He traverses familiar,
As one should come to town
And tell you all your dreams were true;
He lived where dreams were sown.
- Emily Dickinson
"Do you suppose I give a damn about life now? Why, you bone-head, I haven't got a single damned lying hope or pipe dream left!"
"By God, there's no hope! I'll never be a success in the grandstand--or anywhere else! Life is too much for me! I'll be a weak fool looking with pity at the two sides of everything till the day I die!"
- Eugene O'Neill (The Iceman Cometh)
I've first saw O'Neill's play, "The Iceman Cometh" in high school. My English & Literature class watched the movie version that starred Lee Marvin and Robert Ryan on PBS. I won't go into all of the deep meaning, as there's cliff notes and Google for that, but what seems relevant today was the importance of dreams, which are part of a reality, even if delusional.
The play's message was also anti-dream, a reaction to the Hollywood dreams-can-come-true-story, which envisioned success in terms of riches, or a rise in social status, which for most will never happen as the capitalist system is about winners and losers.
The aspirational image is a powerful concept. People who'd be unhappy working in a burger joint for minimum wage will willingly put out much more effort for less money in pursuit of a dream. Most writers and musicians know this is true.
Hollywood standardized the dream narrative but in real life, dreams can be quite idiosyncratic. However, one's stated dreams are not always revealing or illuminate a real desire.
For example, a person dreams about becoming a star (or in America, rich and famous, as simple fame is often derided). When asked, the aspirant will talk about creating great art or helping others, but if they do succeed, can end up acting like tabloid celebrities and engage in behavior that would have shocked even the 17th century French nobility.
In that case, the dream wasn't about great art, but status. Once achieved, the real desire came out, empowered by money. People talk about the pressures of fame, or the corrupting nature of money, but that's not generally true. Most of the rich don't flaunt wealth, they know better, and even if snobby, generally keep to themselves (or let politicians do the dirty public work). Many try to do good works, and manage to hang on to the money (and not blow it on drugs or whatever).
A dream can be anything you want, but to me, one of O'Neill's messages was that to have a realistic dream, it's a good idea to know oneself. At the end, the Socialist drunkard has a realization that seemed like a final surrender to death. Perhaps on the surface, but realizing he was a weak fool for sitting aloof and pitying both sides was a deep piece of self knowledge.
Another classic, "Magister Ludi," aka "The Glass Bead Game" by Hermann Hesse has a similar theme. An intellectual master of an extreme sport for the mind finally realizes that he can't stay aloof from life. It's a nuanced idea, but the Glass Bead Game became the Master's life and it failed him when a choice had to be made in real life.
The idea of intellectual pursuit or a dream isn't a universal truth. There's other views of reality. In an old Japanese film, the ending text said that the characters lived their dreams and after death, moved on to the real world, which implies that life here is an illusion.
Frankly, all of that stuff is true when it is, and not when it not. I once said in an earlier blog entry that a person could be Mickey Mouse as long as he didn't try to make others believe it, and even then, whether it's a wasted life is really only an issue for those who care about someone else's business.
Which, in terms of art, means that one can dream anything they want, and you're a writer (for example) if you call yourself one. If that dream requires money, an audience or applause, then you have to decide if it's worth doing what it takes to get that, things which will often have nothing to do with art.
"A word spoken with the whole being can give life. Activity in itself means nothing: it is often a sign of death."
- Henry Miller (Tropic Of Capricorn)
An awful lot of the "history" of literature is Western-centric. The start of so-called realism (in France) is said to have started with Balzac and Stendhal, whose work was a departure from the "romantic" era exemplified by writers such as Sir Walter Scott. Such a viewpoint might earn a passing grade in a literature class but anyone who's reasonably well read knows that the modern Western era wasn't the first time that adventurous, realistic, free form or dirty writing had been created.
Many of the ancient classics, like The Arabian Nights or Canterbury Tales were originally rowdy works that were bowderdized into clean tales suitable for children. The history of Western literature is often more about the battle over censorship than any supposed progression of creativity, particularly as the printing press enabled more works to get past the old gate keepers that published books by hand.
One can get the impression from early school text books that literature evolved from folk tales into classic works full of truth and reality when it's really due to wider literacy and the evolution of technology that enabled the production of mass market books and movies. One could even argue that today's higher sex and obscenity content could be as much a matter of changing tastes (or the competition for public attention) than an increase in freedom.
