On The Road With Al And Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - Nov. 5th, 2021

"Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."

- H.L. Mencken (Prejudices, Third Series, 1922)

One of the decisions about "The Quitters" was how “historical” it should be. To a certain extent, it has to be, as most of the scene described in the early chapters was centered on late 70s era Broadway Street in San Francisco (part of the North Beach section), no longer exists. The strip clubs, particularly the (in)famous Condor Club, are still on the corner of Columbus and Broadway, but muted and now are rather ritzy “Gentleman’s Clubs” which are a far cry from the sleazy dives (complete with Barkers) that extended in a line further down the street.

Two landmarks are gone, victims of the times, gentrification and high rents. The first was Enrico’s, a famous coffee house and restaurant, and Finnochio’s, the bar that featured cross-dressing performers, both of which are mentioned in chapters for color and as part of the story. Gone also is the pinball parlor that was next to the Mabuhay Gardens, smoke and magazine shop, and bookstore (not City Lights, which was further down and across the street) that I frequented when up there for gigs or shows.

Some of the other locations in the book, such as the Caffe Trieste, which is one block up Columbus, on Grant Street and the Saloon, which was a blues club across the street from it, appear to still be there, though in what form, I don’t know. Which isn’t important, I remember both well enough to describe how the two looked back in 1978.

I'll have the same problem when the scene shifts to Southern California later on.

…period piece…

So, the story will be a period piece, and the attitudes, speech, and behavior of the characters will be typical for that era, without 2021 attitudes and biases. I’ve noticed in articles about Broadway Street that the perceptions range from approval that the low rent aspect is gone, to nostalgia about the seedy bohemian atmosphere of North Beach. I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Since Broadway Street is central to the story, I should give a basic description of it, and you can trace the route on Google Earth or maps to get a clearer picture, though what I’m going to describe is what existed in 1977, not 2021.

Broadway begins at the east boundary of the Presidio, which is up North, right by the Golden Gate Bridge. It runs eastward, starting in the Pacific Heights district, all the way past Chinatown into North Beach. Starting at the Columbus Street intersection; on one side there was the Condor Club and assorted strip joints, a bookstore, smoke shop, Enrico’s, and other assorted businesses that led up to the pinball parlor and Mabuhay Gardens across the street. Once past those businesses, the street continued east towards the Embarcadero near the Waterfront and Pier 9.

…north beach…

That last section, mainly North Beach, was considered lowdown (aka bohemian) at the time (though a lot less so than parts of the city now), but a major draw for tourists. The Barkers outside the strip clubs, whose job was to lure customers in, are perceived as an obnoxious element now, but were considered part of the local color back then. Some were even minor celebrities, though all worked under the shadow of the most famous wayward star, Carol Doda. In spite of the notoriety, it wasn’t a red light district in the classic sense of the word. Most of the prostitution (at least the visible presence) was actually down south, centered around Mission Street in the Tenderloin, which was a different place than it is now. It’s good to keep in mind that Mission street is another long boulevard that cuts through other districts.

As far as the amount of historical detail, there’ll be just enough to give the stories the proper amount of context. Since it’s going to be a novel, I do intend to take some liberties, such as creating composites, etc. These days, the concept of a historical novel has become diffuse, and often subject to approval or disapproval by fans with a wide variety of viewpoints. The more detail there is, the more the discussion about the book can be sidetracked into disputes over accuracy.

…historical points…

For example, one article I read stated that the Mabuhay Club used strip club style Barkers, which I never saw, but perhaps that was true earlier on. It doesn’t serve the purposes of my book to get into a debate on that point (though it goes without saying that the writer in me saw some epic possibilities in creating fictional hucksters to populate the sidewalk in front). I decided that such characters didn’t serve the greater truth, which was that the venue housed a vibrant music scene that grew on it’s own, not because people had to be hustled in from the street.

The punk scene was wild enough, anyway, and my main concern is capturing it all and to avoid just conjuring up a freak show to merely shock (though as an artist, I do reserve the right to sensationalize and pander as necessary) or exaggerate my importance in the scene (though again, as a literary option, I reserve the right to make the main character embody the best qualities of stardom and legendary musical ability). There’s already enough material accumulated that I’m going to have to create composites and fictional characters to fit it all in (though finally, true to my uncompromising devotion to the fictional form, I reserve the right to make shit up and create outrageous situations to titillate as needed to transition readers to the paid chapters).

…going down memory lane…

I had two priorities, and a decision to make. The priorities were to reconstruct the history of the band (to make sure my fictional version was different, so I can discuss that period in the blog without creating spoilers) and to gather enough information to describe roughly what the area looked like in 1977. The most important decision was whether to use actual names of people and bands. I’ll probably follow a middle course, where much of the geographic detail is accurate, and use some artist and band names on the periphery of the story to give some context but not use them as characters. Certainly in the last part of the book, the account of the Sex Pistols concert at Winterland needs to be historically correct.

Reconstructing my band’s history was a lot easier, since I remember most of what happened. One thing that did fade in my aging memory bank was exactly how many times we played at the Mabuhay and when. That’s not a critical detail in the novel, but since this is also being done for fun, it was interesting to track that information down. As said in the previous blog entry, information on who played at the club is sketchy, and what little there is focuses on the various headliners. The shows generally featured at least three bands, and sometimes a fourth, which is a lot of history that isn’t documented.

I was able to get the dates from a site called the Punk Music Catalogue (https://punkmusiccatalogue.wordpress.com) in England, which has a surprising amount of detail on the bands that played at the Mabuhay, and a nice collection of flyers grouped by month and year.

…pass the ointment…

I found the six dates we played as “Ointment,” from 1977 to 1978, though the seventh as “Black Legion” wasn’t listed. Our first gig was going to be with Nuclear Valdez, UXA, Animal Things (who changed their name to Negative Trend), and us. The headliner, Nuclear Valdez, had to cancel after getting into a car accident on the way up to San Francisco (they were a South Bay band also), so the Avengers filled in on short notice.

…the bands that play together, stay together…

Dirk Dirksen, the promoter, had a system (described in detail in the book) that often resulted in groups of bands playing together as they moved up the ladder. Off the top of my head, our band played on two shows with the Avengers (already headliners), UXA, and Negative Trend. When UXA and Negative Trend moved up, we played a couple of shows with them, and finally when the latter began to headline, they kept us on their bill for a couple of shows. At that point, we got a headlining gig as Black Legion, and unfortunately, that was the last show for us.

I don’t have detailed information on the last shows with Negative Trend (who changed to Negative Trends) and as Black Legion, but the other bands on those nights included SST, Sleepers, The Liars, and Statics.

…a brief survey…

A brief survey of the headliners and other popular bands included; Crime (one of the earliest to play there), Nuns, Avengers, UXA, Negative Trend, Tuxedo Moon, Mary Monday, Mutants, Liars, Statics, Magister Ludi (a personal favorite after Negative Trend), Sleepers, Psychotic Pineapple, Readymades, The Dils (from Southern California), Nuclear Valdez, Novac, Seizure, Dead Kennedys, and the Offs. That’s just a bunch off the top of my head to give you a sampler.

