market-place,” there is only one thing that we believe with absolute and unassailable confidence: he did not pen those words without making choices because “that’s just the way he writes.” We cannot know what other choices occurred to him, whether he thought of saying “won the race for your town” or “carried you through the town square.” We cannot know if he considered using the third person or moving those opening lines to another place. We cannot know, though we often think we are so good at guessing, what he intended. In the end, we cannot even know that he did in fact choose his words with care, yet we believe it so fervently that we think we know.
If choices are made, then we have something to explore. If we cannot imagine other ways of saying the same thing or other things to say, if we cannot hold passionately and irrevocably to our faith in the necessity of choice, there is nothing to question, nothing to discuss, nothing to wonder about, nothing to claim, nothing to discover. If choices are made, we can ask why an author might have chosen as he or she did even though we cannot know the answer. We can examine the effect of what we read in contrast to what else might have been written, and only when we have done that can we hope to understand.
And, this just in: Even if we investigate as a choice something an author never consciously chose, we deepen our understanding of the effect of his or her work. Thus, even if Housman never considered chairing his young athlete through the town square or down Main Street, we, by inquiring, by imagining other choices, enrich our experience of the poem and increase its effect on us. And, furthermore, I would argue that by reading as if there were choices, we give ourselves access to those unintended (inspired, subconscious, passionate) choices that are so rich an element of every artist’s work.
I rode to school with a math teacher this morning, and I learned something else about this doorway to literary/artistic understanding. My mathematical colleague observed (of a computer problem he had encountered), “I knew that if I thought about it, I am a reasonable person, and I could find the answer.” First, let me be quick to say that he chose not to see the problem as insoluble. He chose not to think that, even if it were soluble, he could not solve it. He chose instead to apply the essential tenet of the math teacher’s faith: reason will lead me to the solution. Choices and choosing do apply, but the expectation is not to enrich or deepen one’s experience, to expand one’s understanding of possible interpretations and meanings of a text. The expectation, the goal, is to find the solution. As surely as the literary critic believes (but cannot know) that the author made choices that are full of possibilities to consider, the mathematician/scientist believes that there is a single, reasonable explanation or solution. Both thinkers may enter the doorway of choice, but their paths very quickly diverge.
This is not just the way I write. It is not just the way people talk these days. This sentence that you are reading right now is the product of a long struggle to understand this thing I am wanting to say. And this sentence includes words that I chose from among others that I rejected. Maybe I would have been better off to say that it contains words I picked from a thesaurus full of possibilities. (And so you know, I just went back and added the “among” between “from” and “others” and like it a bit better. I like the “thesaurus full of possibilities” a lot! I will not change it again because I like this idea of actually doing what I am writing. Unless tomorrow I think of a better way.)
Should I capitalize “thesaurus”? No.
Suppose Housman had chosen one of these ways to write his poem. What difference would it make in its effect on you?
We cheered and praised him in the town
The day he laid his victory down.
or
Oh, youth,proud winner of the race,
you make us all you are,
and when we raise you up
and lift voices to cheer you,
we are all made you,
winners proud and lifted,
youthful, up.
or
A lad not twenty yet when he
Won for his town the victory
Was lifted up and carried high
While other lads stood idly by.
or
You won the race for us that day;
Not for yourself alone you won.
And afterwards, our favorite son,
You left us with no more to say.
or...
“That’s just the way he writes,” she says.
And what seems like weeks of energetic, earnest teaching and richly evocative learning experiences swirl down the Friday afternoon toilet bowl. Oh, I comfort myself by checking the A/B Day student calendar. It’s only the fifth class period we have met. Fourth if you don’t count the first day, and what sane person would? It just feels like longer because I think I have pushed the same idea every class period of every day.
Choices, choices, choices. I’ve approached them from every angle, observed them, forced them, interpreted them, analyzed them, and challenged them. I’ve made them and allowed them and accepted them and twelve-powerful-worded them. And over and over and over again, I have connected them to this tiny crumb of essential truth:
In order to write well (i.e. to have the intended effect on the reader) every writer must make choices. If you do not choose the way you express yourself, if you do not consider other possible ways you might use, you cannot write well. Likewise, when you read, (or listen) you cannot possibly understand all that a writer seeks to communicate if you cannot imagine what choices she or he made.