...what genius...
Many of mankind's greatest works could be nitpicked into a failing grade by a person properly trained in English grammar, though there are genres, like technical manuals and textbooks, where proper structure can be critical.
All great geniuses are rule breakers, and tend to be treated as exceptions or outliers. It reminds me of a past musical discussion about jazz guitar on the Internet, and how one of the greatest guitarists, Wes Montgomery, played on extra thick strings with his thumb, which was considered unorthodox. The consensus among the "experts" of the discussion group was that Montgomery was a genius but not one that could be emulated by those wishing to "properly" learn jazz guitar.
The lesson society teaches is that individual style works if it works (makes money), and your safest bet is orthodoxy or pro level craft. That was a mantra of a past era, when a writer generally only had one or two chances to prove their talent (ability to sell). That's because book publishers were gatekeepers who successfully convinced the public that their product was of the finest quality and that self publishing was a "vanity" project that was the last resort of the mediocre.
The Internet era, for all it's faults, will be seen as a time when an individual writer had the great freedom, and more importantly, the ability to keep writing after an early failure. That means that a lot of excessive or undisciplined works will be created, but no one needs to write with the simple goal of making money (and all the compromises necessary) unless they want to.
Henry Miller once said, that one should write a book because it needs to be written. When it's finished, to not worry about getting it published but to begin writing the next one, and the next. He wrote that passage in Europe, where there were small presses that would support cutting edge work, not in the US where getting published was indeed critical to a writing career.
I remember being told in High School journalism class that writing books was only something a journalist who had put in his time could aspire to, and wasn't something anybody could just start doing. Even columns, which were the first blogs, weren't given out to beginners.
What Miller was describing was a life that was all about writing, and he only succeeded after years of hardship, and support by patrons who provided encouragement and even meals. His words make sense in this net era. In truth, publishing an Ebook only costs as much as anyone cares to spend on support services like editing. A work can be published without any of that, and a writer can keep putting out books as each is completed.
You may not sell many books, and a second job might be necessary to pay the bills, but a writer's life is possible if you want it.
On every side of us are men who hunt perpetually for their personal Northwest Passage, too often sacrificing health, strength and life itself to the search; and who shall say they are not happier in their vain but hopeful quest than wiser, duller folk who sit at home, venturing nothing..."
- Kenneth Roberts (Northwest Passage)
The quote was taken from Kenneth Roberts' "Northwest Passage," which was about Colonel Robert Rogers (whose rangers became the model for today's US Army Rangers) who made an ultimately futile quest to find the Northwest Passage. It was also about a man named Langdon Towne, whose goal was to become a painter, who later fell into the trap of trying to become famous in England, where artists were regarded as part of the service industry. After an endless series of cycles spent trying to meet the right people and live a lifestyle worthy of a great artist, he came to the realization that painting was the real goal, and returned to America.
The movie version, with Spencer Tracy and a very young Robert Young (later of the TV show, Father Knows Best) was, of course, not true to the book and didn't cover the second half which turned the book from a great adventure book into a classic work about art, dreams and life.
It did keep one key scene from the book, where Langdon was wounded after a battle, and had to be helped to walk by an Native American woman and a kid. The Rangers were being pursued by the French Army and Abernaki Warriors, and Rogers couldn't slow the column down for just one man. Before Rogers left them, he reminded Langdon that the other soldiers just wanted to survive, but he wanted to survive to be a painter. Langdon had, in other words, a higher goal.
So Langdon made himself keep going, and made it back. It was a tortuous march, and very much about will power and seeing something beyond the situation at hand. Each painful step had as much to do with the goal as any visions of great paintings and success. That's an idea that influenced a lot of decisions in my book when it gets to the Winter of 2016.
I had a lot of dreams out there in the car, but taking good care of Ivy, going on daily hikes to stay fit, not eating junk food, staying as clean as possible, and avoiding drugs and alcohol wasn't just to stay busy or even fight depression. It was the immediate steps that needed to be taken once I realized that writing a book was a dream.
A lot of artists need second jobs in order to create, and it's natural to want to be somewhere else while working, but that work is still part of the dream, necessary to reach a goal. I remember reading an interview with a guy who worked for Bill Graham, who founded the legendary Fillmore concert venues. He said, that at the shows, Bill could be seen mopping up a spill in the bathroom because to him, it was all the same job.