My personal favorites were Negative Trend, Magister Ludi, Mutants, The Dils, and Psychotic Pinapple. The first two had the most spectacular live shows that made my jaw drop at how close to the edge they got. I liked the Mutants and The Dils for their songs, which were well crafted, and the Pineapple were cool because they emulated the 60s Psychelic Garage Bands like The 13th Floor Elevators and the Seeds.

I also liked the Nuns and Avengers, who were on the bill with the Sex Pistols at Winterland. The book will have a detailed account of that concert, which I’ll write from memory, without research (other than making sure of the date, etc), so that no second or third hand accounts slip into the narrative. There are descriptions of the event based on the bootleg (mostly from the KSAN-FM simulcast) which aren’t entirely accurate, as the mix isn’t what was actually heard live.

…put it on my account…

My account will also describe the mixed reaction of the audience. The show was a sellout, but a large number of tickets were scooped up by scalpers due to the wide publicity, but the price had dropped to a dollar by showtime. Many in the Mabuhay crowd didn’t go, and in fact, gathered at the club to listen to the FM simulcast. Descriptions of Johnny Rotten’s seemingly detached attitude was ascribed to the impending breakup of the band, but was also probably due to knowing that most of the crowd, besides the punks crowding up in front, were mainly tourists and Winterland regulars curious to see what the fuss was about.

However, it was a historic concert, and ranks in the top five of favorite shows (for me). In person, Rotten’s punkass attitude and charisma was a wonder to see, and yes, he was being flippant, with a hilarious disregard of the 70s rock star ethos. The SF punks were very good, but once the Pistols walked on to the stage, even the tourists in back stopped talking and starting watching. The English punks were the real thing and you could feel the change in presence when they came on.

…coming in December…

The December blog entry will feature a preview of the book, a look at the first three chapters, and a concise history and survey of the Punk music scene as it existed in late 1977. As an added attraction, there’ll be a piece about those artists who were called, or gave themselves the title of “Godfather Of Punk,” and how myths about rock music often end up being regarded as real history. It goes without saying, that all the subjects will be treated with strict adherence to Internet standards of truth and respect for others.

“New facts are seldom plucked from the sky; they have to be approached and smelled out by a process of trial and error, in which bold and shrewd guessing is an integral part.”

“If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, an idiot, and a bounder.”

- H.L. Mencken

If there's one thing more certain than death or trolling, it's that the world is full of stupid people with the exception of one person, depending on who's doing the talking. American democracy, as expressed through the internet, has produced the greatest number of stupid people in history, or more precisely, those labeled as stupid, though there is a small number who want to be called stupid by someone dressed in leather, plus those who admit to it, which, of course, repulses everyone who thinks they aren't stupid, the number of which being equal to the number who are assumed to be stupid by others. The logic is straightforward and obvious. [Citation needed by someone who is stupid to confirm this]

Nature is more just when punishing dummkopfs, as it only smites life forms which are actually stupid and unfit to have a social media account. If mankind took on the task of weeding out the stupid, it would result in an extinction event, as pretty much everyone has been classified as estupido by someone at some point.

…a true pioneer…

The greatest practitioner of the American science of sniffing out cretinism was the great journalist, essayist, satirist, and cultural critic, H. L. Mencken. He was arguably an elitist influenced by Nietzsche, a German philosopher who ended up as a patron saint of snobs, free market chest thumpers, elitists, fascists, wealthy people, political parties, and the happy few who know what real rock and roll is.

At his best, Mencken was a writer who was utterly fearless, and often very funny. At his worst, he could be irascible, opinionated, and elitist, which a good many people might think after reading his works. However, any writer who honestly speaks his or her mind will have both supporters and detractors.

Mencken had a simple outlook; he simply assumed that most of mankind was stupid, though generally ranking women and animals (such as amoebas and mackerels) higher than men in terms of intelligence. He did admit that men knew a lot, but called their skills “merely a congeries of petty tricks and antics, and their acquirement puts little more strain on the mental powers than a chimpanzee suffers in learning how to catch a penny or scratch a match.” An assessment that would be heartily cheered as “right on” by 50% of the population, and trigger butt hurt assertions about who built the skyscrapers and won every hot dog eating contest in the other 50%.

It goes without saying that if you think everyone is stupid, you’re going to be right at least some of the time, which is a principle that has ancient orgins, such as in Chapter 10, paragraph 8, of the Forbidden Gospel of Murgatroyd, the relevant fragment being discovered in a pile of cheap packing material in the dock area of a Chicago Salvation Army store in 1936, before the invention of bubble wrap. The passage, which was in Homeric era Ionian Greek reads, “Echt einst haha lol wee wee gomenasai ull-bay it-shay fignya,” which roughly translates in English to “Everyone is stupid except Zeus.” [citation needed, some experts assert that the fragment is actually a page from an Alabama cook book circa 1925]

…yet one guy wasn’t stupid…

One of the thinkers he admired was actually a male, the controversial and influential philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, and he wrote a book about his life and ideas, knowing that few would buy it, which in this country is a sign of true conviction (and of course, stupidity). The book, “The Philosophy Of Fredrich Nietzsche,” discusses, among other things, the analogy that Greek civilization had an artistic, introspective side in the God Apollo, and a wild-ass side in Dionysius, and at it's peak, attained a balance between the two.

Modern analogies to this delicate balance would include the concept of yin and yang, good and evil, sweet and sour pork, dogs and cats, bacon and plant based sausages, cola and uncola, and Democrats and Republicans [citation desperately needed on the last one].

Good examples of Apollonian inspired life would be ketchup in hot dogs, playing the nickel slot machines in Vegas, and gluten free food products. The Dionysian side would be represented by such things as hot dog eating contests, jeans that let the lower half of your buns show, and eating grapes in grocery stores before reaching the checkout area. Hopefully, these real world examples will make the sublime philosophical concepts clear to the average layman.

...here comes superman...

The most controversial aspect of his philosophy was the concept of a "superman," which was basically (and I'm simplifying here) an ideal person, one who attains the fullest potential and creativity. That term, which in German reads, “Ubermensch,” translates to terms such as “superman,” “overman,” or “superhuman” was said to be about a future state for men to aspire to, but has been subject to a wide variety of interpretations from creative types like the Beat Poets to Nazi’s paraphrasing it to justify the concept of a master race.

The idea of supermen is, unsurprisingly, attractive to alphas. One famous example of an artist who was influenced by one of Nietzsche's works, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," was Jack Kerouac, whose beat philosophy was overtly masculine and generally viewed women as part of the scenery of a life lived for art and pleasure, finding oneself in the company of fellow Dionysians who reject the strictures that others passively accept. In other words, intellectual guys being guys.

Whether Nietzsche’s relevant or not, is really up to you, but any study of his work is worthwhile if it’s from the actual source material and not what other people say it is. That goes for the Bible, Darwin, or any other text. One of his observations that's still of value, is that religions and systems of morality that are said to come from higher powers, are often just men putting words in their God’s mouths. Keeping tabs on, and if necessary, putting a check on the power of those doing the talking is still an exercise worth mankind's time.

