On The Road With Al and Ivy: A Literary Homeless Blog - Feb. 2021

"In this land of boundless expanses and unnerving strangeness, this land with which none of their memories were linked, the bunker was a semblance of home."

“Seems long to you, does it,” Steiner said tightly. He shook his head slowly. “It was yesterday, I tell you. Yesterday and today and tomorrow and always.”

- Willi Heinrich (Cross Of Iron 1955 - translated by Richard and Clara Winston for 1956 English edition)

"But there is no honor in this war, memories will be ugly, even if we win, and if we die, we die without God."

- From 1957 movie, "The Enemy Below"

Director Samuel Peckinpah's work was often pigeonholed into a violent, macho loser niche by critics in the 70s, and any philosophical underpinnings misunderstood or treated as thematic flaws. His visual art was judged by superficial elements like his trademark slow motion deaths (a technique now in common use in films). 

Those mainstream opinions, thanks to the Internet, have multiplied by a factor of around a million (calculated by net standards of accuracy) and certainly are valid, at least as personal opinions. As far as my feelings on the various critiques, none are relevant to what really is interesting about the subset of four films that resonated most.

 "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid," "The Wild Bunch," "Major Dundee," and "Cross Of Iron" all dealt with the themes of decay, change, loss of faith and physical distance. All showed people in the twilight of an era, stuck in degraded routines and duties played out over vast stretches of land that didn't add grandeur but emphasized their rootlessness.

Those themes struck home out there in the car. My homeless life played out in five locations, each quite different from the other. It all started up north in Marin County, then moved down south to Silicon Valley, and finally alternated between the farmlands of Gilroy and the coastal region of Salinas, with a short sojourn to the Sierra Foothills and Fresno.

It wasn't a search for home. Like with Corporal Steiner and his squad in Cross Of Iron, it was just a long journey shaped by circumstances and outside forces, and my earlier life as a well off worker in Silicon Valley was a memory that seemed more and more unreal.

...the cost of war...

The military aspect of Willi Heinrich's Cross of Iron, the book on which Peckinpah's movie was based, wasn't entirely relevant to my experience. Not because of any philosophical objections but because it was a story that could only be written by someone who'd been a soldier. All the research in the world can't put even an empathetic writer or observer in that state of mind. At best, points of view or accounts can be quoted to insert a sense of experience into a work, but it won't be the author's truth.

Sure, a Jack Kerouac or other master could write a book about war, and it would probably be a great one, but he'd either have to lean on another's personal accounts of combat, or substitute or transpose feelings from an activity that seems to provide a similar experience. Which is why Vietnam vet Oliver's Stones' movie Platoon would have more intrinsic truth than Saving Private Ryan, and the side question of which is a better movie is a discussion more in the realm of art (and commerce).

Which is why some aspects of Peckinpah movies related to my situation and only my situation. My book will make a strict differentiation between actual experience and observation or research. 

For example, I was aware of homeless camps and been through some, but had reasons to avoid living in those. Some based on what I saw, and some from what I'd read and heard from others. Second hand accounts can be described, but an understanding of what motivated someone to live in such groups would have to be derived through research. That may be good literature in a sense, but not necessarily truth.

...there is relevance, though...

One interesting subtlety, the various characters in those movies, who are failures to the respectable folk do teach an important skill; how to live with failure. This isn't a small thing. Focusing too much on winning can result in paralysis or self-punishment in the aftermath of losing. The nature of competition at all levels guarantees that everyone loses at some point in their life.

The soldiers in Cross of Iron did experience the same feelings of rootlessness and loss that the homeless had. Contrary to some critics and reader comments about the book, that it was "talky" and "slow" at points, it was in fact very much how many human beings will act and think in such circumstances. Many American comments, for example, came from people who grew up watching war movies where the morale officer was depicted as a trivial idiot, and the conclusion of a tense plot is some pyrotechnic. Losing was an unthinkable outcome, like a heresy.

Which is admittedly oversimplifying, but many Americans don't understand homelessness and that's not a criticism, just a fact. Most opinions on the subject are observations and judgements filtered through Puritan or Darwinian (i.e. Capitalism) attitudes. There's been no real comprehensive study of the phenomenon and most "experts" that the media do quote on the subject are speaking from a small sample size or vast statistics that are open to interpretation. "Homelessness" is basically treated as a single catagory, and at worst, a stereotype.

Most modern images of the homeless are stereotypes (which I've discussed in earlier blog entries), and the actual diversity of the scene is great enough that I had to limit the scope of the book to what was actually seen or heard.

...critical discussion...

I recall an early critical discussion of the Cross of Iron movie, and the negative comments seemed to focus on the seemingly irrelevant philosophical discussions. The western point of view is more about men of action who get things done and chase women (or want more action scenes), and there isn't much appetite for self-examination.

It was a surprise to run into homeless people who did engage in philosophical explorations. In retrospect, it shouldn't have been. Most intelligent people will try to understand how they found themselves in such a catastrophic situation, and are acutely aware of what was lost.

Now, I'm not saying that we discussed Newtonian Agnosticism or chaos theory (though I did give some thought as to the absurdity of making all soda sizes .99 cents at a gas station sale. I mean, will people actually chose the smaller size?), but more than a few had astute descriptions of the scene or had evolved a viable survival strategy, which doesn't come to one dimensional types.

The soldiers in Corporal Steiner's unit weren't simply losers or outcasts (another critical characterization of Peckinpah movies). Most by sheer survival of the fittest had become very smart soldiers (Nietzsche's Supermen?) who whatever their differences (or how Gumplowicz describes the shaping of society via conflict) could rely on each other. Their disillusion (Sartre's other side of dispair?) didn't preclude trying to live on to go home (or was Thomas Wolfe right, you can't go home?). The idea that they were "losers" (or Bukowski's vision of rebels) is really a western idea, where success (Spinoza's attainment of perfection?) is calculated against metrics (mainly money given that we're a dialectical materialist society). 

However, it's best not to overthink such things, as Steiner says in the book, "it seems to me that philosophy, too, finds new questions in every answer."

All of the characters in the aforementioned Peckinpah movies had been successful in their younger days, or experienced a time when they were winning the game. Aside from the lost optimism of youth, they were all still the same person, and in most cases, considerably smarter than they had been. Survival is both a skill and instinct.

...time waits for no one...

What changed was the era, due to the movement of time and the implicit loss of freedom. In the Wild West, the setting for The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, being an outlaw was probably as free as any other life choice, at least in terms of not having to having one's life run by the military or some tycoon. Pat Garrett loved Billy The Kid, yet later in life, they had to be enemies because "law" had come to the west, and he had become a lawman to survive.

In Corporal Steiner's case, time had brought the realization that the war really wasn't what he thought it was, that it had become a remorseless machine that just went on and on and ate up lives to no real purpose. 

The Cross of Iron book, of course, is richer in psychological detail than the movie, and it's interesting how his perception of time evolved. Rather than become a existentialist who only lived in the present (as some war books or movies would depict men), his past moved into closer view and influenced the present. An entire lifetime was vividly alive in his head, so his emotions could fluctuate in an unpredictable manner.

...childhood's end...

That happened to me; events from childhood merged with my view of the present, like a filter that colored every perception and situation. It was such a complex web that I began to think that it was due to some mental illness. It didn't help that early on, due to sleep deprivation and poor nutrition, I suffered from periodic hallucinations. Had the police or other authorities caught me in that state, I'd have been at least temporarily held and tagged as just another mentally ill transient. In my book, you'll find that I almost was.

Luckily, it didn't go in that direction, and one reason it didn't was that there was an archetype of a person who had a vivid merging of past and present, aggravated by poor nutrition and exhaustion. That being Corporal Steiner, and if he was sane, so was I. That's the difference between a good book and literature that speaks truth.

"Thou art the god, thou art my lord, etc. This was in heathen Babylon, some three thousand years ago. Since then, the world has moved on—"

- Upton Sinclair (The Profits Of Religion)

In medieval times, priests served a vital function in the armies: they made sure that the peasants who served as coerced unpaid infantry, forgot about the Ten Commandments long enough to kill the King's enemies, but quickly return to being happy with their humble lot in life.

Their status as all knowing experts on the Word of God helped with a variety of ills that could afflict the fighting morale of armies; such as conscience, fear of dying, pacifism, resentment over being exploited, and dismay at the entitled ingratitude of the nobility towards their sacrifice. The good and noble Lords of the King got into the spirit of things too, enthusiastically torturing and executing any soldier that offended God's favored servant, the King, with a variety of methods that were zesty tonics for the recalcitrant and cowardly.

That might be an overly cynical view of those shepherds of men's souls in the glorious, but grim task of enriching Kings who only answered to God, but the Internet has proven that similar influencers and experts will always be needed to guide flocks into absurd and illogical behavior, or in modern times, spend money.

...in defense...

In defense of priests and other types of sages; there's now a host of aimless souls with disposable incomes not derived from sweaty back breaking toil, who no longer have the simple task to serve or die, and are thirsty for guidance navigating the bewildering responsibilities of choice in a complex modern world, particularly in the west, where artificial intelligence hasn't yet reached the point of being able to decide things for them like the good ole days.