I knew that I was, among other things, a writer. I wrote to find myself, to find people to help me survive, and felt that being a writer was a key to getting out. I started to write the book, but my blog got equal attention because that was the audience that was already there.
In writing terms; the book is a dream, the blog is my writing world as it now exists. Everything I did out there in the car wasn't just to get out, but to continue being an artist. The danger of just wishing or hoping for a good future is that instead of taking the steps to get there, you wait, and every empty day reinforces the feeling of failure.
I remember one of the the things I wrote that summer was that movement was survival, that one moved towards life or death. At the time, it was about the importance of getting the car running again, but it was also an allegory about how one faced life on the streets. There's no static states in nature, those who just sat out there and did nothing got worse.
What one does in the present is very much part of the future.
...William Makepeace Thackeray and The Book Of Snobs...
Thackeray's "Book Of Snobs" is a minor work, or seemed so until realizing that my internet-attention span mind had run ahead of the narrative and missed the joke, which was that the various types of snobs were being described and categorized by a fellow snob.
Thackeray used a fake character, one of the oldest literary devices to deliver satire, who was just as snobby as his subjects. One reason was, and it's true even now, it can be dangerous to satirize under one's own name. George Orwell once noted that Shakespeare would have have such material come out of the mouth of a jester or some such character to make it seem less threatening or incendiary.
Thackeray's book could only have been written in his time, to an smaller audience that was used to good writing and had the patience to read a full piece before reacting. Thackerey was confident enough to let the humor properly develop and was patient about when to land a punch line.
Which isn't asserting that the times were better. Back then, feelings about slights, real or imagined could require an exchange of pistol fire at 20 paces (generally 30 feet or so). A cynic might point out that the distance was probably beyond the practical range of pistols of that era, but we can assume some bravery was required if historical accounts are true.
In another of his works, Barry Lyndon, a fake autobiography by a Irish rogue, the book got funnier as the story developed as he used the literary device of "editors notes" that start off as standard corrections to the text, then become obvious "corrections" of the facts. The reader begins to see Barry's narrative from the Editor's point of view, that the story is not the heroic tale it appears to be on the surface. It's written in the flowery language used by that era's historians so it's also a satire of contemporary accounts of great feats and heroes.
...Tom Wolfe, and satire....
A modern equivalent to Thackeray would be Tom Wolfe. Though his work was part of the "new journalism," or whatever, his articles had a similar outlook and approach. His humor wasn't cruel, and he generally did his best to present the subjects in as much of their point of view as possible.
Passages from his classic "Electric Kool Aid Acid Test" was often as psychedelic as the uttering of the Prankster leader, Author Ken Kesey. Tom was a New York Dandy, and no where near being a hippie, and because of that caught important details like Kesey's trip not being an attempt to simply create a new entertainment experience but one with spiritual/religious underpinnings. The later resistance from his followers who wanted to keep the Acid Tests as a party trip, once money came into it, was very much like what happens to a religion once a church gets involved.
The undermining of Kesey's desire to move the Acid Tests into the realm of further exploration by those who'd begun to make money from the shows was something an outsider would see, one who'd seen how Andy Warhol had manipulated a similar trip in New York.
It was an empathetic view, that saw past Kesey's legal troubles at the time and the surface expressions of support from various hangers on. It was possible to see all that nuance because from the start, Wolfe depicted the life of Kesey and the Pranksters exactly as they lived it, without injecting his attitudes into the story. He could keep his own ego in check.
Tom had a Thackeray-like ability to make a subject or person seem funny without necessarily lampooning, which is a rare talent. One reason is that humans are funny creatures, and do funny things. One of the main cruxes of Kesey's world was the recognition that each person was a separate universe, or in his view, a movie, and idiosyncrasies were a case of "it is what it is." Behavior that had always existed, but didn't always get described in print.
By telling the story from the subjects point of view, Wolfe was able to describe the decline of the Acid Tests from exploration to commercial concern, which had many levels in play, but was essentially a case of followers fixating on ritual, and the age old problems that occur when money is involved. The early stages were financed by Kesey from his book royalties, but once other income streams were possible from peripheral activities like the music, drug sales, light shows and such, self interest came into play and it all became political.