...other books...

Checking out other H.L. Mencken books would be a worthwhile exercise for a writer or artist. Book writing courses tend to stress style, and what it takes to be a successful (that is to say, bestselling) author, but not always what it takes to find out who they really are or want to say as an artist. Reading books by people who were uncompromising, and seemingly impervious to criticism can give an insight into what moral courage is on the artistic plane. It’s not what such writers say, which one can find disagreeable or controversial, but how a personality or sensibility expresses itself in a work.

In other words, when reading Mencken, you know who’s talking; there’s no veil, filters or attempts to generate or avoid controversy. All of the truly great writers have that quality, to seem as if they’re talking directly to you. That’s not an easy talent to quantify or teach, even if the principle is simple and obvious, because, to paraphrase Mencken, it’s about finding the courage to be yourself.

Some of his books are free on sites like Amazon and Gutenberg Project, though the latter is recommended as it has a larger selection that haven't been repackaged as commercial products. I'd recommend checking out the free versions because, duh, it's free, but it’s also an opportunity to read whole works by the author before venturing into any commercial reissues or compilations.

- 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 - Oct. 2020

"We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen is temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"

- The Bible (2 Cor. 4:18) as quoted in John Bunyan's Pilgrims's Progress

I'll be debuting a serial novel called "The Quitters" in the first week of January 2022. It's a fictional account of a punk rocker who played in 1977 at the nightclub and restaurant, Mabuhay Gardens, which was located on Broadway in San Francisco, and was the center of the city's punk rock scene. The first part will cover a time period from the fall of 1977 to January 14th, 1978, the date of the Sex Pistols last performance at Winterland, which I saw and afterwards felt that the first wave in SF had begun to peak and to make way for the more successful second. After this, the story moves down to Southern California.

 The chapters are tentatively set to be uploaded bi-weekly, and there are other details which will be revealed in future blog entries which will come more frequently. There'll be another blog entry in November. The first three chapters will be free, so readers will have an ample opportunity to sample the goods and make their decision whether to move on to the paid chapters. 

Although I'm going to keep certain parts factual, most will be fictionalized and it goes without saying, any resemblance in the book to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental. I won't be playing coy either, the characters and plot will be my own invention. To paraphrase Rousseau, my facts may not be accurate, but I'll give you the truth.

...actually...

This was actually going to be the next book, parts of which were already in note form, but the priority was Hide In Plain Sight, and I was going to begin serious work on The Quitters after it was published.

However, that priority changed as the "Al and Ivy book" (which is what I actually call it in private) evolved. My original intent was to serialize the book as a feature of the blog, but after the third run through, I decided to make it into a true literary work (as opposed to the episodic quality of a serial). Which in other words, meant a lot more work. I'm figuring Sumner of 2022.

The Quitters was going to be a direct contrast to the Al and Ivy book, which will have multiple layers and a mix of literary styles. It's episodic, full of bits and pieces to add atmosphere and color and it's primary purpose will be to entertain and serve as the lone commercial project instead of monetizing the blog.

The blog is doing well, averaging from 30,000 to 50,000 visits a month, and monetizing it with click through ads or putting it behind some sort of paywall (like Substack, etc) is out of the question. All those things can stall growth, as my goal is 100,000 visits a month, and also, I enjoy the idea of a growing audience for my writing.

However, using it to promote a serial novel seems OK, and since it covers a particularly fun and adventurous time in my life, it'll be pleasure to do, which I can't say is always the case about the Al and Ivy book. 

...the end...

This is the last of the large bimonthly entries, and from now on the blog will be uploaded as often as needed to give updates on the serial, which I'll try to make sure includes some background history and trivia of the SF punk rock scene. That will also relieve me of the necessity to make my novel historically accurate (which would be a thankless task if you know the music business at all). Each entry will also include the usual literary essay(s) and drawing(s).

For starters, I've added two old Mabuhay posters as illustrations. I didn't have time to do any pen and ink work, so it's memories this time. The band I was in was called Ointment, and later Black Legion. We played a lot with Negative Trend, who were a very cool bunch and they helped us a lot. To this day I still think they had the best live show in that scene.

...the full picture of SF punk...

Most histories of the SF punk scene have an incomplete picture of the first wave SF bands (technically second wave after the original English punks and the Ramones, etc). Many of them are obscure now, and none ever reached the heights that the Sex Pistols, Clash, and others reached, but they were important. Many of whom I played on the same bill with, and still like and admire the music of.

These groups, plus the many support acts two or three per show), brought in crowds and made the Mabuhay Gardens a sort of punk mecca that made it possible for the next wave to have a showcase. By that time, an infrastructure of Indie labels were beginning to emerge that made at least cult stardom possible.

The punk scene in SF didn't evolve in a vacuum; the 60s and 70s artists were still around and mostly prosperous, disco was going strong, there was a vibrant folk scene, the major labels were busy putting out "punk" and "new wave" artists and using the 60s playbook to create a new myth and resurrect old catalogues by "Godfather's of Punk." All of that will be touched on for context, and because I enjoyed all of it.

...new wave...

With the exception of the almost simultaneous "New Wave," which even included Tom Petty at first, the general reaction to first wave Punk was derision, bewilderment, and more than a little disgust, even by some of the older artists who should have known better. 

Punk wasn't just a new fashion or trend, as it was described at the time, but the start of the inevitable changing of the guard, as the younger generation rediscovered rock and roll, and rejected the usual star making machinery and gate keeping the major labels engaged in. If it wasn't punk, it would have been something else, as each generation discovers music all over again.

That's admittedly an oversimplification, but punk was just part of what was occuring in all genres. Even disco was really a return to dance music, which was lost when mainstream music got too mellow, complicated, fat, and real tasty, man.

The resistance to Punk faded as time passed, and the list of artists who claim to be (or have a press agent get a music writer to say it) Godfather's of Punk now outnumber the list of actual punk bands that ever existed. Off the top of my head, I'd put it at around 1,234,758 Godfather's of Punk, but that figure might be off by a few thousand, as due to time constraints, I was forced to use Internet sources for the numbers.

That number might be inflated by the inclusion of artists over the age of 60 who didn't make music that even remotely resembled punk but have good friends in the music press or have PR staffs trying to find new markets for their catalogues. Eliminating that subcategory would bring the figure down to a more manageable 127, but complete historical accuracy might be elusive in the Internet age. 

...so, a novel then...

This is just another reason to write a novel. Everyone I'd interview for a history book would lie to me anyway (or give me press materials which is sort of the same thing), so why not eliminate the middle man and make my own myth about such a heady time?

The whole music scene, taken in context, is ripe for satire, which is why the book will be in the humor category, though even a truthful book about the music business would read like a parody of human behavior, full of fake Saints, liars, believers, and swine.

Satire used to be a single thing, a pinprick or a broadside into the hides of the rich and powerful, but it's evolved, like all genres, and the motives now include snobbery, political gain, and making it's audience feel superior and more virtuous. In acknowledgement of the complexity of satire in modern times, I've made sure that the satiric portions of this novel satisfies the tastes of all those target audiences.