It is such a simple idea to those who already know it that we forget that it must be learned and applied and used. It must be believed and trusted and implemented. Yet, taking it for granted because we rely on it so completely, we neglect to teach it. Like so many simple but essential fundamentals of the academic community, this basic concept is a doorway to everything that follows. Without passing through this door, one simply cannot write effectively or purposefully. One cannot read to analyze, make inferences, evaluate, or fully understand. Without passing through the simple portal of the academic faith, one can never be at home in a literate environment; one can only pretend. Without knowing the secret of choices, one may grasp an occasional insight or realization as it blows past in the midday breeze, but one can never enter into the comfortable conversation of those whose lives are enriched and deepened by their awareness of choices and their consequences.
When Housman writes, “The time you won your town the race /We chaired you through the market-place,” there is only one thing that we believe with absolute and unassailable confidence: he did not pen those words without making choices because “that’s just the way he writes.” We cannot know what other choices occurred to him, whether he thought of saying “won the race for your town” or “carried you through the town square.” We cannot know if he considered using the third person or moving those opening lines to another place. We cannot know, though we often think we are so good at guessing, what he intended. In the end, we cannot even know that he did in fact choose his words with care, yet we believe it so fervently that we think we know.
If choices are made, then we have something to explore. If we cannot imagine other ways of saying the same thing or other things to say, if we cannot hold passionately and irrevocably to our faith in the necessity of choice, there is nothing to question, nothing to discuss, nothing to wonder about, nothing to claim, nothing to discover. If choices are made, we can ask why an author might have chosen as he or she did even though we cannot know the answer. We can examine the effect of what we read in contrast to what else might have been written, and only when we have done that can we hope to understand.
And, this just in: Even if we investigate as a choice something an author never consciously chose, we deepen our understanding of the effect of his or her work. Thus, even if Housman never considered chairing his young athlete through the town square or down Main Street, we, by inquiring, by imagining other choices, enrich our experience of the poem and increase its effect on us. And, furthermore, I would argue that by reading as if there were choices, we give ourselves access to those unintended (inspired, subconscious, passionate) choices that are so rich an element of every artist’s work.
I rode to school with a math teacher this morning, and I learned something else about this doorway to literary/artistic understanding. My mathematical colleague observed (of a computer problem he had encountered), “I knew that if I thought about it, I am a reasonable person, and I could find the answer.” First, let me be quick to say that he chose not to see the problem as insoluble. He chose not to think that, even if it were soluble, he could not solve it. He chose instead to apply the essential tenet of the math teacher’s faith: reason will lead me to the solution. Choices and choosing do apply, but the expectation is not to enrich or deepen one’s experience, to expand one’s understanding of possible interpretations and meanings of a text. The expectation, the goal, is to find the solution. As surely as the literary critic believes (but cannot know) that the author made choices that are full of possibilities to consider, the mathematician/scientist believes that there is a single, reasonable explanation or solution. Both thinkers may enter the doorway of choice, but their paths very quickly diverge.
This is not just the way I write. It is not just the way people talk these days. This sentence that you are reading right now is the product of a long struggle to understand this thing I am wanting to say. And this sentence includes words that I chose from among others that I rejected. Maybe I would have been better off to say that it contains words I picked from a thesaurus full of possibilities. (And so you know, I just went back and added the “among” between “from” and “others” and like it a bit better. I like the “thesaurus full of possibilities” a lot! I will not change it again because I like this idea of actually doing what I am writing. Unless tomorrow I think of a better way.)
Should I capitalize “thesaurus”? No.
Suppose Housman had chosen one of these ways to write his poem. What difference would it make in its effect on you?
We cheered and praised him in the town
The day he laid his victory down.
or
Oh, youth,proud winner of the race,
you make us all you are,
and when we raise you up
and lift voices to cheer you,
we are all made you,
winners proud and lifted,
youthful, up.
or
A lad not twenty yet when he
Won for his town the victory
Was lifted up and carried high
While other lads stood idly by.
or
You won the race for us that day;
Not for yourself alone you won.
And afterwards, our favorite son,
You left us with no more to say.
or...
About Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder
Sophie's World is the first (and maybe the only?) book being read and discussed by the Lupine Literary Luncheon League this year. Many LLLL participants have expressed interest in talking about philosophy and philosophies, and this seems like a manageable way to do so. Meeting at B Lunch every Wednesday.
The following is a plot summary from Wikipedia.