Wolfe didn't insert any of his own judgement, and like Thackeray had the patience to let the story tell it all. That's a real ability, and it shows an ability to see the subject and describe details that might not be noticed if being viewed from a biased lens, and it shows a trust in the audience (or indifference to their feelings, the result is the same).
Modern satire is becoming less subtle. Maybe publications like the Onion can still satirize subtleties in behavior but these days laughs have to be delivered up front, and indeed, punch lines are now necessary or people might miss the point or just go into reaction mode.
...blessings and curses...
Immediacy is both the Internet's blessing and curse. In the age of print and even TV, a satirist could produce work, and the means to attack back was limited and subject to filters which included a time element that reduced the reactive rage type stuff. It gave a writer a reasonable amount of freedom to create without fear.
If a person didn't like what they read or saw, he or she had to write a letter saying so, and after mailing it, had to wait until an editor or some such person read it, and either forwarded it to the author or printed it in the next issue, etc. It was also understood that civility was required because if one just raved the letter would be put aside and never see print.
The Internet has eliminated that barrier, which was in effect a protocol and democratized the old relationship of publication and reader. A satirical piece can invoke reaction from a variety of sources from comment sections (not even related to the actual pub), blogs and social media and while that empowers readers, it can force a media company to please or avoid offending a customer base.
A good example is National Lampoon, which was pissing everybody off at first but eventually had to lean left as the audience segment that mattered most to advertisers was centered in colleges and some Baby Boomers who'd come a long way baby and rediscovered the financial joys of joining the establishment, but still wanted rebellion in small doses.
A writer like William Makepeace Thackeray could write satire in the Internet age, but he'd have had to accept a smaller audience and certainly constant attacks from trolls.
...Internet discussion...
Internet discussion is a varying stew of intelligent points, gotcha you jerk, quotes from googled sources or experts, quotes purported to be from googled sources or an expert, fake quotes, quotes from a rented expert, and road rage. Sometimes, like in sports or guitar forums, all of the above is present.
None of that is new, not even the vehemence, as people could end up talking like that to each other in ancient times. However, the people who talked like that didn't hide behind handles and knew who they were insulting and had to be willing to be at the business end of a dueling sword, though a cynic might point out that historical records indicate that a higher number of duels were reported to be fought than actual documented deaths from such scrimmages. Again, we can assume some bravery was required if historical accounts are true.
Thackeray was onto something with his detailed treatise on snobs. He correctly noted a tendency of the English race to display that quality due to the nation's affluence which made snobbery accessible to many, which if you substituted "Americans" would bring that hoary old work into relevance.
What the English Master didn't delineate was how so many types of snobs could exist but it wasn't intended to be a true think piece. After all, back then as now, if you wanted to make money from commodity type works then it was best to just get on with it and crank out the next series so that enough income was generated to permit a nice lifestyle and better, more artistic works. I doubt he gave it as much afterthought as I'm giving it.
...back to Wolfe, subcultures, and experts for a moment...
Tom Wolfe made the astute observation that America was a land of subcultures, each of which having it's own celebrities and even hierarchy. A person may not be on Page Six or National Enquirer but within the cult, of say, hot dog eating, one could be the next Led Zeppelin. It's a matter of scale, but the dynamics are often the same.
I remember watching an arm wrestling championship on TV, and the contestants behaved pretty much like athletes in a more profitable sport like Boxing; trying to psych each out, showing disdain, super sized egos, etc.
The Internet added a new twist in that everyone could put their passion or interest into the web, and many exotic or offbeat interests found cult audiences and inevitably, created celebrities. Within a cult, proficiency is the difference between men and boys, but again, cash is king. If a skateboarder gets sponsors, their star power increases, and at that point if the guy wants to act like a jerk, it becomes a prerogative (until the money runs out).
In a more diffuse situation, like Internet Health and Nutrition or anything requiring actual facts, then the word of "experts" and such become important, though more than a few gurus have found out the hard way that people prefer "facts" that confirm their beliefs (or make somebody they don't like wrong). The Internet expert market is healthy, so much so that the field is vast and riddled with unvetted sages and fakes. Nothing new, of course, just an increase in scale.