 

It's not easy figuring out which vegetable will increase your life span, how to relate to a partner without personal communication, or finding a socially acceptable outlet for bigotry. In a materialistic world where people regard God as a rabbit foot keychain, there still is a need for people who can provide guidance and stifle dissent. Even the Communists needed commissars to keep the workers paradise ship shape and feeling that old time religion.

The word "expert" now has the same power as the old phrase, "it's the will of God." It should be noted that this doesn't always apply to the Internet where it's not necessary to identify as an expert to give relationship or financial advice, diagnose mental illness in people you've never met, and of course, expound on theories covering all aspects of diet and nutrition.

...a short disclaimer...

I should add at this point of the essay that I'm certainly not referring to you intelligent and discerning readers who visit and enjoy this blog.

The media needs experts to ensure that customers aren't distracted by crippling doubts as to where the information came from or suffer the mental paralysis caused by pondering if what's being said is actually true. The Giants of Commerce need influencers to assist in the holy task of making life as expensive as possible and ensure that money is concentrated into the ever shrinking number of hands of the truly deserving.

Quoting experts is now like waving the cross or flag in earlier times. It simplifies the issue; any skeptics are recalcitrant cretins and the like minded are rallied to the standard. Which is good, as arguing over every fine point of an issue (though the Internet has opportunities available for those who enjoy doing that) wastes precious time better spent on online games, waiting for a superfood to work wonders on your body, or, if truth be told, arguing over every fine point of an issue with strangers (but on more agreeable and relevant subjects).

...once upon a time...

There was a time when the title of "expert" meant that the person was really an expert (I'm only speculating here, I'm not sure there actually was such a time). Before the net, there were less media outlets and only those who could truly provide unassailable commentary to further the point of a news story and sell commercial time could get the gig. 

However, with the number of news and commentary outlets now estimated at five zillion (a number derived from the same methods used by political event organizers, which should be accurate enough by Internet standards), the demand for experts now exceeds that required for testimony in lawsuits by a factor that some experts estimate at four superduperquadrillion times the norm. That may seem like a lot, but still only enough to fit on the head of a pin.

That's a lot of experts, man, but necessary in an age where vegging out time with the phone or big screen TV is precious, and not to be wasted thinking about complex issues, like for example, wondering which of a hundred brands of guitar will make you into a rock star. After all, most guitars are the same anyway, and thinking too much wastes valuable time guitar makers could be spending making their owners richer.

...absolution...

There's also the vital job of absolution. Falling short of high moral standards can cause feelings of guilt and stress that pharmaceuticals can't always relieve. People who fret that their phones and other goods are made in substandard sweat shops need assurance by experts and other butt kissing toadies directly employed by employers that "the company is committed to providing outstanding working conditions and above market level wages in a joyous environment that lifts workers out of the poverty caused by previous colonialist exploitation by ((http:// << fill in national origin of business here >>))."

I may not have worded that quite correctly, but close enough I think. To achieve the great aims of capitalism, the captains of industry are more than happy to help absolve the customer of any culpability in the evasion of First World safety and wage standards. If that ain't priestly power, I don't know what is.

You, most alert and virtuous reader, may have noticed that the essay seems to concentrate on process and not policy. That is to say, not delineating how those who use and quote experts determine who is one. 

I can only say, when they know, we'll all know.

"JAM3:07 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:  JAM3:08 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."

- King James Bible

...ban the book...part one (to be continued next blog entry)...

Banning a book meant more before the advent of the Internet, when access to the written word was limited (Nowadays, blocking your internet access is the modern equivalent). Plus in eras like the 50s, much of the public trusted the various gate keepers who controlled access to the printed word in the name of protecting public decency.

It's more of a symbolic act these days, and more often than not, posturing to get media coverage or even increase demand for a book. In fact, even being involved in a sex scandal or committing a crime can induce yawns with a jaded public so finding that juicy grey zone of outrage that'll get people reaching for their piggy banks gets more elusive by the day.

The whole idea of banning books is more about the concept that information is power. In this case, people are kept from reading a book based on the judgement of a few who did read it. They shun the work on faith, trusting in the judgement of the gatekeeper or gatekeepers that it's a tome that would cause concrete harm to society, or some such thing. That's assuming the protected public gives a crap, of course, but let's assume every book is important for the purposes of this argument, shall we?

...these days...

These days, banning a book, particularly a public domain classic that can be easily downloaded, is an act that really has no real world effect. You can't stop distribution and there's no economic damage to an author who's long gone. That doesn't mean a ban has no effect at all. For a new author, getting proscribed or attracting grass roots opposition can be disasterous.

...the interesting thing...

What's really interesting is the relationship of gate keepers (most being self-appointed), and the compliance of those who accept instruction to not read a particular book. Understanding that process gives one a real insight into the mechanics of power via control of information (and ideas), and what is supposedly being protected. 

Say, for example, some historian or activist says that Mein Kamph by Adolf Hitler is dangerous or Darwin is blasphemous, and a large portion of society then assumes that's it's bad and never read the work.

That's a form of faith, which can be as harmless as thinking anyone rooting against your football team is an idiot, but the issues that surround both of the aforementioned books do get debated and influence actual laws and social behavior. In that case, the debate can become manipulated by a few who actually know (or think they know) what the books said.

Most of the people who throw the word fascist or blasphemous around haven't read the books in question. They end up arguing in terms of symbols, throwing around terms like Nazi or heathen, or bypass discussion by dismissing the unconvinced as dingbats of low intelligence.

...black and white...

There is an absolute (in my opinion); people can't intelligently discuss a book they haven't read. Period. You can quote someone who has, but it isn't your thought or conclusion. Now, there's no law that says you can't comment on the bible, for example, even if you haven't read it. Plus, in most democratic counties, you can even advocate the banning of a book you've never read. 

However, try to say that a diet consisting of bacon and steak won't shave lots of pounds off the hips and there'll be calls to prove it by those who have studied nutrition data (we'll avoid the larger question of what valid data is) or the even larger number who started the diet because some website said it was guaranteed to give you a swimsuit booty. To be fair, eating burgers and steak to lose weight is an attractive concept so even having proof that it doesn't work may not sway the carnivores. That gets into questions about faith, so we'll avoid such bends in the road in the interests of staying on point.

Like I said earlier, a century ago, banning a book was a more powerful gesture. Books and paper media were once the equivalent of the Internet (the info side that is). The more educated fascist type now knows that to cut the public off from ideas, it's better to cut off Internet access, and it's really the same idea, as most bans are aimed at a person or single idea (book, movie, etc).

...control...

If people are content to just assume Mein Kamph is evil because someone says so, then having it on every library shelf won't make any difference. Sure, some fascist types might get all tingly reading it, but they were already inclined to be Jack bootees. Plus in the personal sphere, sociopaths don't need a handbook by Hitler to control people, they already know how.

The problem with such an atmosphere isn't that certain books won't be available, as the Internet pretty much guarantees that won't happen. It's more of a concern that people may want to cut off your access. I use the word access because it's impossible to read every book ever written, so it's silly to say people should read every banned book. But if an issue or work interests you, a free society should allow that research. In fact, encourage it, as it reduces the amount of hearsay type arguments that can devolve into who or which expert is right.

The essence is that while books are safer now, the concept of suppressing an idea, or voice hasn't gone away. The anarchic freedom of the Internet also permits the social control or suppression of a person or their voice as expressed in a blog, web site, or social media account.

I'll do part two in the next blog entry, and get into specific examples.

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

There are earlier blog entries on the Delta Snake Review section of this site that aren't on the On The Road page:
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2021.

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.

The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video of Ivy.

On The Road With Al and Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - Dec. 2020

"Here we were heading for unknown southern lands and barely three miles out of hometown, poor homely old hometown of childhood, a strange feverish exotic bug rose from secret corruptions and sent fear in our hearts."

- Jack Kerouac (On The Road - The Original Scroll)

In the pale moonlight, which lent a wanness of its own to the delicate face where thoughtful care already mingled with the winning grace and loveliness of youth, the too bright eye, the spiritual head, the lips that pressed each other with such high resolve and courage of the heart, the slight figure firm in its bearing and yet so very weak, told their silent tale; but told it only to the wind that rustled by, which, taking up its burden, carried, perhaps to some mother's pillow, faint dreams of childhood fading in its bloom, and resting in the sleep that knows no waking.

- Charles Dickens (The Old Curiosity Shop)

One of the things that young children like to do is form clubs or groupings that can blur the lines between fantasy and reality. It is, in essence, the creation of worlds that the kids can step in and out of, to enjoy a different life or situation or even seek protection.

These fantasy worlds can teach values, and the concept that people can maintain an identity or viewpoint that the outside world might not approve of or believe in. At best, it can create vision and a conviction that the world can be changed, and at worst, trading individuality for protection and belonging within the context of a gang or mob.