Sophie Amundsen (Sofie Amundsen in the Norwegian version) is a fourteen year old girl living in Norway in 1990. She lives with her cat Sherekan and her mother. Her father is a captain of an oil tanker, and is away for most of the year. He does not appear in the book.
Sophie's life is rattled as the book begins, when she receives two anonymous messages in her mailbox (Who are you? Where does the world come from?), as well as a post card addressed to 'Hilde Møller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen'. Shortly afterwards she receives a packet of papers, part of a correspondence course in philosophy.
With these mysterious communications, Sophie becomes the student of a fifty-year-old philosopher, Alberto Knox. He starts out as totally anonymous, but as the story unfolds he reveals more and more about himself. The papers and the packet both turn out to be from him, although the post card is not; it is addressed from someone called Albert Knag, who is in a United Nations peacekeeping unit stationed in Lebanon.
Alberto teaches her about the history of philosophy. She gets a substantive and understandable review from the Pre-Socratic Greeks through Jean-Paul Sartre. Along with the philosophy lessons, Sophie and Alberto try and outwit the mysterious Albert Knag, who appears to have God-like powers, which Alberto finds quite troubling.
Sophie's life is rattled as the book begins, when she receives two anonymous messages in her mailbox (Who are you? Where does the world come from?), as well as a post card addressed to 'Hilde Møller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen'. Shortly afterwards she receives a packet of papers, part of a correspondence course in philosophy.
With these mysterious communications, Sophie becomes the student of a fifty-year-old philosopher, Alberto Knox. He starts out as totally anonymous, but as the story unfolds he reveals more and more about himself. The papers and the packet both turn out to be from him, although the post card is not; it is addressed from someone called Albert Knag, who is in a United Nations peacekeeping unit stationed in Lebanon.
Alberto teaches her about the history of philosophy. She gets a substantive and understandable review from the Pre-Socratic Greeks through Jean-Paul Sartre. Along with the philosophy lessons, Sophie and Alberto try and outwit the mysterious Albert Knag, who appears to have God-like powers, which Alberto finds quite troubling.
Friday, September 7, 2007
A.E. Housman: To an Athlete Dying Young
THE time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.
To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.
Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.
Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:
Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.
So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.
And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl's.
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.
To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.
Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.
Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:
Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.
So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.
And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl's.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
William Carlos Williams: So much depends
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
The Simple Art of Murder , An Essay by Raymond Chandler
In this essay, Raymond Chandler (himself a popular writer of "hard-boiled detective" fiction) writes about the genre. Mr. B. has copies in his classroom.
This excerpt is the final paragraphs of the essay:
In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor- by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch or a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things.
He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character or he would not know his job. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks- that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness.
The story is this man's adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would ne adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in. If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in.
This excerpt is the final paragraphs of the essay:
In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor- by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch or a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things.
He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character or he would not know his job. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks- that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness.
The story is this man's adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would ne adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in. If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in.
Learning Opportunity Announcement
Language Arts Lab Learning Opportunity
I’m sorry, but I only discovered this event on Monday, Sept. 3, and I didn’t have time to get the information out except hastily and by word of mouth. I am going to attend, and I would be pleased to take some interested students with me.
The events are at the Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth, and it is free. If some students want to go, we will leave immediately after school in my car. We will arrive at the Modern in time for a look around at the Ron Mueck Exhibit and the permanent collection. When the museum closes at 5:00, we will go somewhere nearby to eat and then return for the 6:00 program described below. When the event is over (8:40 or so) I will return the students who ride with me to Timberview to get into their own cars or to be picked up by parents.
NOTE: This is NOT a school-sponsored event. It is NOT required (or even expected) of Language Arts Lab students. It is something I am going to do and want to give students access to. There will be other similar events during the year, and some of them will happen on the same short notice. Parents with questions should e-mail me or call me at home 817.423.0694.
Jim Benton, Language Arts Lab Teacher
American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film
With gratitude to the College of Communications at Texas Christian University, we are pleased to offer Modern patrons an opportunity to enjoy a four-part lecture and film series taught by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. This series is an abbreviation of a full course offered to adults through the TCU Master of Fine Arts program.
These lectures and screenings explore the cultural, narrative, and critical impact of literary and cinematic forms of film noir and the detective film in the United States. The course introduces the film lover to the technical and aesthetic processes used in developing the style and form found in the American cinema since 1941. Dr. Whillock's lectures will be followed by film screenings. A question-and-answer session will follow. There is no charge. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. The text used for the series is Film Noir: The Dark Side of the Cinema by Foster Hirsch.