One big reason for the rise of experts is that the Internet creates the impression that data is an ability or even wisdom. "Answers" are flat out right or wrong, or can become belief systems. Online debates can mirror B-movie courtroom dramas where people discredit whole arguments by finding one fact that's wrong and expect the other's confidence to collapse. If it doesn't, then snooty dismissals or insults follow.
Contrary to any belief that's been expressed that this is a unique Information Age, there was just as much "data" floating about centuries ago. If you had some spare time from working dawn till dusk to afford a bowl of porridge, and wondered about the cosmos or if there were aliens walking about posing as humans, there were plenty of experts back then that would give you an answer and back it up with "facts."
Of course, if you phrased the question wrong or said the wrong thing to the wrong crowd, it might be followed by a session with Doctor Stake and Professor Fire, which in these civilized times rarely happens, though people might publicly slander you, hack your accounts, and try to ruin your life.
All of this used to be harmless fun, but snobbery is becoming less about being high falutin or thinking others are stupid (which is acceptable human behavior on social networks) and moves into the realm of church-based religion or social fascism complete with excommunication, thought policing, or taking an imaginary stick to the poltroon to save their soul.
That's just nutrition, it gets worse when the subject is politics.
These days, quipping about snobs isn't going to produce chuckles when being snooty is acceptable behavior in countries where every man is a king (women too, where required by law). Democracy (via the Internet) gives the masses an opportunity to look down on their fellow man.
Thackeray's Book Of Snobs or Barry Lyndon are a period pieces, and many modern readers might find the works too mannered. It's from an age when the best satirists tried to get people to look at themselves and see the humor or absurdity in their behavior instead of taking the easy route of ridicule or insult. That was a fine skill, and worth any serious writer's time to study. Where such an ability could be applied in these times, I couldn't tell you.
Whether Thackeray's books are brilliant or not isn't for me to to judge, but I will say that both are brilliantly written.
"Sannoko may be the site of legends, but not of history."
- Junichiro Tanizaki (Arrowroot 1930, translated by Anthony Chambers
The first draft of my book was influenced by "Arrowroot," by Junichiro Tanizaki. Arrowroot was called a hybrid of essay and novel, which was somewhat similar to works like Hermann Hesse's "Steppenwolf" or Melville's "Moby Dick," each which used a scholarly treatise to delineate a central theme in the book. Tanizaki's approach was different in that the essay passages were more tightly integrated into the narrative.
Neither approaches were superior, though in western culture there's a tendency to try to make sure such digressions seem technically sound to ensure the point is understood, and perhaps less subject to attack. There's a danger when presenting factual information as it can become a sticking point where readers can disagree with it (or dismiss it) and not be able to get past that.
I completely understand. To this day I still think the movie "Patton" with George C, Scott was flawed because they used the wrong kind of tanks in the battle scenes.
Hesse and Melville had a different intent, as their in-book essays were attempts to educate, particularly in the latter's case. Melville's long essay about whales was very similar in intent to Tanizaki's, to permeate the work with a historic and mystical aura.
Tanizaki's genius was that the essays were so well integrated that it felt like a great storyteller was filling you in on the background stuff while enroute to this remote village, which had the result of making it seem more alluring as the book progressed.
The first draft flowed well, but hadn't addressed the variety of perceptions that exist about the homeless. I felt the draft could set off an storm of chapter and verse nitpicking (more on that later), class conscious trolling, and get entangled in the contentious politics of the social welfare system.
In other words, I didn't do a very good job of writing a book that's set in the homeless scene. I still liked the story, but for the second draft, it was time to reassess and rethink the delivery. Many writers experience the same thing. You start off thinking writing is all inspiration and genius, then find that it's really about getting that spark expressed in the real world. Then technical skill, passion, and plain stubbornness become important.
That's all in the realm of technique.
I can describe a scene about a young female panhandler in detail, for example, and if insecure about my ability to bring the reader into it, could bring stock images of pathos into it, or focus on standard images of destitution that in this jaded society, may not even invoke pity in harder hearts.
The woman's fate will come off as tragedy (rather than comeuppance) if her humanity is communicated in a way that doesn't trigger responses triggered by symbols or modern accident scene voyeurism. My job would be to show her as a person who arrived at that moment after a long series of incidents that cascaded into disaster.
...more about process....