...the making of legend...

Those of legendary status, both by acclaim or self-appointed, can be assured that nothing derogatory in the book can be traced back to them as my fictional characters will be given credit for most of the disgraceful and disreputable acts that occurred, particularly the most juicy, as by necessity they need to be interesting to readers. My apologies in advance to any who'll feel slighted by this omission that serves the great but pitiless principle called artistic license.

I should add that almost all of the first SF wave didn't benefit from the groundbreaking work they did, so the satire at times will be gentle, as a blunt tool is more appropriate to skewer the powerful, not the grand failures and deserving. Also, to be clear, this will be a book by someone who enjoyed his time as a punk rocker, liked many of the people in that scene, and has always loved and played music. Even in the most savage passages, you should see an underlying warmth and affection for that era. 

That said, all that will be described in the book will be my invention, and like the fable of the blind men examining different parts of an animal and getting different pictures, I'll only be adding another part of the puzzle of what transpired in the late 70s at the Mabuhay Gardens in San Francisco, California. 

...safety in groups...

There's an old axiom that says there's safety in a group that provides mutual protection from danger. The main reason any system of law works is that the people involved, who often have communal ties or loyalties, become involved either directly or as witnesses. Societies also try to instill a sense of morality, either through religion or ethics which hopefully adds a sense that transgressions are against the common good and have consequences.

The main reason this doesn't work all the time is the that the law attempts to do a difficult task, which is to deter crime by police response and legal retribution. In other words, enforcement is generally after the fact.

Any person, at almost any time, can commit a crime and if he or she is not known to the victim, has a good chance of getting away with it. Most crimes are solved due to stupidity (like doing it under camera), being a repeat offender who's often brought in on another crime, use of informants, and if there's evidence left at the scene. As a result, a lot of crimes never get solved.

...there's corruption too...

Another factor that can hinder public safety is corruption, where some in government or law enforcement have a vested interest in not fighting crime. The point isn't that public safety is purely an illusion, but that it's a mindset that depends on the hope or assumption that all of the parts will work. The problem with preventing murders, for example, is that those are often crimes of passion (or insanity) that aren't deterred by the fear of punishment (at least at the time).

Another way to put it is that there's times, situations, or zones in society where there is no actual law, and if there is accountability, it doesn't matter as the damage is done. Almost every homeless area is a de facto anarchy, particularly at night, when a lot can happen under cover of darkness. 

...a simple rule...

I had a simple rule while living in the car; to assume there was no law until the cops arrived. If the average response time was a few minutes, I assumed that for that time period, anyone could do anything to me and even if there was an arrest or intervention, the damage would be done. 

In certain areas like where there were camps, the cops could arrive quickly, but would have to go out into a pitch dark area and search for me, so I avoided those areas, no matter how safe and communal the transient enclaves seemed. 

As related in earlier blog entries, my homeless journey wound it's way through several places, and another axiom evolved, even though it was counter-intuitive, which was the more dangerous the city, the better the cops were. We used to talk about that out there when comparing notes about where to go. When a police force is having to deal with gangs, street drugs, murders and other felonies, they tended to not worry about giving out tickets or harassing the homeless. 

...it's the quiet ones...

It was the quiet, upscale places or small towns that had cops that could be cruel to transients. The one exception being certain places in Silicon Valley, as more than a few of the homeless were employed in the service jobs at high tech firms, not making enough to get a place in a overly hot real estate market that was already 100% gentrified. If you knew where to go, you could be left alone but that wasn't a sure thing.

The downside of staying in dangerous areas was obvious, the places are filled with dangerous people, and an important skill was how to tell if an area was safe enough to sleep in. Luckily I ran into some old timers here and there who showed me the ropes, so to speak, and that included how to read people and their intentions.

...variety is the spice of life...

You run into many types, the healthy and the mentally ill, and a lot of those who were in between, and after several months, I often wondered where I was on that scale. It's probably no different than in the real world, but it's more stark out there.

It also depends on your sex. Women run into more sociopaths, whose motives can vary from sexual possession to trafficking, and in the case of males, there's less charm and more territoriality. I saw more aggressive types, particularly at first, as I often made the mistake of parking in claimed areas or didn't realize that many normal gestures of acknowledgement could be seen as aggression. 

Believe it or not, I found that having a toy dog like Ivy was very useful, as her cutesy behavior often made us seem like a nonthreat. The downside was that she was a valuable target, and I had to always be careful where I parked if I had to leave her alone.

...the aggressive types...

The aggressive types are often the most visible to outsiders; when the homeless are quiet, people tend to treat them as part of the scenery or in the larger picture, a sight to avoid. I learned to value that anonymity, and would immediately leave an area where there was even a hint of aggressive behavior. It could be just harmless noise, an argument perhaps, but it could quickly attract the cops.

Dealing with aggressive types was one of the early problems that came up, and while there's much more dangerous types out there (you quickly realize that once you get a feel for that scene), properly dealing with such people is especially important for a male who doesn't realize he's not in a schoolyard or Hollywood movie situation anymore.

I never confronted an aggressive type, particularly one that was mentally ill. If that meant slinking away under a hail of insults and even thrown objects, I did and frankly was glad to do it. Part of it was because I had to learn to do that as a child when being harassed by racist bullies who wanted just one excuse to beat the crap out of me. I learned early that once I fought back, I lost. That goes against the macho ethos depicted in literature and movies, but aggression and fighting out there is a lose-lose situation. 

...one time...

I recall one aquaintence, who told me he once defended his girlfriend from insults from an aggressive camp member, and successfully drove the guy off at first, but was then suddenly stabbed when he turned to walk away. He was a pretty tough guy, the type you figure would survive well on the streets, but the reality is quite different outside of a Hollywood movie. 

He had to defend his girlfriend, and the "law" was in his side, but there was nothing really there in place that could have stopped the attacker, even the prospect of superior force, as he was in a psychological state where the laws of society didn't exist, and could have cared less about being arrested and punished.

That and other incidents had a profound effect on me out there; I realized very quickly that the law was really a psychological process and you had to know when it worked and when it didn't.

...the nature of bullying...

Also, I relearned the nature of bullying (as it applied to my situation), so that if there was a verbal assault, there'd rarely be a fight if I just let him win and walked away. Out there, if the guy really wanted a piece of you, he'd have just attacked suddenly when you didn't expect it, most often after going to sleep, so if there was blustering or menacing, I was safe in assuming it was territorial and left. After all, I had a little white dog under my care to think about.

The fact is, bullies rarely scared me (unless they were stoned or mentally ill, then I worried). The ones that scared me were the sociopaths, the one who used charm and smiles to get close. They'd come for you later, when you were asleep, and even if the motive was just robbery, they couldn't always stop at simple business, that idea that they're always cool customers under control, is a myth.

...a clockwork orange...

Also, and it's in my book, I encountered two young gangs, and what ran through my mind at the time was that Anthony Burgess' book, "A Clockwork Orange," was eerily prophetic, and described these kids "to a T."