Wednesday, September 5, 6–8:40 pm Literary Influences: The Hard Boiled Detective Novel; Screening: Murder My Sweet (1944, directed by Edward Dmytryk)
Wednesday, September 26, 6–8:40 pm Visual Styles of Film Noir: IconographyScreening: Out of the Past (1947, directed by Jacques Tourneur)
Wednesday, October 10, 6–8:40 pm Literature and Film: Problems of AdaptationScreening: The Big Sleep (1946, directed by Howard Hawks)
Wednesday, November 7, 6–8:40 pm Women in Film Noir: The Virgin and the Femme Fatale; Screening: Body Heat (1981, directed by Lawrence Kasdan)
I’m sorry, but I only discovered this event on Monday, Sept. 3, and I didn’t have time to get the information out except hastily and by word of mouth. I am going to attend, and I would be pleased to take some interested students with me.
The events are at the Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth, and it is free. If some students want to go, we will leave immediately after school in my car. We will arrive at the Modern in time for a look around at the Ron Mueck Exhibit and the permanent collection. When the museum closes at 5:00, we will go somewhere nearby to eat and then return for the 6:00 program described below. When the event is over (8:40 or so) I will return the students who ride with me to Timberview to get into their own cars or to be picked up by parents.
NOTE: This is NOT a school-sponsored event. It is NOT required (or even expected) of Language Arts Lab students. It is something I am going to do and want to give students access to. There will be other similar events during the year, and some of them will happen on the same short notice. Parents with questions should e-mail me or call me at home 817.423.0694.
Jim Benton, Language Arts Lab Teacher
American Cinema: Film Noir and the Detective Film
With gratitude to the College of Communications at Texas Christian University, we are pleased to offer Modern patrons an opportunity to enjoy a four-part lecture and film series taught by Dr. David E. Whillock, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Communications at TCU. This series is an abbreviation of a full course offered to adults through the TCU Master of Fine Arts program.
These lectures and screenings explore the cultural, narrative, and critical impact of literary and cinematic forms of film noir and the detective film in the United States. The course introduces the film lover to the technical and aesthetic processes used in developing the style and form found in the American cinema since 1941. Dr. Whillock's lectures will be followed by film screenings. A question-and-answer session will follow. There is no charge. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. The text used for the series is Film Noir: The Dark Side of the Cinema by Foster Hirsch.
Wednesday, September 5, 6–8:40 pm Literary Influences: The Hard Boiled Detective Novel; Screening: Murder My Sweet (1944, directed by Edward Dmytryk)
Wednesday, September 26, 6–8:40 pm Visual Styles of Film Noir: IconographyScreening: Out of the Past (1947, directed by Jacques Tourneur)
Wednesday, October 10, 6–8:40 pm Literature and Film: Problems of AdaptationScreening: The Big Sleep (1946, directed by Howard Hawks)
Wednesday, November 7, 6–8:40 pm Women in Film Noir: The Virgin and the Femme Fatale; Screening: Body Heat (1981, directed by Lawrence Kasdan)
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Valliteration!
While we were thinking about quotes from "V for Vendetta", who could leave this one out?
Evey Hammond:Who are you?
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey Hammond: Well I can see that.
V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
Evey Hammond: Oh. Right
. V: But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona.
V: Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. [carves V into poster on wall]
V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. [giggles]
V: Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?
V: I am quite sure they will say so. But, to whom am I speaking with?
Evey Hammond: I'm Evey.
V: Evey? E-V. Of course you are.
Evey Hammond: What does that mean?
V: It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences.
Listen to the Muslims
This poem began as a mis-hearing of the first line of Shel Silverstein's poem "Listen to the Mustn'ts" and became a writing exercise:
Listen to the Muslims, child.
Listen to the Sikhs.
Listen to the Buddhists and
The Christians and the freaks.
Listen to the atheists;
The listen close to me:
Your life would be much better if
You find someone like me. -- Ashlie F.
Insanity can occur when you
Don't listen to me. -- Nana A.
No one knows for sure your thoughts
Until you set tem free. - Sloane F.
God is there for everyone
Despite what they believe. - Kalish S.
What you think you thought from these,
Listen to them, please. - Alec H.
Jesus is the Savior whom
I choose for me. - Eric L.