This isn't the same thing as a dream, which is a goal that can give direction to a life even if unfulfilled. Like an athlete who keeps in shape and out of trouble to be ready for an opportunity, a dream isn't always simply a faith or wish but something that gives shape to the present.

These early groups, both informal and formal (like the Boy Scouts), become archetypes that we fall back on to bring order or coherence to a chaotic or desperate situation. We also can even see virtues in criminal organizations that mimic models stressing loyalty or courage.

...the man from U.N.C.L.E....

In my childhood, I was recruited into the local chapter of U.N.C.L.E. (From the 60s spy series) which was organized by another fourth grader, Richard, who felt that the then current craze for Batman and the Monkees was for little kids. What was impressive at the time was that he owned the actual Man From U.N.C.L.E. spy kit, complete with pistol, code equipment, and a very official looking badge.

The spy ring wasn't very large; mainly because membership was only open to those who had the guts to execute perilous missions, and the fact that I was apparently the only one who measured up. In any case, the Sunnyvale branch was even smaller than the local Boy Scout troop.

I was able to rise to the level of senior agent after procuring a rather cheap but serviceable cap gun, and was able to accompany Richard on patrols to root out and eliminate the members of K.A.O.S., which was from the wrong show (Get Smart), but a much cooler enemy to save America from.

We'd creep around, peeking through fences and closely staking out weed patches that could conceal evil doers until the cops, who were called by concerned neighbors, put a stop to the missions. My embarrassed parents made me quit and if the truth be told, it was a relief as the cost of caps was eating up an allowance that could barely cover the cost of model airplanes and glue, and that our attempt at stealth was a miserable failure as it seemed that everyone knew about the secret organization and brutally teased me about it.

Still, it was fun while it lasted, and that sense of belonging was an instructive lesson in the value of groups and how qualities like loyalty is created by the person. No group mentality can really instill that; it's a creation by each member and can involve the building of a world that may not make sense of the universe, but can bring order to it.

There is another such world that comes to mind. Like all constructs, it's an imperfect analogy, but it resonated with a lot of people. That being the world of Mario Puzo's Godfather.

 

"War isn't an art, it's business"

- Kenneth Roberts (Lydia Bailey)

"It’s all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it’s personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather."

- Mario Puzo (The Godfather)

The Godfather by Mario Puzo hardly needs introduction. It's a classic and many of it's characters and passages have entered into our folklore and vocabulary. It spawned two great films and one pretty good one, and will be read by people a hundred years from now. It's very much like Homer's Iliad, a work that people in ancient times loved to hear over and over again even though the story was well known.

The most famous phrase, "it's not personal, just business" has popped up in many movies since then as a standard phrase for gangsters and businessmen (who are often interchangeable). It essentially means that this or that action was done purely for business reasons, and has the secondary purpose of giving the speaker an air of pragmatic professionalism.

It goes without saying that the story is filled with people who take things very personally.

That axiom and other phrases in the book are a thin veil of reason covering the cold blooded criminal activity from which the Corleone family builds it's power and wealth. Puzo's genius is the willingness to be a dispassionate narrator, so that the reader gets a real feel for the Mafia world and their value system. 

The problem with any dispassionate account is that in presenting the Corleone Family code of loyalty and honor is it can become a virtue system for those who see nothing wrong with a predatory business. There's plenty of those types in a capitalist system. The assertion that it's the reality in the legitimate world does have some truth to it. After all, the only difference between Alexander the Great and a common pickpocket is a matter of scale.

...the great conquerors, and Robin Hood...

The dressing up of crime with virtue or other qualities is a common human trait. Alexander conquered what we would now consider to be third world countries and is seen as a great man. Genghis Khan did the same thing to Europeans and was seen as a barbarian. This isn't simply a matter of racism; Napolean Bonaparte was seen the same way by the coalition of Kings and Emperors that opposed his European conquests.

The Robin Hood myth is a similar situation. The story dates back to the 1300s, and could have one of a few different origins (from the metaphysical to the revolutionary). The most common modern image is that of the adept archer who "steals from the rich and gives to the poor."

The Robin Hood we now know stems from books written in the 17th and 18th century, and the classic 1938 film with Errol Flynn. In fact, most films since have made no serious attempt to change that image of the heroic archer dressed in green. 

That image of a generous bandit fighting the evil Sheriff Of Nottingham is a common one found in a lot of different cultures, and stems from the historical perception that the legal arm was often corrupt or muscle for the privileged. That was often the case, of course, and even today in many countries, it's hard to tell the difference between the government and the crooks.

...basic ethos...

It goes without saying that the basic ethos, to rob from the rich and give to the poor, can hide a multitude of sins, which can include corruption and murder, which are overlooked or forgiven if the right right people are the victims and the common people given a cut.

What's overlooked is that these heroes have one quality in common that makes so many identify with and revere them. It's not their sense of loyalty, which is just common sense and good organizational tech, or pragmatism in the face of oppression. As far as giving to the poor, that's just good business practice (and always accompanied by a brutal willingness to kill anyone who snitches).

The reason so many people love those characters is that they were winners.

A classic film by director Martin Scorcese called Wise Guys showed a group of gangsters who were brutal and greedy with a code that was based on fear and a hatred for authority. The movie audience enjoyed their charisma, but none ever entered the pop culture canon because they didn't win.

I've talked before about Phillip K. Dick's book, Solar Lottery, whose characters ascribe great virtues to someone who's lucky or a winner, and it applies here. People overlook the darker actions of characters like Michael Corleone or Robin Hood, who would kill to get their way and just assume the victims were just people who deserved it, or more specifically, died according to the rules of a game that had winners and losers (with no one was forced to play).

...signs of a winner...

It isn't just crime. The notion that money or power gives some sort of pass is true, particularly in America, as both are signs of a winner. Most politicians, businessmen, or even celebrities only get called out on their transgressions after their run of success has ended. If you're making a lot of money for someone, you can be a swine but be viewed as a Saint.

The various levels of The Godfather book (and movies) are pretty well documented and analyzed, and that's not surprising given the complex, layered nature of Puzo's work. So other than what I've just talked about, there's no point in bloviating further on the points of loyalty and other parables as it adds nothing new to the discussion.

Now, the book itself, that is to say, how Puzo told the story, is of particular interest. The narrative differs from the movie versions in that the characters' thoughts and motives are described in much more detail. It results in a story that has more emotional complexity and a definite strain of black humor that runs throughout the book.

We're not talking about laughing out loud humor, but where one can see the absurdity of a passage, even if the thought or situation makes sense. There is a scene where one of the bosses, Clemenza, is saddened by the thought that the younger killers preferred the gun to the garrote (to strangle the victim). Puzo's narrative is perfect, and can be read as a quiet meditation about the loss of old virtues, or a satiric look at the civilized veil the gangsters have put over their ruthless business.

...all for one...

That expert mix of levels is reminiscent of an earlier classic, Dumas' The Three Musketeers, which was intended as a light satiric work, but now seen by many as a straight adventure tale that extols the virtues of chivalry and courage. It can be seen both ways, as Dumas' dry humor is from an earlier age and isn't obvious to modern readers. 

Dumas makes it clear that there is a satiric underpinning when d'Artagnan is introduced as a young Don Quixote, but what was obvious back then isn't so much now. An early scene where the young man, who's been instructed by his father to make a name for himself by fighting anybody when the opportunity arises, tries to pick a fight with a mysterious stranger is a masterpiece of dry humor.

d'Artagnan thinks he sees a gentleman in a coach mumbling something insulting about his humble horse, and attempts to pick a fight with him. On the surface, the various cues that the young man sees as grounds for a duel are gestures that could have sparked a scrimmage back then. 

However, the affronts are all in the young man's impetuous mind, and in spite of the gentleman's arrogant but impeccably polite attempts to sidestep the situation, the future Musketeer draws his sword to force the issue, and it looks like a traditional duel is about to begin.

That is, until the gentleman's friends and bystanders suddenly intervene and beat the budding young duelist to a pulp with stick, shovel and tongs. An ignoble end but certainly for his own good. The effectiveness of the passage is all about timing, and Dumas' ability to mix the trajectory of a glorious gentleman's duel with a subtle buildup to a burlesque ending. It was good enough to survive translation from the original French to English, which is even more remarkable.

...dry humor...

The Three Musketeers is a book full of people who extol the time honored virtues but often fall short, and always in a very human way. Dumas gives the characters a great deal of humanity. They aren't caricatures. We can see a little of us of d'Dartagnan's attempts to become great. His motives are no different than a modern person trying to get ahead in life. 

What do both books have in common? Characters who espouse and say they live by an inspiring code full of honor and courage, and who don't see the contradiction in their knavery, cheating, killing and thievery. 

However, how could the characters do otherwise? They were created to entertain and enjoy, and few pay money to see Saints (who are often boring or annoying). It's not Puzo's and Dumas' fault that their books are seen by some as some sort of ideal or reality.