That book was made into a famous and controversial movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, which is considered a classic, and it still has an unsettling edginess and imagery even by today's standards. It was actually, for all of the controversy about the violence depicted, a tamer version of the book, which has a decadence and amorality that even a bold and uncompromising director like Kubrick had to sidestep or change in the 60s to avoid making an ultra X rated feature that would never have been shown in a mainstream theatre.

Note: be advised that I'll be discussing the original ending, which was left out of both the earlier US printing and the movie, and will be pointing out specific sections and aspects that were glossed over in the latter. What was left out of the movie, and in many descriptions and reviews of the book, provides an interesting look at attitudes in the early 60s, particularly towards women, when it was published. So, consider this a spoiler alert.

...early 60s...

"A Clockwork Orange," was a book written by author Anthony Burgess, and published in 1962. It was said to have been a quick job, taking only three weeks to write, and was originally in three parts, each with seven chapters. The US publisher insisted on cutting the 21st chapter, which had the main character, Alex, realizing that his old violent life needed to change and deciding to move on to a more normal life, because it was felt that Chapter 20, which shows him reverting back to his old violent and amoral ways, would appeal more to the U.S. audience. 

Given American attitudes towards violence and amoral male characters, perhaps that was a good move at the time, though it'd be difficult, if not impossible, to find any current novelist who's had any level of success accepting a last chapter cut for market reasons. It was obviously a leveraged situation. Hollywood, that's a different situation.

Burgess apparently accepted the change, which may or may not have been a condition for acceptance of the novella, accounts differ on that, but he needed the money and the 20 chapter version became the one American audiences saw, including Director Stanley Kubrick, who used that version for his film adaptation.

...Kubrick...

Kubrick's films almost always had a strain of black humor, so a very dark satire like A Clockwork Orange was right up his alley. Having read the book and seen the film, I'd have to say that he did a brilliant job of adaptation that incorporated imagery and costumes that weren't in the story, but were even better for the purposes of a visual medium like film.

Although the film does cover a lot of the plot points in the book, a major change was in how the main character, Alex, was portrayed. Kubrick, and the English actor, Malcom McDowell, evolved Alex into a charismatic and charming rouge who the audience liked in a way, sort of, and who wasn't as cerebral as the book version.

Also, Kubrick cleaned up Alex's most disreputable behavior, which was mean or cruel sex with ten year old girls (who are depicted as nubile Lolita types). The scene in which Alex and his Droogs," interrupts another gang who've stripped a woman of her clothes and was preparing to rape her actually involved a girl said to be no older than ten. Later on, Alex has a playful romp with two nubiles, but in the book, he treats them roughly to erase what he thinks are pretensions to sophistication. In other words, he knocked them down a notch and sent them running off, abused, humbled and not so cool after all.

...no lurid detail...

Burgess describes these scenes without a lot of lurid detail, and in the context of Alex's personality, which was as a vicious sociopath, gives the character a thought process that both served as the narration, as it's a first person tale, and a glimpse into the inner workings of his mind. 

It's a narrative style that's one of the hardest for a writer to pull off, a dispassionate and neutral viewpoint, as the temptation to insert one's morality is strong. Burgess was probably aware that readers could direct outrage to him, yet that would have been more likely if he'd have inserted even the slightest judgement, which would have taken attention off the character. 

As such, the narrative works because in a sense, it's a case of reportage, and one's disgust, or even fascination stays on the subject. Which is why people can be spellbound with murder mysteries, and fascinated by stories about serial killers. If the writer can stay disciplined, and keep to the narrative, then the reader's attention will stay on the book. If judgement creeps in, the reader can start to judge the author.

...first half...

That's mainly in the first half of the book. The second half is about how Alex gets caught, put into prison, and accepts a revolutionary Pavlov type treatment that makes him ill when thinking of doing evil, then having that process reversed which in the US version of the book and movie, restores the evil Alex again as a kind of triumph (and lampoon) of free will and choice. Burgess' theme is actually about whether someone can be "good" if made to do so by conditioning that punishes evil impulses. 

The omitted final chapter actually has Alex deciding to try to be good, which I guess was more offensive to the US publisher than the violence and underage sex.

The main controversy over the book was over it's brutality and violence, which was explicit for 1962. There wasn't so much about the ten year old girls, but that probably wasn't as much of a taboo (outside of movies) for the hipper audience that liked the book, who tolerated or ignored the behavior of 60s rock stars and other artists who liked under aged women. 

But it is a fictional work, and should be judged on that basis.

...it's also about style...

One of the reasons the amorality of the characters is muted (which can have the effect of making the violence more prominent), is because the unique narrative style was the actual literary innovation. Burgess wasn't just writing a decadent book, he essentially created a street language for Alex and his gang, which was based on Russian influenced slang, which was used so heavily that later editions of the book include a glossary, though a surprising amount is easy to figure out as most are single words placed in regular English sentences and the meaning becomes obvious as the story progresses.

The use of a Russian influenced vocabulary wasn't an accident. The book is a satire about a dystopian society that's on the surface a Socialist type society that's incredibly corrupt and policed by officers who are essentially thugs in uniform, with most living in state provided housing.

...the US version...

The story of the original US version of the book, and the later movie is interesting. As a writer, I found it incomprehensible that a publisher would cut an important chapter out. I don't buy the reasoning that it was merely a suggestion, and the wide critical acclaim for the book shows that it wasn't a flawed work. The publisher liked another ending better, had the leverage to change the book, and just did it. 

Kubrick later commented, after becoming aware of the actual ending, that he liked the cut version better, but frankly, the movie industry has never cared about an author's feelings (unless they're famous) so there's no point in getting worked up over movie versions. Publishers and editors often have a different agenda, which most of all is to make money, and it's not a given that a writer's work will be respected. That's not a unique situation, musicians and other artists have faced the same situation until they can develop a track record.

...you can't go back...

In fairness, there have been cases, like with Thomas Wolfe's novels, that wouldn't have made it to book form without a sympathetic editor and publisher. However, in Wolfe's case, he created a huge manuscript that had to be broken down into separate books.

In the case of A Clockwork Orange, there was a finished book, and the omitted chapter does change the whole tone of the ending and fits the theme of morality and choice. Modern editions are now the restored version, and I've seen a lot of debate online as to the merits of the two versions, and as far as the opinions, each is as good as the next, but at least Burgess' full vision is out there.

I'd have to add, yes he got paid, and however the circumstances, he did agree to the cut, but cutting the chapter drastically altered the author's vision of the work and probably colored his feelings about it for decades. In a perfect world, no writer should have that happen to him or her. People can nod knowingly about commercial considerations and business realities, but one has to think and hope, that deep down, they know that it's a crappy way to treat art.

...a seminal work...

As we all know, the term "seminal work" is now part of the modern lexicon to get you to buy a book, even if it's just a repackaged public domain "classic" (another abused term). A modern publisher's zeal to change and free our minds never rises to the level of dedication of Christians who'll give you a bible for free even if you won't read it, but charging money for everything is one of the endearing qualities of capitalism. (Citation needed from someone outside the 1%; paid shills or fake Amazon reviewers OK).