'Cause you'll listen to anything
When you're stuck in a tree. - Jaime Z.
Put your faith in God
For he is the key. - V. McLaurin
All of them are wrong because
The truth is in the trees. - John S.
You must believe in something, child.
In something must believe. - Christine M.
These religious people
Have really got to pee. - Sarah W.
So many different beliefs
The Christian one is me. - Sierra N.
You should forget all that
And stick to me. - Anonymous
Now give me back the hall pass
So I can go and pee. - Kelli B.
Whatever faith you have or lack
In this place you are free. - b.
Listen to the Muslims, child.
Listen to the Sikhs.
Listen to the Buddhists and
The Christians and the freaks.
Listen to the atheists;
The listen close to me:
Your life would be much better if
You find someone like me. -- Ashlie F.
Insanity can occur when you
Don't listen to me. -- Nana A.
No one knows for sure your thoughts
Until you set tem free. - Sloane F.
God is there for everyone
Despite what they believe. - Kalish S.
What you think you thought from these,
Listen to them, please. - Alec H.
Jesus is the Savior whom
I choose for me. - Eric L.
'Cause you'll listen to anything
When you're stuck in a tree. - Jaime Z.
Put your faith in God
For he is the key. - V. McLaurin
All of them are wrong because
The truth is in the trees. - John S.
You must believe in something, child.
In something must believe. - Christine M.
These religious people
Have really got to pee. - Sarah W.
So many different beliefs
The Christian one is me. - Sierra N.
You should forget all that
And stick to me. - Anonymous
Now give me back the hall pass
So I can go and pee. - Kelli B.
Whatever faith you have or lack
In this place you are free. - b.
Listen to the Mustn'ts
Margaret Mead Quote
Ian McKellen on Acting and Life
"One of the few things I know my mother said about my acting [she died when he was 12] -- she said it to my aunt -- 'If Ian does become an actor, it's a wonderful job because it brings pleasure to a lot of people.' I was comforted by that. I needed my parents' approval, and in death I had it from her." (The New Yorker, 8/27/7, p. 51)
"We were do-gooders," he said [of his family, "You were here on this earth to leave the world a better place that you found it." (ibid.)
"We were do-gooders," he said [of his family, "You were here on this earth to leave the world a better place that you found it." (ibid.)
"Appalachian Autumn"
This the the abstract of an essay in The New Yorker (8/27/7) about Aaron Copland that illustrates the complexity of issues related to art and its accessibility to common folk. Mr. B. has a copy of the magazine in his classroom.
The essay quotes Copland from a speech in March, 1949:
Lately I've been thinking that the Cold War is almost worse for art than the real thing -- for it permeates the atmosphere with fear and anxiety. An artist can function at his best only in a vital and healthy environment for the simple reason that the very act of creation is an affirmative gesture. An artist fighting in a war for a cause he holds just has something affirmative he can believe in. The artist, if he can stay alive, can create art. But throw him into a mood of suspicion, ill-will and dread that typifies the Cold War attitude and he'll create nothing. (p. 37)
The essay quotes Copland from a speech in March, 1949:
Lately I've been thinking that the Cold War is almost worse for art than the real thing -- for it permeates the atmosphere with fear and anxiety. An artist can function at his best only in a vital and healthy environment for the simple reason that the very act of creation is an affirmative gesture. An artist fighting in a war for a cause he holds just has something affirmative he can believe in. The artist, if he can stay alive, can create art. But throw him into a mood of suspicion, ill-will and dread that typifies the Cold War attitude and he'll create nothing. (p. 37)
Abstract
A Critic at Large
Appalachian Autumn
Aaron Copland confronts the politics of the Cold War.