So in the Godfather, when Clemenza bemoans the lack of character in younger assassins, we may not agree or even see it as black humor, but can sympathize with the idea that technology can often lessen our humanity. In his mind, personally strangling the victim may have been brutal, but it required that the killer see the life being taken and a personal sense of the reason. It wasn't as impersonal as the bosses made it seem.

...the reformation and war...

That's a fine line, and it's understandable that many may not see it that way. It does relate to real life, particularly in warfare.

Put another way, in ancient times, going to war was personal. You had to grab a weapon and kill the enemy by hand. As a result, early armies were small, and it took a lot to create a large scale war. Which happened of course, but it was rarely a casual decision. 

Technology has increased man's killing power a thousandfold, yet gives many the impression that war can be surgical and targeted in such a way that only the bad guys die. The accidental killing of civilians, as seen by a bomber pilot, for example, is almost seen as an abstract, a job that, well, isn't personal, just business.

Impersonal war does create the equivalent of road rage, both in the attackers and victims.

One aspect of world war 2 that isn't reported very much is that downed pilots were often attacked and even killed by civilians if the authorities couldn't get there in time. The bomber pilots could view their killing as an abstract act, but the effect of the bombs was anything but that to civilians on the ground. In fact, most experts now acknowledge that the bombing of civilians often increases the will to keep fighting.

The weaponized drone is a very modern weapon, but is really just an old fashioned bomber that doesn't put pilots at risk. It kills well away from the civilians who pay for it, who accept the assurances that every attempt is being made to limit civilian casualties (and let's them go about their daily lives without giving it a second thought). 

That impersonal and seemingly "surgical" nature has made drone deployment more and more frequent. However, drones have accidentally killed women and children, and it is considered an act of war by its survivors who do take it personally. Drones are more likely to trigger a future war than any nuke sitting in a silo, and the next major terrorist attack may well involve one and I doubt the victims will see it as purely business and not personal.

...back to Clemenza...

So the question in Clemenza's mind about how guns had eroded the old virtues could have another meaning. That is, the less humanity in any warlike activity, the more casual the cruelty becomes. Just because a fictitious gangster thought it doesn't make it any less true. After all, people are getting killed right now on our behalf with weapons financed with our tax money, so one has to wonder how much better we are in that respect.

...you've come a long way baby...

There's another aspect of Puzo's book that's of interest; his depiction of women, which was different from the movie versions. The Godfather films omit many of the story lines of the women characters. 

One character, Lucy, is just seen as a quickie partner for Sonny Corleone at the opening wedding scene, and in fleeting moments after. In the book, she was not only Sonny's long term mistress, but she goes on to have a very different life in Las Vegas after his death. Some of Sonny's character development is from her thoughts and interactions with him.

Such characterizations wasn't because Puzo was a feminist. He was far from it, and in his now out of print collection of essays, The Godfather Papers, he made that clear. However, he did see women as the saner sex. While the men were off doing their criminal duty, the world of home and family were seen as the true world in a sense. The Don's dictum that men weren't real men unless they were involved with their families implied that.

That's a subtlety, a finer shade of the notion that home and family are part of a successful man's world. The modern term is having a balance.

...motherhood...

Puzo in his essays said that God was wise to entrust the task of having and raising children to women, as men would screw it up. Which is arguably true; motherhood is often treated as a service sector job by traditional males, and their protection and support of a wife is conditional and subject to whim. His point was that men prefer the world they've built, and most wouldn't sacrifice that for a child. 

That's a 50s sensibility, of course, and one could argue that it now applies more to the subset of men who still feel that women are inferior. The evolution of old school masculinity into what amounts to a modern sexual preference (and not the automatic mainstream norm) is one of the great triumphs of the feminist movement, which has also liberated men more than they'll ever know. At least in some countries, much of the world hasn't changed much for women.

...macho, macho man...

Most macho dudes couldn't live the life they impose on women. Sure, they'll buy a bunch of toys to do BBQ when they feel like it, or accept praise not often given to women for paying attention to a kid, but in terms of sex and power, men completely don't get it because they see the wrong analogy. Joking about being raped or used by a woman is actually avoiding the subject.

The correct one is prison, where another guy (or guys) can make you have sex even if you don't want to (or are not in the mood?), and that happens day in and day out. You're not loved or cherished, and forget trying to voice any objection, just bend over punk. To be empathetic to the women's side, a man has to be willing to imagine being subject to the power of a male who regards you as an object. One would think that men who have to work for a jerk would understand the feminist point of view, but empathy isn't one of our strong points.

...the alpha thing...

Doing the modern Hollywood thing, like adding a woman who acts badass like the men, may be good box office, but ultimately adds no revelation to the issue and tends to simply validate the alpha male view. Being an apex (or wannabe) isn't an invalid personality or choice, but simply narrow. Keep in mind that for every conquering alpha like Alexander the Great, there was a whole bunch of apex men who led men to death and defeat trying to stop him.

The concept that women need protection by men (generally from other men) is due to thousands of years of conditioning and natural selection (by men). Women who were physically strong, too smart, or didn't prefer men were quickly given corrective action, transferred to the sex industry, or burned at the stake as witches. There's plenty of men who can't defend themselves or a woman, so the question of who's the weaker sex is actually more about what kind of world do we want to live in.

Puzo's book expressed more truth because of the uncompromising portrayal of the mafia world, and in giving females human traits instead of making them into T&A dolls and Madonnas. It also showed where his sympathies actually lay, which was laid out more explicitly in his essays. Puzo never wanted to romanticize the Mafia.

That's what I see in the book, anyway. Like I said earlier, The Godfather is a layered work that people will see different things in, depending on their point of view. Whether you enjoy the adventures of gangsters, musketeers, or bandits who rob from the rich and give to the poor, it's good to keep in mind that projecting virtue on such archetypes inevitably leads to at least some absurdity. 

Masters like Puzo or Dumas knew that, and it's a good writer who remembers to do the same thing.

"I can not write poetically; I am no poet. I can not divide and subdivide my phrases so as to produce light and shade; I am no painter. I can not even give expression to my sentiments and thoughts by gestures and pantomime; I am no dancer. But I can do it with tones; I am a musician…. I wish you might live till there is nothing more to be said in music."

- Mozart (in a letter to a boy who asked him how to learn to compose)

They say that music will save your soul, but any pitch to buy something, particularly music, should be taken with a grain of salt. The rhapsody over great music can range from a new paradigm of thought, to a strenuous projection of faith like the worship of bell peppers that look like the Virgin Mary, or that albums never have boring cuts.

When approaching the subject of music, it's a good idea to treat it like religion. That is to say, there's a difference between the spirituality, and the church, which is what happens when people (and money) come into the picture.

It's important to keep in mind that any music that requires purchase has only one goal in mind; to separate you from your cash. If the consumer won't buy a relevant uplifting message for these troubled times by legendary artists, then they'll try something else. Many times with the same legends even. Maybe some scandal, who knows.

A visitor from France in the 1700s once remarked that in America, that there were so many colonels that it was safe to address any strange officer by that rank (I can't recall the source, but will add that to a later revision of this blog entry). The same goes for music, as most artists who survive the marketplace to record a second album can be addressed as "legends," particularly if they've made a great deal of money.

What helps is that the music business is similar to professional sports, and has the appeal and satisfaction that any sanctioned snobbery, machoism, sexism, and hero worship can being to the table. It's not easy to display your superior taste, intellect or atavistic appreciation of real rock and roll to those cretins who prefer commercialized pap (who think the same of you).

What's more, thanks to the Internet, and decades of modern music publicists, the origins of music are as cluttered with conflicting theories and Godfathers Of Punk as diets and nutrition.

...modern music...

Music history is so shrouded in myth that it couldn't be elucidated within the confines of a blog entry, but the one image that could seemingly help a homeless guy, the image of musician as a romantic rebel that lives outside of society, is the least useful. 

Plus acting poor costs a lot of money. Plenty of musicians are broke of course, but it take an expensive well oiled publicity machine to make sure the buying public knows that.

It goes back to the notion that musicians were mere servants of the rich, which is also the case today but the more successful ones can afford publicists to proclaim that money isn't important with a straight face. The fact is, in the ancient age of Kings, everyone below the rank of monarch was a "servant" in varying degrees. 

Musicians who landed a good gig could count on a decent to great living, assuming they weren't cheated, and escaped the banal drudgeries of farming or taking a musket ball for the King. Even Mozart, who died broke, did so because his spending habits, not the cruelties of the music business.

In other words, very little has changed in the music business except that we're now expected to believe that an album doesn't contain any bad cuts, and that all artists are grateful to their fans. 

I'm sure some will say that all this a cynical view of the music business, but I'm sure most out there know that it's all very much tongue in cheek and no harm is intended. We all know that ((http:\ insert advertiser name)) commercial music has saved more lives than Jesus and continues to be a dynamic and positive force in these troubled times.

...music will save your soul...

I went into the homeless life with a great love of music that, like most of my old life, died and had to be reimagined. All of the cherished axioms like music will save or soothe your soul, provide deep insight into life, or that albums never have throwaway cuts, turned out to be like the old Church exhortation to endure one's lot to earn a place in heaven.