Which brings us to William S. Burrough's Naked Lunch, which is one of the most influential books of the modern age. It's also on the top ten list of books people claim they've actually read carefully in it's entirety, but had really only skimmed through Bob Dylan's book, "Tarantula," in a bookstore while stoned. It can be really fuzzy where literary stuff really came from.

...jagged...

Naked Lunch is a heroin-fueled fantasy book that satirizes just about every culture, race, subculture, religion, political creed, sexual preference, addicts, job professions, and even animals. It's energy is different than, say, Kerouac's "On The Road," which was more of a high energy meth book, and it's verbal flights combine hallucinogenic streams of consciousness with exaggerated obscenity, sexual episodes with a variety of men, boys and women, and abstract wordplay that lampoons classic literature and erotica. The book makes enough obscure references to fill an internet trivia page, and just for fun, spouts obviously false pseudo facts and stats, which I never do. [citation not necessary, I'm obviously B.S.'ing]

Like any book that butchers the King's English, and/or has experimental passages, it can be seen as uneven with parts that don't seem funny, references that are too obscure, or has language that offends. It's like avante-garde music in that it was probably more fun to play than listen too, but most writers and artists, for example, will see the artistic sensibility behind the apparent chaos and smarty pants one liners, and if parts offend you, I'm sure Burroughs would have understood. It's reach is too broad and savage to be a test of coolness or tolerance, and few people will read it without feeling a wide range of emotions that will include puzzlement and even some boredom.

...uncompromising...

It's an uncompromising work, clearly written for personal satisfaction, exploration and amusement, that was only published after encouragement by Jack Kerouac and other friends, and includes what some might call inside jokes and personal experiences heavily veiled in wordplay and fantasy. 

It can be easy to work too hard to decipher hidden meanings in the more abstract phrases, as many of those should be seen as nonsense vocal sound riffs like "whomp babaluba bedangboom," "boomchalakalaka boomchalakalaka," or "sometimes when we touch the honesty's too much," that are primal verbal riffs to boost the energy level

...technical...

My appreciation of the book is for the technical innovations of the writing, and awe at the fact that it's a book that 99.999% of the writers who consider themselves rebels or cutting edge wouldn't dare to write, and probably would have to self publish it as it'd be almost impossible to get a mainstream publisher to print it.

It's aura benefits from coming from an era that even if it was banned at one point, once it entered the stream of literature, it had enough champions to advocate for it and after some time, became a fact of life type object, with a specific context and judgement of it's worth set in stone, so to speak. It can be loved or hated (and often badly imitated) but it will always exist, thanks to the current version of the internet. You still have to buy it with actual money, which says something. [citation needed to define what that says, I don't have the foggiest]

When I first read the passage about Japanese boys as a teen (I read anything I could get my hands on back then), I winced, but figured I had to just take my lumps like any another person of color (or woman) in the 60s, as liberal writers of the era had no qualms about making racist or sexist statements in the fucuifucanttakeajoke era.

...offending everybody...

The interesting thing about the book is that given it's blithe willingness to offend and satirize everyone and everything, it very well could find itself banned all over again by, well, somebody, the satire is that broad, and it could very well again find itself a test of the boundaries of obscenity in a politically correct age. In fact, it's probably banned somewhere on earth right now, I'll have to google it sometime to see where.

That's a creative tension that'll always exist in books that push the boundaries of taste and obscenity. Very few modern classics have retained that quality to challenge, divide, and polarize readers. Many works simply lapse into simple bad taste or even boredom to a jaded public that has, thanks to the internet, seen just about everything. 

Old groundbreaking classics like the beat novels, Henry Miller, or others who created works that pushed or moved boundaries have had their impact lessened by a constant stream of imitators, interpreters who bowderdize or focus on the sex, or simply try to shock without any attempt at innovation. But not this guy.

Burroughs may not have sold a lot of books, but he certainly influenced a lot of artists who may not have pushed the boundaries even further, but were able to operate within the freedom that Naked Lunch helped create. Whether that's good or bad, each reader can decide for him or herself, but they have a choice, and that's what great books will do. 

No literary classic is for everybody, even the ones that try for universal appeal, and Naked Lunch has retained an edgy genius that will divide society well into the future. It was written by the rarest type of modern author, one who didn't write to be liked.

- 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 Homeless Literary Journal - July 2021

"For those who pass their lives afloat on boats, or face old age leading horses tight by the bridle, their journeying is life, their journeying is home."

- Matsuo Basho (The Narrow Road To The Deep North, 1702)

It was a dark day when Yahweh (now known as God), passed judgement on and sentenced the three culprits in the apple munching incident at the Tree Of Knowledge (Now known as The Internet), located in Mesopotamian Edin, located in what is now Iraq (now known as The Garden Of Eden). The serpent (now known as Satan) got off the easiest; he was condemned to stay slithering about for eternity, which didn't cramp his style, as snake legs had been ditched during the process of evolution.

Adam was condemned to work the soil for his food, and could no longer just pluck it off trees in Paradise (know known as Man Caves). Menkind later fobbed off most of the food preparation tasks on women to ease the pain of the "thorns and thistles" (Genesis 3:18). Which is why women have to do all the cooking on Super Bowl Sunday (most other days too, actually). It's a holy task that was first referenced in the "Forbidden Gospel Of Murgatroyd" in 1967 AD, the year of the first Super Bowl, though no copies, or even Internet fakes, have survived to verify this [Citation needed, source is unwilling to be cited].

Eve got the worst of it; she lost the relative equality and freedom of Eden, was condemned to suffer pain in childbearing (Genesis 3:16, and Whole Earth Natural Childbirth Manual - 1972 Edition), and to be ruled over by her husband (Genesis 3:16, and How To Pick Up Girls - 1970 Edition). 

I'm sure not even God knew that the consequences for many women would be a life filled with blame, servitude, exploitation, bras designed by men and priced really high, and to be bereft of God's love and forgiveness if menkind decided she wasn't worthy.

...a friend in Jesus...

Later on, Jesus bucked the tide and brought women into his inner circle, and even saved an adulteress from a public stoning (from which the male participant was noticably absent). If the New Testament is accurate, then the creed preached by Jesus didn't require women to be blamed or executed for being raped, make sandwiches after sex, or put up with men who leave their dirty underwear and socks on the floor. [citation needed on that last point]

But menkind was patient; that communistic, bad for business party pooper, Jesus, wasn't going to be around forever, and after he was gone, there'd be plenty of time to lock in profits and make sure women didn't get the notion that they could act like men, which is what menkind did after the Son Of God went, came and went, and promised to come again.

Keep in mind that the bible hadn't been written yet, so there was plenty of time for men who couldn't live with women but couldn't live without them, to get the proper procedures in place to make sure they stayed in their lane by the time the first manuals of life appeared.

There were contrary male voices, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica, "It was right for woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither use authority over man, and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet (Given how some men keep reusing the same socks, that's a good thing, right?)."

...as fast as a serpent...