by Alex Ross August 27, 2007
A CRITIC AT LARGE about Aaron Copland and the politics of the Cold War. In May of 1945, American composer Aaron Copland received a Pulitzer Prize for his ballet score “Appalachian Spring.” Copland seized the nation’s attention, post-war, and his works became synonymous with the heartland, matching the collectivist ethos of the New Deal. Beneath the patriotic surface, these scores also bore traces of the leftist politics that preoccupied so many artists and intellectuals in the Roosevelt era. At the height of the Cold War, political watchdogs noted Copland’s leftist leanings. Between 1949 and 1953, Copland endured media vilification after his appearance at the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace; denunciations from anti-Communists in Congress; and a session before Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Copland emerged unscathed, and retained his iconic status, but he was never quite the same afterward. Postwar, New Deal populism began to acquire a dubious reputation. In 1946, as the country was tilting to the right, Copland introduced his Third Symphony, which echoed Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich’s recent work and the populist language of Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace. Mentions Virgil Thomson’s critique of the Third Symphony. Describes Shostakovich’s appearance at the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, in March, 1949. Mentions Nicolas Nabokov and the Americans for Intellectual Freedom. Copland, appearing at the conference, distanced himself from the propaganda on both sides. Mentions Time magazine and Life magazine. After the conference, Copland traveled to Paris and met the composer Pierre Boulez. In the fall of 1949, Arnold Schoenberg denounced Copland on the radio, and the F.B.I. opened a file on him. Copland had reason to worry: he had already been labeled a “fellow traveler” by Life magazine and he was a gay man. Mentions Rep. Fred Busbey’s condemnation of Copland in Congress, in January of 1953. In May, 1953, Copland was called before McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Copland’s political predicament did not bring about a wholesale change of style. He never abandoned tonality in favor of twelve-tone writing, and, in several postwar pieces he retained a version of his populist manner. But the conspicuous stylistic split that appears in his later music seems symptomatic of the political polarization of the time. Mentions his opera “The Tender Land,” and his dissonant work “Connotations,” created in the late fifties and early sixties. After “Connotations,” his output rapidly dwindled. In the eighties, he began suffering from memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Copland died in 1990, at the age of ninety.
The New Yorker’s archives are not yet fully available online. The full text of all articles published before May, 2006, can be found in “The Complete New Yorker,” which is available for purchase on DVD and hard drive. Many New Yorker stories published since December, 2000, are available through Nexis. Individual back issues may be purchased from our customer-service department at 1-800-825-2510.
A Critic at Large
Appalachian Autumn
Aaron Copland confronts the politics of the Cold War.
by Alex Ross August 27, 2007
A CRITIC AT LARGE about Aaron Copland and the politics of the Cold War. In May of 1945, American composer Aaron Copland received a Pulitzer Prize for his ballet score “Appalachian Spring.” Copland seized the nation’s attention, post-war, and his works became synonymous with the heartland, matching the collectivist ethos of the New Deal. Beneath the patriotic surface, these scores also bore traces of the leftist politics that preoccupied so many artists and intellectuals in the Roosevelt era. At the height of the Cold War, political watchdogs noted Copland’s leftist leanings. Between 1949 and 1953, Copland endured media vilification after his appearance at the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace; denunciations from anti-Communists in Congress; and a session before Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Copland emerged unscathed, and retained his iconic status, but he was never quite the same afterward. Postwar, New Deal populism began to acquire a dubious reputation. In 1946, as the country was tilting to the right, Copland introduced his Third Symphony, which echoed Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich’s recent work and the populist language of Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace. Mentions Virgil Thomson’s critique of the Third Symphony. Describes Shostakovich’s appearance at the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, in March, 1949. Mentions Nicolas Nabokov and the Americans for Intellectual Freedom. Copland, appearing at the conference, distanced himself from the propaganda on both sides. Mentions Time magazine and Life magazine. After the conference, Copland traveled to Paris and met the composer Pierre Boulez. In the fall of 1949, Arnold Schoenberg denounced Copland on the radio, and the F.B.I. opened a file on him. Copland had reason to worry: he had already been labeled a “fellow traveler” by Life magazine and he was a gay man. Mentions Rep. Fred Busbey’s condemnation of Copland in Congress, in January of 1953. In May, 1953, Copland was called before McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Copland’s political predicament did not bring about a wholesale change of style. He never abandoned tonality in favor of twelve-tone writing, and, in several postwar pieces he retained a version of his populist manner. But the conspicuous stylistic split that appears in his later music seems symptomatic of the political polarization of the time. Mentions his opera “The Tender Land,” and his dissonant work “Connotations,” created in the late fifties and early sixties. After “Connotations,” his output rapidly dwindled. In the eighties, he began suffering from memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Copland died in 1990, at the age of ninety.
The New Yorker’s archives are not yet fully available online. The full text of all articles published before May, 2006, can be found in “The Complete New Yorker,” which is available for purchase on DVD and hard drive. Many New Yorker stories published since December, 2000, are available through Nexis. Individual back issues may be purchased from our customer-service department at 1-800-825-2510.