In other words, a lot of people will sell you faith instead of substance.

Don't get me wrong; I came away from street life with the same deep love of music, but it had been redefined. It's easy for a music enthusiast to get into acquisition instead of listening (or playing). Knowing the track order of over a thousand albums, or thinking that this or that edition of a release has a better mix is fun, but it's all a trivial parlor game to someone eating a can of beans for dinner.

It would seem obvious that for someone like me, who loves music to the point of fanaticism, that any book that springs from my imagination would be peppered with music lyrics and references. In actual fact, the book will have virtually no mention of artists and songs.

...emotion and practicality...

The reason is both emotional and practical. There wasn't a song that played any central role in any of the chapters, and there's no reason to pretend that any did for the sake of atmosphere or to make a hip reference. There was music around, in the air, like in a coffee house, but it tended to be functional, like the furniture.

One can add song references but unless it's actually a factor in a scene, why add free promotion for a song title that could date your work. The shelf life of most hits is a few months, and even old classics can bring in unintended perceptions from the reader's mind or go over the heads of others.

...walk on the wild side...

I remember reading an old interview with Lou Reed, who stated that he avoided using slang in his solo work. The reason was that songs from the 60s that used terms like "groovy" became dated and would often be dismissed by succeeding generations. Which is true; even a lot of Boomers will cringe listening to a song that talks about how far out or heavy this or that was. 

To be fair, adding song or genre references can be a means of placing a scene in time or adding atmosphere. In Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf, the differences between jazz and Mozart do play a role, but even then, the author doesn't rattle off song names. That conflict was part of the greater theme of change in the book, and it was the aesthetic that was important.

...some song names...

For example, three songs come to mind when thinking about the coffee houses in 2016. Angel Olsen's "You'll Never Be Mine," Case/Lang/Veirs "Best Kept Secret" and Copacabana Club's "Just Do It" all played regularly over the wall speakers back then in 2016. All are songs I still listen to, and now are evocative of that time, but back then, were what Frank Zappa once called part of the scenery.

Mentioning those songs in a chapter would require delineating the context and mood it created, and as we all know, describing music in words is a real half assed way to communicate how it sounds and affects people. It's better to talk about an artist, actually, rather than a song. Which is why movies and TV shows are the perfect vehicle for specific songs. There's no substitute for the actual music.

Also, those three songs were part of a hundred that aired one evening (in the book), and no one stopped what they were doing to dance or otherwise be set free by the music. I know that sounds cynical, but in real life, most came to drink coffee (or meet internet dates), and not to journey to the center of their minds.

There was also one important reason those songs, or any songs didn't resonate at that time. Once my ability to play music began to go away, all I heard most of the time was silence.

Like I had written in an earlier blog entry, it wasn't a case of seeing things coming down to one precious instrument. The expensive or rare ones went first, as those were the most salable and the feeling was relief. It was when the last cheap ones had to be sold off for as little as 20.00 that it hit me that the music was going away.

...the central pleasure...

The central pleasure, being able to play, couldn't be easily done out there. In San Francisco, for example, even the romantic image of buskers playing their hearts out for coins was alloyed by stories of musicians being mugged by other homeless for their instruments while playing in public. If one had an instrument of any value, it was best kept hidden.

It delineates more clearly over the course of the book, but among other things, the ability to pick up an instrument and play was one of the few choices I had. Being homeless exposed me to a lot of situations I couldn't control. Playing was part of my makeup, what I was. Keeping the two small instruments and having the option to play preserved that.

It was as described in the blog entry about the Kenneth Roberts book, Northwest Passage, where Colonel Rogers reminded the wounded character that he needed to survive to be able to fulfill his ambition to become a painter. The underlying principle was that higher aims were valuable to survival.

...more important...

Music, and writing became more important again over time. All those things that add up to a self image did. I saw that when people accepted being "homeless," many just spiraled downwards further into drugs or alchohol.

Hard core drug addicts are difficult to save and can pull others down with them. People who get drawn into their culture can end up addicted, or get in trouble by association. It's an identity that can't help survival. 

I never took a drink out there, or used any drugs. That isn't a brag, there were others who did the same thing. The reason was simple; if you spend any time out there, you really see the consequences of drugs. After the summer partying, you see the wreckage in the fall and winter. It's one thing to be out partying with friends, or on a bender at home. Doing that while living outside is very dangerous, especially for women. 

I had to be helped to get out of there, but even that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't in a condition to be helped. Holding on to an identity of musician and writer may not have helped in a way one could see, but at least with me, it was important enough to protect it by not becoming a drug user or thief. It was my process of course, others who survived had other routes and motives as you'll see in the book.

...Topanga...

There's one chapter in a coffee house, where I finish the edits on a musical number called "Topanga Reprise" that was recorded just prior to become big homeless. It was about a year later in 2017, and I found that it was a different experience than if it had been done earlier. 

It wasn't even a track I'd played on, I was mainly playing as support during the practice phase. It just sat there in my laptop for several months until the Ali Campbell UB40 Fan account on Twitter communicated that they hoped that I would continue to play music. Which was a surprise as they had given the blog a great deal of support, but I hadn't thought they knew I'd played.

I had gone into a dead period by them, not even listening to music very much. The fact that someone on the account took the trouble to find out that I had been in a group before and encouraged me to keep playing had a profound effect. A mere gesture, perhaps, but even small wins counted out there, particularly from a celebrity account.

It made me look around for a project, and I remembered the Topanga track and began working on it that night in a coffee house (daytime was out of the question in 90 degree heat with Ivy to care for).

I immersed myself in the rough track, and it felt like a return to the early joy felt when starting to learn my first instrument in the 5th grade, the violin. The old axiom that the brain is the real instrument became clear, whether the music comes out of a violin, or another vehicle, it's really about creation. 

It was clear then that something had changed in my mind about music, and that sensibility is still evolving now. Which is what it should have been doing all along before it got all gunked up with attitudes and the material dreams.

Though UB40s heyday was in the 80s, and had since split into two entities, Ali Campbell's UB40, and UB40, that's one case where a group name has to be mentioned as Ali's fan account on Twitter was intimately connected to my situation well before starting music again with the Topanga track.

There wasn't any particular song that "saved" me out there, but "music" certainly played a part in surviving as a better part of my self. To that extent, yes, music (and I should add, writing), certainly did help save me and my soul.

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

There are earlier blog entries on the Delta Snake Review section of this site that aren't on the On The Road page:
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2021.

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.

The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video of Ivy.

On The Road With Al and Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - August 2020

Just as many writers about 1930 had discovered that you cannot really be detached from contemporary events, so many writers about 1939 were discovering that you cannot really sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the sake of a political creed — or at least you cannot do so and remain a writer. 

- George Orwell (The Frontiers Of Art and Propaganda)

"...the Indian lovers, like the Indian haters, were satisfied with their own image of the red man".

- Stephen E. Ambrose (Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives Of Two American Warriors)

Childhood is described as a time of innocence, but kids often spend it lying, cheating, stealing and inflicting pain on each other; while parents try their best to contain such impulses, at least until adulthood where there's a time and place for everything. 

It's a time for learning your place in the world. Look at any children's toy section and it's obvious that sexual roles are defined early on, and as our perception of the world becomes more acute, we realize that the adult world seems to teach ideals and symbols but not reality. Living happily ever after in a big castle beccomes, in the real world, women doing the cooking on Super Bowl Sunday, and men getting to fart anytime they want (which is oversimplifying for the sake of pacing, but within the minimum standard for truth on the Internet).

A child's greatest tools to cope with the world, curiosity and imagination, are all too often treated as transitional phases to enjoy, then discard to assume the adult mantles of responsibility, conformity, and money grubbing. Luckily, the grown up world also teaches ambiguity and hypocrisy to help those who wish to customize the ratio of sin to virtue.

If childhood curiosity survives into the adulthood, it becomes a search for truth, and any subsequent disillusionment is really just a temporary phase in the process of discovery. The study of history is the passion that guides my life's journey, from the shiny symbols of childhood to real life.

It's not easy for a child to realize that there's a past, so we have to accept adult explanations about it. We don't realize that it's all filtered by adults deciding on what's suitable for young minds. They avoid exposing us to violent or erotic content (except in video games and cable TV), or explaining which political party is associated with Satan. Such matters are considered too advanced, and thus instead we're taught about dinosaurs; a subject that's politically neutral and doesn't need to be taught with any accuracy.

...Saturday matinee...

I loved the prehistoric beasts, but my real passion was Saturday afternoon TV matinees; a portal that led to a world full of muscular heroes like Hercules, beautiful women who were so much nicer than my second grade teacher, and coolest of all, men in colorful uniforms and armor who got to carry swords and fight monsters without getting scolded.

That's really as far as it went until I could at least read a comic book, which by fate was the old Classics Illustrated series. The main one was Caesar's Gallic Campaign, which transitioned my love of history into the world of literature, albeit with a lot of pictures and very little text.