Menkind just finessed whipped men like Aquinas into irrelevancy, with dare I say, the adroitness of a fast talking serpent, and in the case of the Lutherans and Protestants, restored the natural order by rejecting the Catholic Church, which came to it's senses and pioneered the innovation of trying and executing women for witchcraft, which was defined as being in league with the Devil (no longer a serpent, he needed legs after all) or in many cases, being uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner.

Disclaimer: It should be noted that to quickly cover centuries of religious history, a lot of details had to be left out. In fact, I haven't even reached the actual point of this essay yet, so grand is the design, so I pause to assure the good readers here that a robust effort was made to ensure that the theological scholarship meets the exacting standards of unmoderated Internet research.

"...for the shield may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear."

- Charles Darwin (On The Origin Of Species)

Science joined in the fun and Darwin's book, On the Origin Of Species, became a secular sensation because it was a nicer way to say that men are number one due to being physically larger and able to beat the crap out of any woman who is uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner.

However, Darwin never actually specified what the woman's role was, that is to say, in terms of how it's supposed to be actually lived. The description of a woman's role and duties that has evolved, in the name of natural law, are like the Judeo-Christian justice system, which is theoretically based on or extrapolated from religious doctrine, but ignore the exhortation to honor and treat women like human beings, except where required by law or in cases where a wussy is dominated by a woman.

Darwin's observations have often been extrapolated into the concept that power and money is the equivalent of survival of the fittest, and that the food chain is a linear hierarchy or patriarchal system. Modern interpretations of Darwin's writings have been used to justify sexism, racism, settling arguments by fisticuffs, accumulation of wealth by a small minority, patriarchal social orders, and the payment of enormous sums of money to athletes and attractive actors.

...minor factors...

Darwin noted that natural selection and evolution was dependent on many "minor factors" and conditions. One good example is the invention of crossbows, which helped end the power of individual knights who were the apex males in the social system. The Holy Church tried to restore the natural order by excommunicating anyone who used a crossbow, but gave up trying after gunpowder and firearms were invented. Kings found that infantry armies were cheaper and easier to send to their deaths than Knights, who generally acted like modern celebrities and were pains in the ass. 

Darwinism didn't create patriarchies, as those began much earlier when organized warfare and the macho warriors became a thing. Those elite soldiers generally served a dominant alpha (king, emperor, whatever) who assumed demigod status, or had it granted by the Priests of whatever religion was current by divine right or purchase. 

Disclaimer: It should be noted that to quickly cover centuries of scientific evolutionary history, a lot of details had to be left out. In fact, I haven't even reached the actual point of this essay yet, so grand is the design, so I pause to assure the good readers here that a robust effort was made to ensure that the scientific Darwinian scholarship meets the exacting standards of unmoderated Internet research.

"It was because the Apocalyptists believed so firmly in this power which they possessed of looking into the deep things of God that they claimed to be able to measure the significance of what had happened in the past and of what was happening in the present; and upon the basis of this knowledge they believed that they also had the power, given them by God, of foreseeing the march of future events."

- W.O.E. Osterley D.D. (The Book Of Enoch, trans. by R.H. Charles - 1917 Edition, quote from introduction)

There was one exception to patriarchal power, at least in ancient times, and that was the important religious function of divination, which was considered to be an ability mainly found in women. The most famous were the Greek Oracles, like Pythia, the Priestess to Apollo at Delphi. Although there's many types of prophesiers, the most revered were the ones like Pythia, who was considered a conduit who transmitted messages from the Gods.

Oracles were important for the same reason that people today examine statistics, data, opinions, and tap into their intuition to try and predict the stock market, figure out what women actually think of them, where sociological trends are headed, and to bet correctly on sports, which is, they don't want to lose money. Some might claim that it's a logical process based on probabilities and trends, which would be true if the forecasts were always correct, but in actual practice, there's a few that have real intuitive abilities, and the rest just guess. 

True Oracles were quite rare, as the punishment for making inaccurate predictions and revelations could be quite severe. Pythia could assume a certain level of power from being Apollo's priestess, but in the long run, she had to produce accurate revelation and predictions or possibly be forced into service as a Temple Prostitute. Perhaps then, it wasn't surprising that the messages delivered were generally poetic and cryptic in nature, and could be interpreted in different ways as needed to fit the situation (though to avoid the anger of the Gods, the predictions were rarely questioned).

How women came to dominate this area of divination possibly stems from an earlier era when religions had a stronger matriarchal influence, like the Greek religion in some regions before Zeus became the supreme God. The other main area of prediction, using "seers" who read bird signs, entrails and other physical methods, was dominated by male priests, but the two arts were rarely in conflict. The average female wasn't worth much in ancient times, but even a King had to step carefully around an Oracle.

...a long tradition...

Christianity has a long tradition of prophesy, though it's muted in the present day. One famous psychic in the 60s, Jeane Dixon, a devout Catholic, claimed to have received her powers from God, and was consulted by both Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan.

Most of those who claimed to be psychics in the early Christian era, especially women, tended to tried and executed as witches who were in league with Satan (who not only needed legs again, but women assistants too), but there was a gray area where those who practiced divination could (sort of) escape the fury of the Church, or society. 

One example was the practice of "historicism," or the use of bible passages and chapters, such as the apocalyptic Books of Daniel and Revelation, to explain current events and predict the future. One famous interpretation of the bible chapter known as Revelation, was cited by Protestants, Calvinists, and even famous personages as Sir Issac Newton, as proof that the Pope was the anti-Christ. This is disputed today by most Catholics.

...Daniel, the Biblical Oracle...

Another biblical figure, Daniel (Daniel 1:6) was a prototypical Oracle (aka prophet), who received direct messages (not chat messages) from God, as opposed to one who reads signs or observed phenomena to make prophesy (like a modern betting handicapper would). He served as an adviser to the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, his son and successor Belshazar, and finally Darius the Mede, King Of Persia. 

The older Hebrew writings also touched on prophesy. An early work called The Book Of Enoch, which is now only considered canon by the Othodox Ethiopian Christian Church, contained a lot of predictions (and a section that was later incorporated into the New Testament). Early fragments have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it remains a popular source text for Apocalyptists.

The most famous ancient Christian Prophets were generally men, which isn't surprising as almost all that kind of history was written by males. In recent decades, more women have became historians and writers and reclaimed their history, which is actually full of female prophets.

...Lady Eleanor Davies...

One such prophet was Lady Eleanor Davies, born in 1590, who lived in England and wrote over 60 pamphlets and poetic works of prophesy that were inspired by the Bible Books of Daniel and Revelation. 

Like Daniel, Davies claimed to be a conduit for God's messages, but often used bible passages to point out parallels between current events and biblical prophesy. She'd be virtually unknown today if not for the efforts of women researchers who've brought her writings back into print (both in books and the Internet).

If it'd been up to her two husbands, who literally burned her manuscripts, and royal society, which at one point institutionalized her in Bedlam, and imprisoned her in the Tower of London, she'd have simply gone down in history as one of many women of the era who professed to be prophets but were characterized as heretics or lunatics. 

Part of the reason that people, mainly men, didn't just try and execute her as a witch (the blanket term for a woman who was uppity or rebellious in an ungodly manner) or some such charge, was due to the fact that she was a propertied Lady, an aristocrat, which gave her a level of protection that a peasant wouldn't have had, and the other was that England didn't have a Spanish style Inquisition. 