What I'm going to talk about is in the book, but will share more detail about that character. Keep in mind, it's not "advice" or a #writingtip or anything like that. I'm just sharing a glimpse into my own "process" which if you're a regular reader of the blog, is a word that's interchangeable with "technical" because of my musical background (and having grown up in Silicon Valley).
Her opening scene doesn't have much in the way of physical description. I decided not to "paint a picture" of the young woman. The main reason is that far too many people have a reflexive image of a smelly, dirty person with a drugged expression that will fill in the blanks and override any description before it can develop. I avoided keywords that regularly pop up in media stories about the homeless for that reason.
I handled her exposition by setting it well after the original contact so the conversation was between two acquaintances, then switched the narrative to her inner dialogue, which worked better to bring in the backstory. In other words, the story stays in motion with active images to fill the vacuum until her image is fully set.
It's not just about getting into the mind of the subject, but also the reader. You want that image to be yours, what you've written, not simply a validation of stereotypes. If the reader doesn't see it my way, I can live with that, but I want them to disagree or reject what's presented on the book's terms.
...about smell...
Like I said earlier, I avoided keywords. A good example is the word "smell," which is an old stereotype, like "the great unwashed" and so on.
Many female panhandlers, at least the younger ones, rarely smelled bad or looked dirty (at least at first). Part of that was because newbie homeless still worked hard on their appearance, and because in the panhandling world, women were often the "breadwinners" and needed to be on point.
In Silicon Valley, for example, people encounter homeless people every day and never know it. Sure, they know about the homeless camps and the druggies seen in the media (or on the street in places like San Francisco), but thousands live in RVs or cars because service sector jobs don't pay enough to a get a room (even motels are generally filled up by late afternoon).
They can stay clean because many large businesses have showers, and if not that, there's 24 hour gyms. Most are very aware that smell and appearance are the signs most people associate with the homeless, and even the transient taking a bath in the restroom sink is doing it to feel as normal as possible, however futile the effort is.
The young panhandler had a plot arc that took about half a year to become tragic. When she first appears, you'd only know she was homeless because of the cardboard sign that said so, though as the book reveals, the message on it was also an early sign of depression.
Knowing if she smelled bad, or if the clothes were all she had, weren't things any normal person will know right away. Particularly outside where there's a breeze. An author can fall into the trap of presenting a minutely detailed image, but that's not how perception works. Knowledge comes in layers, over a period of time frame (no matter how compressed).
The initial physical description is how it would look at a glance, then more details emerge.
That cursory impression was due to the etiquette out there. Staring or making direct eye contact could be interpreted as aggressive. I really didn't "see" her then, as my main concern was making sure our conversation didn't look flirtatious, which could bring an aggressive male in on me (I go into this aspect of street life later, of always having to assume one is under observation).
I talk to her standing sideways, looking off in my direction of travel and doing a quick 360 scan to make sure my approach wasn't misinterpreted by a boyfriend who could be watching, and she pets Ivy and talks in her direction. We both were posturing so that from a distance, it could be seen that the conversation was casual and about my dog.
...Rashomon...
The story then places you into the mind of the young woman, and those who walked by or watched from a distance. Some males gave money right away, then hit on her, or in some cases, did the male thing and gave detailed advice, then hit on her.
In another instance, her red hair catches a man's attention which puts him into rescuing prince mode. Yet another guy is far off, and is studying her as a possible candidate to pimp at the truck stop motel. An older woman whose own daughter is a runaway stops, gives her some cash and walks off with a lot of mixed feelings and regrets.
The panhandler saw things too, and was streetwise enough to know that a pimp was beginning to stalk her, understood that the guys wanted sex, and so on. Behind that cheery smile was a damaged, but smart woman who knew that she was in real trouble.
Being a street beggar was a label. What she was and why, what she could be, was really part of a bigger picture. It affected how men related to her, and the label had a stigma that removed many of the social protections that a woman normally has. That tag was important in the sense that it affected how she and others acted, yet on a deeper level, it has very little to do with what she was and why.
Her final story is a tragedy because of what she was and could have been, not because of what happened to her. I should add, because of what will be learned about her, you'll realize that nothing short of death will prevent her redemption. I felt that way after seeing her story unfold, perhaps you will too.
...why the book starts in the summer of 2016 in Gilroy, and eyes watching...