The first inspirational book was Church's version of Homer for children. I checked it out constantly from the school library to the point where the librarian would hide it to make sure others could enjoy it. However, once she realized that I was the only kid who read it, it was kept available at all times.

I didn't check it out so often because the book was so good, but that at first I couldn't understand it. It was above my reading level at the time. It was a process of enjoying the illustrations at first, then gradually being able to read it later. I realized at the time that illiteracy was keeping the door to this wonderful world locked, so improving my reading skills became a priority. I was eventually able to read three or four grades above my level, and could have cared less about it (as an achievement) except for the fact that it finally made old historical classics available to me.

...the outline of history...

The book that ignited the passion for formal history was H.G. Well's "Outline Of History," which I read several times. It was the launching point for deeper explorations with other books, a panoramic view of history that was a perfect primer.

Formal history classes are like Sunday school or political rallies; lots of data that has to be taken at face value, or there's penalties, both officially or by peer pressure. It's hard to imagine doing it any other way, of course, as the biggest historical truth of all, that most of the facts are in dispute or subject to interpretation would make such a nuanced look impossible to teach to kids who still think dinosaurs talk. Finding out such tidbits that George Washington wasn't a saint was best left for later levels of education that have looser grading standards and beer pong.

Like most normal kids, I got through history class by putting down the correct answers on the tests even if I thought or knew different, and did the serious study offline. In defense of schools, it can't be easy to teach history in this loosey goosey era. Back in the 60s, we were taught to only trust "written sources," which were mainly encyclopedias and text books, but that axiom has become ambiguous with the advent of the Internet and the wide range of media now available.

It can make history seem like it has no real truths, as so much of it is in dispute, but that's actually the beauty of the subject. It isn't solely concerned with facts, but about process. The axiom that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" is only partly true. 

Those who don't know the process, that is to say, how history is created will often end up being manipulated. In other words, for those who treat history as some sort of gospel, one lie can be substituted for another, opinion or interpretation treated as fact, or data can be cherry picked and assembled into a biased or simplistic view. 

...a thumbs up digression...

One famous historical stereotype has some sundry Roman Emperor standing before "the mob" at a gladiatorial show, who raises his thumb (sideways)  to let the howling lowlifes decide if a defeated gladiator will be finished off or not. There's levels of nuance regarding power there, but also about how perception can color a historical event.

The mob is often depicted as a shiftless, indigent group dependent on the dole, which was partially true but much of the crowd at these popular entertainments were the employed and mercantile class that lazier historians (and certainly Hollywood) lump into that one image called the mob.

The moment when the Emperor raises his hand to let the crowd decide, the thumbs up or down was in effect, a momentary transference of absolute power to the audience who seemingly relished the opportunity to wield what is still considered, consciously or unconsciously, an ultimate prerogative of controlling the life and death of another.

In other words, when the hand went up, the crowd got a taste of being top dog and accepted that it was the Emperor's power to wield as he pleased. The people who cheered for thumbs up (the actual signal for death) or down didn't worry about acting like savages but were awed or filled with envy for a guy who was above the laws they were bound by. It wasn't just mob rule or appeasement, but a ritual that confirmed the Emperor's power.

...going to the movies...

It also goes without saying that the victorious gladiator was viewed as a rock star, both by the crowd then, and by modern warrior jocks.

The 2000 movie "Gladiator" reinforced the mob stereotype, but also inserted the more modern image of the gladiator as rock star, banding together with other bad asses like a pro football team to fight against the system and the Reaper of Death. A sweaty tonic for these snowflake times indeed! 

Movies from the classic period of the 50s and 60s had a more realistic view.

In the classic 60s movie, Spartacus, there's a telling scene when four of the gladiator trainees are picked to engage in pairs for the amusement of a party of Roman nobles. It shows them being fearful, and reluctant to even look at each other. When the first pair fight to the death, the winner, played by John Ireland, comes back into the pen and his face shows a very human reaction to having survived.

Ireland's face shows shock, guilt, exhaustion, fear, relief that he's still alive, and most of all, the crushing realization that his life is worth very little, that survival merely means a temporary continuation of the short, brutal life he's trapped in. It's true that a sociopath or psychotic would have done an end zone dance to celebrate the victory, but that's not how average men would react if they had to kill another man to survive.

There's another important, and historical difference between the two movie scenes; the earlier one was written by and acted in by people who'd lived through World War Two and the Korean War. They knew that death wasn't glorious, and that the loud talking warrior types were generally ones who hadn't seen combat. Prewar and postwar art and literature always differ in tone, going from light to dark.

...attitudes...

Such interactions don't have to be about life or death. In a more peaceful era, an all or nothing struggle can be about a goal or career. Audiences cheer or root against contestants in TV talent competitions, watching the defeated's anguish with fascination, jeering the untalented, and assuming the process produces an affirmation of time honored virtues; a game with winners and losers who will be then given the appropriate labels and judgements.

People often view winning and losing as a destiny, and the road up or down labeled with subjective moral attitudes. A good example is a drug addict whose life degenerates into homelessness. Ask a dozen people why, and you get a dozen different answers blaming it on anything from stupidity to sinfulness. None of those judgements will help a homeless person if it's imposed by another, any more than it would for anyone in the "respectable" world. People don't like having simplistic labels stuck to their foreheads. 

That's an important nuance. Many (but not all) of the homeless I met reacted in different ways to their life because of some moral judgement they were tagged with. Some were clearly depressed, afraid, and felt that it was a hopeless situation because they were told they were losers who "chose that life"  or "deserved it" by those they looked up to or thought loved them.

The effect of imposing labels is more obvious than people think. For example, men who become indignant at the concept of "white privilege" or "sexism" rarely see the irony when minorities or women chafe at the stereotypes applied to them. Any assumption of fault, or inferiority that's imposed on any group will act to keep them down.

...redemption...

An assumption of potential redemption and good in those homeless seems to do wonders with those lucky enough to be helped by an agency or group. The problem, as I saw it, in my fourteen months (and five different locations), was that there were more assumptions of fault and punishment floating around than helping hands. So many saw themselves as losers, which is dangerous as it can lead to apathy and acceptance.

Homelessness is a relevant example, as these modern attitudes or labels can become part of the "facts of a subject," such as the homeless all being drug users or fallen women. It becomes repeated often enough that people trying to understand the subject will use such assumptions as a starting point to their own research.

That, in a nutshell, is the genesis of a lot of "history." Attitudes that past nobility and privileged classes had, like the poor being a wretched lot that deserve no better, can creep along and find its way into the mores of the modern day. Otherwise enlightened folk who, for example, rationalize gentrification as making something of property that the poor didn't have the drive or ability to improve, echo a similar attitude that past Americans had when stealing land from Native Americans. History, or to be more accurate, human frailties, tend to recur in similar situations.

...back to the past...

A history book is theoretically the result of extensive research, covering a mass of sources that can range from written, spoken word, and personal examination of sites and artifacts. 

Those books become part of the body of knowledge that can be revised as new discoveries come into play, or sociological shift in attitudes change the emphasis, like with our current fascination with past sex lives and scandals. That can create the impression that older texts are no longer valid, but a true historian knows better. Past biases and attitudes explain the data, and provide context.

The wide range of conflicting data on the Internet can make it seem like there is no truth, but it's actually a chance to see history as a historian or researcher does. You can see what they see, but come to your own conclusion. That kind of access tends to go away and be replaced by more simple and comfortable orthodoxies, so while it may seem chaotic or even irritating, the Internet as it now exists should be enjoyed and seen for what it is, an unparalleled opportunity for individuals to find truth. 

...off to war...

A good example of a history book that's a step forward in knowledge of a subject (rather than a definitive look) is John Stevens Cabot Abbott's "The Life of King Phillip, War Chief of the Wampanoag People" from 1857. The central theme is Wampanoag Chief King Phillip's war with the Pilgrims and other settlers in the Cape Cod region of the United States in 1675, but the work also gives background on the Pilgrim landing on Cape Cod in 1620 and the Pequot War in 1636.

King Phillip was the honorary name given to Metacomet, the son of Wampanoag Chief Massaoit, by the white settlers who did so to avoid having to learn to pronounce his actual native name. The American habit of not respecting foreign names started early. 

Massaoit had refused to take an English name, but allowed it with his son's as a peace gesture. After his death, Metacomet became the new Chief, or more correctly, Sachem, and events described in the book finally led to a very bloody war that began in 1675 and lasted for three years.

It's a well written work. Abbott keeps the narrative simple and does a good job of delving into the political and sociological aspects of both the Pilgrims and the Native American tribes in a clear and surprisingly candid manner. Although there is a strain of white prejudice that permeates the work, the book is a clear advance over earlier histories that treated events purely as a triumph of western civilization over barbarism.

He documents Pilgrim war atrocities like the routine killing of Native American women and children, and the reason, which was to prevent the propagation of future warriors (in other words, genocide). Early histories tended to touch only on the massacre of white settlers, but Abbott makes it clear that there was ruthless behavior on both sides.