Man with a Pipe
This is an image and artical from the Kimbell Art Museum website (linked below) that offers information about Picasso's "Man with a Pipe" - a cubist work that is more or less reminiscent of the boxes in Mr. B.'s classroom.
On viewIn early July 1911, Picasso left Paris for Céret, a small town near Arles, in southwestern France. Braque joined him there in August and the two painted their ultimate Analytical Cubist works in intense dialogue. Composed in something like jigsaw puzzle fashion from interlocking and overlapping fragmentary facets, some roughly legible as an eye, mustache, or hand, Man with a Pipe exemplifies two especially important, albeit idiosyncratic, tendencies common to the 1910-12 works by Braque and Picasso. First, the painting belongs to a group of oval-shaped canvases initiated in the spring of 1910 by Braque, perhaps to stress the sculptural sense of Cubism, perhaps to emulate the somber oval portraits painted by Rembrandt and his contemporaries. Second, around that same time, both painters also began to paint with particularly dark palettes. Man with a Pipe presumably represents the interior of a dimly-lit, smoke-filled bar (hence the letters "est" detached from the word "restaurant" and the letters "AL" printed on the corner of a white "journal," meaning "newspaper" in French). Nevertheless, the nocturnal mood seems intended as a challenge to seeing in conventional terms, as if in these very dark paintings Braque and Picasso invited viewers to strain their eyes in a difficult new way of looking. Of course, a similar melancholy mood was a hallmark of Picasso's 1901-4 Blue Period paintings, which often treated the subject of figures in a cabaret setting.
Picasso's Analytical Cubist compositions of 1910-12 were a touchstone for many abstract painters, among them Piet Mondrian, whose beautiful Composition No. 7 (Facade), is in the collection of the Kimbell. With this in mind, it is worth noting that Mondrian helped organize an exhibition of modern art in October 1912 at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, including Man with a Pipe and eleven other Picasso paintings.
Provenance HistoryPrivate collection, Paris;(M. Knoedler & Co., New York);purchased by Kimbell Art Foundation, Fort Worth, 1966.
© 2000 Estate of Pablo Picasso/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York
Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973)
Man with a Pipe 1911
Oil on canvas
35-3/4 x 27-7/8 in. (oval) (90.7 x 71.0 cm)
Acquired in 1966
Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973)
Man with a Pipe 1911
Oil on canvas
35-3/4 x 27-7/8 in. (oval) (90.7 x 71.0 cm)
Acquired in 1966
by the Kimbell Art Museum of Fort Worth
On viewIn early July 1911, Picasso left Paris for Céret, a small town near Arles, in southwestern France. Braque joined him there in August and the two painted their ultimate Analytical Cubist works in intense dialogue. Composed in something like jigsaw puzzle fashion from interlocking and overlapping fragmentary facets, some roughly legible as an eye, mustache, or hand, Man with a Pipe exemplifies two especially important, albeit idiosyncratic, tendencies common to the 1910-12 works by Braque and Picasso. First, the painting belongs to a group of oval-shaped canvases initiated in the spring of 1910 by Braque, perhaps to stress the sculptural sense of Cubism, perhaps to emulate the somber oval portraits painted by Rembrandt and his contemporaries. Second, around that same time, both painters also began to paint with particularly dark palettes. Man with a Pipe presumably represents the interior of a dimly-lit, smoke-filled bar (hence the letters "est" detached from the word "restaurant" and the letters "AL" printed on the corner of a white "journal," meaning "newspaper" in French). Nevertheless, the nocturnal mood seems intended as a challenge to seeing in conventional terms, as if in these very dark paintings Braque and Picasso invited viewers to strain their eyes in a difficult new way of looking. Of course, a similar melancholy mood was a hallmark of Picasso's 1901-4 Blue Period paintings, which often treated the subject of figures in a cabaret setting.
Picasso's Analytical Cubist compositions of 1910-12 were a touchstone for many abstract painters, among them Piet Mondrian, whose beautiful Composition No. 7 (Facade), is in the collection of the Kimbell. With this in mind, it is worth noting that Mondrian helped organize an exhibition of modern art in October 1912 at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, including Man with a Pipe and eleven other Picasso paintings.
Provenance HistoryPrivate collection, Paris;(M. Knoedler & Co., New York);purchased by Kimbell Art Foundation, Fort Worth, 1966.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)