That eight week period, which involved being stuck on a street with a broken down car for six of the weeks, wasn't my first glimpse into the homeless scene. I'd seen it up north in Marin County and the SF Bay Area but at the time had the means to be insulated from those scenes, even if it was just being able to afford a motel room or being near a rest stop.
I side stepped a lot of trouble by avoiding drugs, and it helped being male, which made me useless to most predators. You could stay "under the radar," so to speak, if mobile (car, RV, etc) but being on the periphery had it's dangers. You can become "invisible" to society, or find a "blind spot" to hide in, but can't make the mistake of thinking that it's a safe place. The reality is that people are always watching and you're often under camera in many places.
One common element of contacts with other homeless was that they watched me for days beforehand. People who immediately walked around introducing themselves were viewed warily for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it could be someone who didn't get it that being careless was dangerous out there.
The local police in the various areas were aware of me, had already stopped me at least once and my name, record (luckily clean) and vehicle were known to them. Dealers had already checked me out and knew if I were a customer, a nothing, or whether or not I was a possible informant or squealer.
A local Christian cult regularly checked in on the homeless to recruit new members (and add any of their state or local aid to their coffers). There were vigilantes who constantly watched or harangued us, called the police over real or imagined crimes and of course, the homeless who watched each other and could spot a kindred spirit even in a large crowd.
I always assumed people were watching me, and that each pair of eyes had attitudes about what they saw, and it wasn't always pity. Most minorities and certainly women know that feeling of constantly being watched in public. Which is why the young panhandler and I didn't notice much about each other, we were both too busy staying aware of our surroundings. The scene in the book does paint a picture but the details weren't physical but physiological.
...women and money...
There is a strong undercurrent of feminism in the book. These days the issue has become as diffuse as a religion, and has political, social and emotional dimensions, and the latter was very present in the homeless world. All of feminism's successes and failures, and the best and worst of male attitudes were present.
The core issue, in my mind, is power over women and what men have done with that power. A male dominated system isn't really about superiority over women. That's a concept that only a specific subset of males who are afraid of or hate women believe in.
The real damage to women is that male domination is an exclusion from the economic game of life. Such competition isn't just an element of poverty and homelessness, it's also a major factor in issues such as feminism. Discrimination is about exclusion, which historically is about domination of other males and the pecking order of wealth and opportunity. In other words, it's a man's world.
Power is said to a corrupting influence, but harassment reveals much about the abuser's psyche. A traditional male patriarchy mandates the protection of women, but like many systems based on power, that sense of responsibility can be changed on a whim or not applied to women who don't toe the line. The Madonna/Whore dichotomy or fallen woman stereotype is very much part of a carrot and stick application of the doctrine.
Some men will point to cases of women who've harassed men, or women who screwed them over, which only proves the point about power, and like any argument which cherry picks anecdotes to advance a generalization to discredit women, it's proves nothing. I wouldn't assert that Americans are all criminals by using prison convicts as an example, and no sensible person would take me seriously if I did.
...battle royale of the sexes...
The Battle of the sexes was lost a long time ago. Women haven't won yet, and complete victory for either side isn't a sure thing.
Men had centuries to create a viable system of second banana style womanhood and instead couched surfed until it could only be maintained by physical and economic coercion. It was only a matter of time before women began to realize, probably after the last of the saber tooth tigers died off, that their main predators were males.
That's in the broader sense of theory. Most of the actual battles on the legal end of the issue are about opportunity, and economic competition, which is the most contentious aspect even between males. That's the easy part, the social aspect is more complicated, though it should be noted that on the whole, men and women do get along.
...social verses law....
That brings up an interesting point, which relates to any issue, which is the difference between legal and social change.
The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution that avoids addressing social behavior and mores, which was not only considered the province of churches and other such groups, but because of what has happened historically when social behaviors were criminalized.
A society does have to make acts like murder illegal, even if the law can't prevent such crimes. In the case of dueling, for example, it was once considered an honorable way to settle disputes. It had to be outlawed for a number of common sense reasons. That was a case where societal attitudes changed, but even after it was outlawed, men still did it for the same reason, that it was seen as a definitive way to settle things.