The exception to massacre was when a tribe could negotiate a surrender, or individuals were taken prisoner after a defeat; then as the author relates about one such incident, "We blush to record that the boys were all sent to the West Indies and sold into bondage. The women and girls were divided about among the colonists of Connecticut and Massachusetts as servants." 

In fairness, it should also be noted that such behavior was objected to and decried by most of the military commanders and that the selling of prisoners into slavery was done by town officials who disregarded any negotiated conditions of surrender or protestations that it would encourage reprisals.

...watching your back...

Another thing that makes the book remarkable is that explains why the tribes were wary of the settlers. For example, the original Pilgrims were attacked while trying to find a place, and instead of just going with the "bloodthirsty savages attacking whites" narrative, Abbott records that a few years earlier, an English ship came to the area and welcomed the tribes aboard, only to imprison those who did and sell them as slaves in Barbados. It was a known incident among the tribes and colored their attitudes towards any white settlers.

The Pilgrims were also aware of that incident and it influenced their diplomacy. In the early days before the wars began, they made it a point to establish good relations, and only settled on land that was legally purchased. They also strictly avoided retaliatory attacks if a raid occurred by rogue warriors and instead took complaints to the various Chiefs. It wasn't just an exercise in good politics; they were heavily outnumbered and fighting a full scale war with thousands of warriors was beyond their ability.

Abbott makes it clear that both sides had leaders who tried to keep the peace, but were constantly beset by troublesome personalities that eventually created enough strife to move events towards war.

In my own book, I detail the rise and fall of some homeless camps and enclaves, and the arc tended to be similar. There'd be people who tried to keep it peaceful and off the grid, but as the numbers increased, there was always a loss of control and eventually enough troublemakers to force local civic leaders and authorities to disband the camp.

....and the women...

The book is also an interesting look at how women were regarded and treated back then. The modern narrative is that tribal women were like animals and treated like dirt, while white women lived a much better life with a lot more freedom. Which isn't how this book treats the subject.

It's clear that although women generally ranked lower than men on both sides, two of the tribes that the Pilgrims were anxious to keep peaceful were led or heavily influenced by women. The descriptions make it clear that the male warriors regarded them as Chiefs or the equivalent and obeyed them as such.

...Awashonks...

There is an interesting account of the Pilgrim envoys who came to visit the female Sachem named Awashonks, who led the Soykonate tribe which could field 300 Warriors, and who had sold land to the Pilgrim Captain Benjamin Church and others. Despite the fact that King Phillip's Wampanoag tribe could easily overwhelm her, she allied with the English.

That is, until her warriors later made it clear that they wanted to go to war against the English. A modern (that is to say, sexist) interpretation would be that she couldn't control her tribe, but that's because the English, and later, the "Americans," never really understood (or respected) how a tribe was run.

The march of civilization in Europe included the concept of rulers with absolute power, or at least that image. Early Kings and Queens were actually often similar to the Sachem Awashonks, in that they led but depended on a consensus of nobles or the army.

The Soykonates were run like most of the other tribes, in that each warrior decided if they wanted in or out of a fight. After an often vigorous debate, if they wanted to go to war, they would go. Anyone who didn't want to go could just stay home. Awashonks reluctantly decided to lead them, as it was her tribe, and the fact that she wasn't all in wasn't held against her. Later on, after the Warriors began tiring of the bloodshed, she was able to command the tribe to withdraw from the war.

Early Western historians tended to view this as weak leadership, and the warrior's reluctance to take heavy casualties in open battle seen as cowardice and inferior to the practice of, as a cynic might suggest, standing up within musket range of the enemy and dying for the enrichment of a few. However, we can discount such frisky talk about Indian cowardice as war jock talk by those who'd need an underwear change if goaded into a 17th century battle line.

...everyone with a brain took cover...

The fact is, both sides fought the same way; firing muskets or shooting arrows from behind any available cover. In one engagement described in the book, a small force of Pilgrims fought a group (probably Wampanoag) that outnumbered them by a ratio of fifteen to one. Both sides held back for practical reasons. The Pilgrims, led by Captain Church, didn't have the numbers to charge and the war party saw no reason to take unnecessary casualties charging a force that was trapped and heavily outnumbered. 

The battle lasted over six hours, and it was obvious that neither side was willing to expose itself and more importantly, engage at a rate of fire that would have quickly exhausted their ammunition. In the case of Church's men, being unable to fire would certainly have brought on a charge by an overwhelming numbers.

The small English force slowly retreated towards a nearby river, and the attackers let them as the move would leave no line of retreat. As it turns out, a small ship arrived to rescue them. The captain had heard the firing and steered towards the sound. Although this ticked off the attackers, they accepted failure and didn't try to throw good money on bad by making a last minute attack in the open. It was a practical attitude, even if it was described as a Winnapoag defeat at the hands of a small heroic band of soldiers who inflicted "heavy" enemy casualties (though the author admits that an exact figure wasn't available).

...plenty of detail, and the first best seller...

Unlike the lives of the Pilgrim women, Awashonks' life was described in detail, without reference to feminine duty or supposed weakness. As her story was recorded by her enemies, she must have commanded respect back then.

One exception was a Pilgrim women who was taken prisoner in a raid, which was a rare occurrence as most were killed on the spot (albeit after torture in some cases). She was Mary Rowlandson, the wife of Rev. Rowlandson, who was held captive for eleven weeks and eventually ransomed.

We know this because she wrote a book about it, "The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson," which went through four printings and is considered by some to be America's first best seller. It's still read today, and available as a public domain ebook, and judging by the reader reviews, is inspirational to many as a testament to faith and her undeniable courage. Unfortunately, to some, it's proof that the Indians were a lying pack of savages.

...a lesson from history...

Her book illustrates a point for women to remember and take to heart; that to be part of history, it's best to write it yourself and not depend on others to do it. Rowlandson probably was only thinking of writing about her experiences, but the heavy emphasis on religious themes made it an inspirational book to friends, who persuaded her to publish it. 

Women writing books about abuse or rape, for example, are in many cases doing the same thing as Rowlandson and creating a body of work that in some future time will provide historians and sociologists with a wealth of personal information beside the usual dry stats or sensationalist observations by males, like Abbott here, who generally describes the lives of women in laconic terms as casualty statistics or victims (with the appropriate level of shock).

Abbott draws heavily on her book, and what's apparent is that it wasn't just a stock adventure tale with bloodthirsty Indians (with the English only guilty of not bring pious enough, which was remedied later in the Salem Witch trials), but also a story containing a wealth of details about Native American life that probably wouldn't have made it into anything written by a male combatant or observer. 

...I see you...

That's because her account wasn't describing tribe members acting under observation.

When I was homeless, one of my friends found out I was a writer, and his conversation changed from women and food to earnest speeches about living free outside of societies chains and so on. Good friends are scarce out there in the streets, so I'd patiently listen to all of it, but it drove home the point that people will act differently if they think they're being observed. Which is why Mrs. Rowlandson's book was not just an example of the "Captive" genre, but a good source of sociological data.

There's a tendency in history books to treat a tribe as a single entity or mentality, which in some cases is a necessary narrative device, but groups of people rarely act as one. They often lurch forward with a complex mix of agendas, motives and goals. In Mary's story, many distinct Native American personalities emerged, and a lot of small details were documented that give a sense of how the tribe lived on the move (there was an English Army in pursuit).

...motive...

Abbott's narrative tries to give the reader a sense of the motives of the Chiefs in the two wars, and in particular, describes King Phillip as one who was prescient about the ultimate goals of the white settlers and the real future of his way of life. By the time of his war, the pilgrims had been there for fifty years, and had evolved into a different group than the original Pilgrims.

As Abbott described it, "with prosperity came avarice. Unprincipled men flocked to the colonies; the Indians were despised and often harshly treated; and the forbearance which marked the early intercourse of the pilgrims with the natives was forgotten." It went both ways, Sachems found it difficult to control members of their own tribes who went on raids in retaliation and the book shows the two sides gradually edging towards conflict and war.

King Phillip knew the lessons of the earlier Pequot War, and had resolved to not attack until a full alliance of tribes was formed to create an overwhelming force. However, the actions of a few miscreants on both sides forced his hand and the Wampanoags went to war before all of the preparations were completed. 

Even so, he nearly won, and it took three years to defeat him. The English couldn't cope with the wide ranging hit and run attacks that made later tribes like the Apache, who used the same tactics, so hard to defeat.

Even when King Phillip's fort was located and attacked in a bloody massacre of men, women and children, it didn't end the conflict. It looked like he could have continued the long, drawn out type of war that the English feared could happen, until a clumsy move by Phillip to draw the Mohawks into the war backfired and they joined the English side, tilting the balance against him.

Those are the general details of the war. What makes the book interesting to the average reader is that it was a remarkably candid book for 1857, and more honest than the narrative in modern times. Abbott's level of sympathy for the Native American tribes was at least at the level of James Finamore Cooper's Pathfinder series, which was, in that era's parlance, an "Indian Lovers" set of books.