These days, most would agree that dueling is a bad way to settle differences, but most fist fights are just duels that stay within the law. It's a social behavior that persists. The law serves the useful purpose of containing that behavior so (most) people don't get killed over money or honor and we know that it doesn't necessarily change the underlying attitude.
Laws to mandate equality between men and women are the same thing, it simply seeks to at least contain the behavior associated with discrimination and a realist realizes it changes very little in terms of society. There'll always be men who'll marginalize women, and will do so in every way they can get away with, but changing the laws does create change.
Again, that's just the broad picture, mainly the battleground of theorists, armchair generals, politicians and those who want to sell something.
The reality is that most of us read what the various experts say and argue about, but on the personal level, men and women just work it out among themselves. Men who want a housewife can wait till one comes along, and women who want to be independent can go ahead and do it. It's not a perfect process, but life isn't cut and dried.
Any real change will always be societal, about what actually happens in daily life. Marriages generally work, men and women get at least part of what they want, and most love each other and try to make each other happy.
Also, stripped of any notions of power or maleness, all of the fun things men like to do from hanging out in man caves, watching sports, or whatever don't need to go away. Being a traditional or macho male is perfectly fine but would be better as a stated sexual preference, as there are women who prefer that. Very little would have to change if women became truly equal to men. The alpha behaviors described as maleness are a stereotype that traps both sexes.
If men collectively changed their view of women, it wouldn't be seen as weakness. Historians would cite it as one of the most momentous evolutions in modern history, a paradigm reversing centuries of oppression, though it'd be best to do it while men still write most of the history books if credit for the feat is desired.
...another point about the mentally ill...
I started a thread in the last entry about the mentally ill, and will continue that in a later blog, but want to address a point here.
People talk about the mentally ill (out there), and focus on the extreme cases as if that's all there is. I've talked about the apathy present in many, and others have described it in harsher terms like laziness, lack of desire, drug use, criminality and so on.
The thing is, there's a lot more mental illness out there than even the troll element makes out. That apathy was a symptom, that I understood after being out there for a while. A lot of that is depression, often untreated.
People don't just pop up in camps and streets, they end up there after a chain of events turned catastrophic. Sure, there's drug use, severe mental illness, but also victims of financial disaster, elderly on fixed incomes priced out of homes, and women whose only escape from abuse in an overheated real estate market means sleeping in a car (if they were lucky).
The point is that being homelessness isn't necessarily what devastated them, many were damaged going in. I can't tell you many of the people might be able to work their way out if simply treated for depression, but I know more than a few could. Drug abuse is generally self medicating, and frankly a lot of what you see as a homeless person can make drugs, many of which are cheaper than Big Pharma products, seem attractive.
The harmful part of making the homeless look like a bunch of druggies and crazies, besides affecting societies' willingness to handle it as a human issue, is that it can trigger or aggravate a lot of conditions like shame, guilt, and other emotions of defeat that can prevent people from seeking treatment. Yet in most urban areas, mental health help is available if the homeless could be made to feel that there was no shame in it. That's a problem in regular society too, and the solution is generally stated as awareness, and support.
Much of what you see in the media about the homeless is true, it's just that it's a small part of the picture, the images most likely to create strong emotions, generate clicks and feed narratives. The reality is that there's a lot of people, both deserving and undeserving, and in varying states of pain and distress, and much of it treatable.
One of the biggest lessons I learned out there was that the acceptance and support I got from the Internet, was decisive and kept me from giving up. Acceptance didn't feed Ivy and me, but it kept me from giving up even after severe setbacks. It enabled me to ask for help, and while self esteem comes from within, having it reinforced by others makes it possible to believe when everything around you seems to indicate otherwise.
...changes...
I'm going to be changing the look of this blog. As you can see, I'm adding images from a sketchbook and other graphics to break up the text-heavy appearance. The illustrations are going to kept as casual drawings from a sketchbook, as that fits the freewheeling sprawl of this blog.
Pen and ink drawing have been a love and hobby since my teens, so it's a definite pleasure to add those to the blog. Also, it's a good warmup, so to speak, as I've decided to illustrate the book. More about that in the next blog, as well as a section on my freelance writing and publishing days, and why pen and ink has always been my favorite media.
Note: All images copyright 2019 by Al Handa
-Al Handa
Main Boogie Underground Twitter:
@alhanda
The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive (some of the earliest entries):