...by the way...

It might be interesting to know, but the Uncas character in Cooper's "Last of the Mohicans" could have been based on an actual person. Abbott relates that there was a chief named Uncas, who led the Mohegan tribe that allied with the English in the Pequot War.

...all about context...

"The Life Of King Phillip" does have to be read in the context of being a good historical source, and with a historian's eye for bias. Abbott views the Native Americans as prone to laziness and deceit, to name one example, and though he does clearly admire King Phillip and others, they are seen as exceptions to the rule. 

That tends to color his descriptions of the battles where the warriors often retreated or refused battle due to the supposed superior fighting qualities of the English. Later histories make it clear that tribal warfare involved engaging in pitched battles only when success was certain or when trapped. In fact, the King Phillip War mirrored later guerrilla wars like Vietnam and Afganistan, and had become a bloody stalemate until the intervention of the Massachusetts tribes on the side of the English.  

Wampanoag warriors who survived the end of the war faced execution or slavery in the West Indies, which was a controversial move even in the Colonies, and the two hundred or so who were set free rejoined other tribes who were universally indignant over the treatment of the prisoners. The aftermath influenced future attitudes towards the white settlers.

While not a perfect history, it's clear that Abbott did his best to be fair and report the truth as he saw it. Given the level of detail, it probably is an important source for anyone researching that era.

...the era of settlements...

The author lived in an era that saw white settlement as a crusade to make America into a God fearing, and profitable land. His source material was most likely dominated by material written by people (including Rowlandson) who saw the Native Americans as savages or worse, and it took at least some moral courage to state that white men's treaties were often worthless, that the treatment of prisoners was disgraceful, and atrocities were common practice by both sides.

The book is early proof that attacking villages and killing women and children were an accepted part of Indian warfare, and that stories of white women routinely being raped by warriors weren't true. Abbott felt that the Chiefs, or more correctly, Sachems, often showed more political awareness and dignity than white leaders. It frankly is, in spite of its faults, a better book than some later accounts and certainly more enlightened than 50s era cowboy and Indian movies.

The reason is that a historian wrote the book. If Abbott had lived in this era, I would imagine that he'd have written it more like Dee Brown's Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, though that's my conjecture from what seems to be the author's personality that projects in the book.

...to the process...

Circling back to the point about history as process. My interest in history as a hobby and passion makes it possible to read the book, take what's good out of it, and not accept it all as gospel. My background as a writer helps me see the personality that's being projected, and recognize that it's excellent readability shows a strong ability to construct a narrative from a mass of data.

The point isn't that history contains no real truths, but that a serious study is more like an investigation, with the sources often just eye witness testimony and a lot of hearsay. A few versions of any story down the time line can also be colored by attitudes injected from later eras.

...women and history...

A good example of bias is the role of women in history, which is certainly more extensive and documented than many history books would suggest. In many eras, women were just as educated as men and not just sitting at spinning wheels like old movies would imply. There's plenty of literary writing and personal accounts by women in past eras that simply weren't included in past books or credited as sources.

Ken Burns' documentary about the Civil War wasn't a revelation to the general public just because it used actor's voices to move the narrative forward, but that letters and accounts by women like Mary Chestnut emerged as important voices to document the era. Voices that were always there.

...process again...

The process of history is easy to understand if it's treated with the same reverence given to buying a car or big screen TV. Many people will pore over the specs of various models, ask a lot of questions about it, test drive and determine what's best, but accept what a media talking head says about complex issues at face value, no matter how silly or biased. Simply knowing historical facts or having all the data at your fingertips doesn't stop people from making the same mistakes because it doesn't change human nature. 

The study of history is about good research. Abbott's book about the King Phillip War is just one book, not the gospel on the subject. In my mind, I'd need to read more before developing a real feel for the era, and since there's no hurry, that might take a while, but until then, my mind would be open on the subject.

If one can examine a source from the past that way, it can be done with one from the present, and that's what makes the study of history relevant. It's another tool to help a person think and come to the truth, instead of just accepting what you're told.

The price could be high. The data could lead to a conclusion or view that is out of step with peers or society, and expose you to ridicule or hostility. But as any true historian will tell you, what you think and believe is always more important than approval. 

In the case of history, or art for that matter, your real audience and judges may not have been born yet.

"Thus we take the name of Devil to signify not persons only, but actions and habits; making imaginary Devils, and transforming that substantial creature call’d Devil into every thing noxious and offensive..."

- Daniel Defoe (The History Of The Devil As Well Ancient As Modern, Part One of Second Edition 1727)

"I have heard it said there are men who read in books to convince themselves there is a God...if any such there be, and he will follow me from sun to sun, through the windings of the forest, he shall see enough to teach him that he is a fool, and that the greatest of his folly lies in striving to rise to the level of One he can never equal, be it in goodness, or be it in power."

- James Fenimore Cooper (The Last Of The Mohicans)

Note: Essayist now inserts a collection of odds and ends masquerading as an essay...please note satirical tone at points...also, this is Part 1, part 2 will come in October...

The concept that God tests your faith with hardship or disaster isn't a divine notion;---it has the stain of human hands all over it. Although in truth, most homeless probably give it at least a passing thought. That's merely one view:---There was plenty of God out there, and in fact, you could choose from a wide range of flavors.

Want a stern punisher calling down misfortune as punishment for a wicked life or a loving Deity that forgave all sins? Perhaps one that accepts credit and debit cards;---to be surrendered to his earthly Angels in exchange for a chaste life begging for donations, or the One True God that rules in upscale temples where wretches like you are considered undeserving of God's bounty of Cadillac SUVs and four dollar coffee.

To be fair, there are quite a few examples of secular stupidity, as religion doesn't have the monopoly on that sort of thing:---but since everyone has been labeled an idiot at some time in their life, perhaps treating it as a taboo subject, and acknowledging cretinism as a universal experience would restore civility to religious discourse. Such a truce would last maybe one minute on the Internet, but we should always try to aim high.

Religion isn't the only doctrine that has been turned into a temporal power trip. Darwinism has been codified by Capitalists into a power structure that's often meaner to the poor than the Church was, and modern Science often chases money and produces click bait studies more often than truth (whatever that may be).

...faith...

Once a faith resides in a church, then Jesus, or more specifically, those who act in his name, can seem to be as capricious as the Greek Gods, that bunch of elitist egomaniacs who only helped mankind if they were paid. Which might be an unfair thing to say about Zeus and his compadres, after all, he didn't ask for the job; He was probably happy enough being the child of Hera and Titan (if author Robert Graves is correct) until the Priests decided that religion needed to be a Game Of Dudes.

That transition to a patriarchal religion was obviously more involved than how I put it, if it actually happened that way, but accurate enough by Internet standards and for the purposes of this essay. Those who wish to defend the Greek religion or offer corrections in the comments section may do so. Please note that it's moderated so any rude comments as to how I came into this world, about my parentage, links to upcoming movies or how to earn 5,000 a week in your own home will be edited out.

The concept of churches isn't unique to religion. Most organizations, particularly political ones, behave pretty much the same way and can display the same human frailties and emphasis on conformity. The earlier mystic Christians, like Saint John of the Cross, wrote that the individual's relationship to God, or one's conscience as the Quakers would put it, was the main connection. Which I'm sure was a concept that at least some of the early Popes wanted out of the canon ASAP.

...hello Dalai...

Several years ago, I had the privilege of hearing the Dalai Lama speak at the Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, California, and he said an interesting thing; that there were many paths to God and that each culture had it's own way to get there. That's probably too open minded a statement for many cultures and churches, but it makes sense to any individual who sees the tacky cavalcade of money grubbing Evangelists, cults, ministers who engage in politics or abuse, and believers who think everyone who doesn't think like them are going to hell. 

It makes sense because one can reject all that and find their own path to God, and whether someone else thinks you're going to hell, or just plain superstitious, is irrelevant as it's all about conscience, not approval. That's a principle that applies to any area where a person defines their own self; from politics, sexual roles, spirituality or sexuality, the concept of following one's own conscience applies.

...safety first...

To be clear, and for my own safety, my book doesn't attempt to resolve the question of what God is. If Saint Thomas Aquinas was right about God being an infinite power, then such things won't be completely knowable in my lifetime anyway. Plus, spirituality in the Native American sense, the concept of "listening to the wind" made a lot more sense when the only thing separating Ivy and me from nature was a car window.

God didn't save me, but the path to him did. Even my mistakes and failures were at least in the right direction. The alternate routes like drugs, crime, gaming the welfare system, or becoming an expert at street life were dead ends. Movies or TV shows can make it seem like the streets are full of winners, but in real life most are drowning and the worst off were the ones who didn't even know it.

I think that the search for God can be more valuable than actually finding him. Here on earth, such journeys all too often end with a human at the end of it, and as we all know, humans make lousy Gods.

End of Part 1...

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

There are earlier blog entries on the Delta Snake Review section of this site that aren't on the On The Road page:
http://deltasnake.blogspot.com

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2020.

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.

The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video of Ivy.