Although Lady Eleanor couldn't avoid imprisonment, she did eventually get released through the influence of friends and family, and like many nobles, didn't bother to pay any assessed fines. None of that appeared to break the spirit of this very headstrong and intelligent woman.

...a good record of success...

Her record as a prophet, both biblical and secular was pretty good, and she was an excellent poet. Davies also correctly predicted when her first husband would die, and that her second would become unable to function (probably a stroke). Both revelations came after each had burned her manuscripts.

In her words, "...where the book of mine was sacrificed by my first Husbands hand, thrown into the fire, whose Doom I gave him in letters of his own Name (John Davies, Joves Hand) within three years to expect the mortal blow; so put on my mourning garment from that time:when about three days before his sudden decease, before all his Servants and Friends at the table, gave him passé to take his long sleep, by him thus put off (note: phrase means 'he said'), 'I pray weep not when I am alive, and I will give you leave to laugh when I am dead.'" (Source: Prophetic Writings Of Lady Eleanor Davies, Edited by Ester Cope)

Though that may sound like the words of a Jezebel, by most accounts she did try to be a good wife. The conflicts were primarily over the conviction that she was a prophet chosen by God. To be fair, there were males who claimed the same thing and were prosecuted, though mainly for treasonous statements, but received considerably lighter sanctions from the law. Nostradamus, one of the most famous, escaped prosecution because he did his prophesy in France, which in the 1600s was a country that didn't always act as Catholic as the Pope would have liked.

...both husbands did the burn...

Both of Lady Eleanor's husbands knew what the manuscripts meant to her, and burning those works was an act that was only considered OK because the author was a woman. If they had done that to another male, it would have required the use of swords or pistols to settle the matter. A musician would understand; if you took his or her instrument and threw it into a fire, it'd probably inspire a song about your untimely passing.

She lived in an age where men had almost complete power over wives (they couldn't just shoot them so there was a limit), and the men's main reason for burning the manuscripts was due to a perception that the controversial writings affected their chances for advancement. Her feelings were about the matter were irrelevant, and she was dealt with in the same way a man would punish a child who got caught with a copy of Playboy magazine (particularly if the kid stole it from Dad).

However, the idea that strong (and possibly stubborn) women needed to be brought down a notch by emphasizing her lack of power is a sentiment that's survived well into modern times, and has been depicted often in the arts.

...one flew...

One good example is Ken Kesey's 1962 book, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, a modern classic that has anti-feminine overtones. The movie version makes it seem a fight against the "system," type deal, but in the book, it was no accident that the main villain and symbol of power that was a woman. The movie obscures that point, along with the fact that the story was actually told through the eyes of a Native American.

In the climactic scene, the hero named McMurphy forces his way into the office where the villain, Nurse Ratched was, along with other staff including the actual head of the department, the Doctor.

McMurphy knew better than to attack a male authority figure. Even when attacking Nurse Ratched, he couldn't attack authority until he'd first reduced her to a woman's status. So, his first act, was to tear the nurse's blouse open and expose her breasts to the other males in the room. The end result was the power structure remained, as the doctor wasn't touched, but the target of McMurphy's rage had lost any air of authority after being reduced to a beaten, half naked woman. If he'd have pulled the doctor's pants down, then attacked him, it'd have been called what it really was, a sexual assault to humiliate and assert dominance.

That was confirmed in a later passage, which read, "We all left the tub room and came out in the hall to meet her, to ask about McMurphy. She jumped back two steps when we approached, and I thought for a second she might run. Her face was bloated blue and out of shape on one side, closing one eye completely, and she had a heavy bandage around her throat. And a new white uniform. Some of the guys grinned at the front of it; in spite of its being smaller and tighter and more starched than her old uniforms, it could no longer conceal the fact that she was a woman."

...disclosure...

As a matter of disclosure, I was an admirer of the book in the 60s, and still am to a large extent. Ken Kesey's imagery about the oppression and control is brilliant, and the use of a Native American as the narrator was pure genius. However, the book's attitude towards women is basically a parallel to the Biblical Jezebel or Delilah archetypes which does weaken it's larger message about control and conformity. 

The book is best read after the reader is alerted to potentially objectionable material, though an intro by an advocate describing the context would be fair. In this day and age, women and minorities do deserve to know ahead of time if a book contains negative stereotypes or language, particularly in a class room situation or if the reader is being asked to pay money for it.

An artist's freedom of expression and duty to the truth also requires having the moral courage to be clear about intent and message. 

...a strong undercurrent...

One of the factors that could blunt Lady Eleanor's impact on modern women's literature and history is that her works have a strong religious undercurrent, which doesn't always play well in a secular age like today (except in the New Age movement which embraces divination or with those who admire figures such as Joan of Arc). Many modern Christians wouldn't be likely to approve either, given that fundamentalism is still a significant influence, and is generally hostile to divination (though not to the idea of an apocalypse).

Her poetry and prose, like many other works of that age, can have various literary devices in play, such as anagrams, complex imagery or symbolism, religious references, etc., which was often done to obscure the direct message or person being described (like the King, who might order the arrest of the writer for sedition). The result can be difficult for a modern reader to understand without footnotes but still be enjoyable as a pure reading experience. 

Here's an example to illustrate that point; the excerpt is two verses from her "Given To The Elector Prince Charles Of The Rhine" in 1633, which alludes to the deaths of the King and Queen of Scotland, the latter being Mary, Queen Of Scots:

By star-light for device who gave,

  as graven on his Shield,

An Eagle mounted on the Crest,

  a Hart in silver field.

Extold again his God as high,

  blessed him all his days:

Others reputes them as nothing,

  alone proclaims his praise.

Whose seven times till served forth,

   in vain for rest to crave,

Whom Devils Legions do possess,

  a Monarch turn'd a Slave.

Deposed thus, thou knewest well,

  Belshazzar, O his Son,

And renown'd so deliverance his

  voyced by every one.

(Source: Prophetic Writings Of Lady Eleanor Davies, Edited by Ester Cope)

For comparison, here's a sample from Milton's "Paradise Lost," quoted is a passage that delineates Satan's rationale for his rebellion against God:

"Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n Hell, a Hell of Heav’n."

My point isn't that the two passages are similar in style (because as cryptic as both appear, there's notable differences in Lady Eleanor and Milton's intent and approach), but that her literary skill was on a par with male writers of that age. As far as their relative ranking, that's another matter, and each reader can develop their own opinion. 

A modern writer can read both samples, and in my case, discern that Lady Eleanor had talent. I enjoyed reading her verse (and prose), which has a musical quality that was present in the best literature from that age. As with the Sistine Chapel ceiling painted by Michelangelo, one doesn't have to be religious to enjoy it as art.

...from the soul...

Lady Eleanor's works were certainly from the soul, and reflect her idea of truth during a time when people did their best to discourage or suppress it. It's an important window into that era, and the struggle to express herself, like all good writers, is reflected in her work. The poetry and writing created in such a crucible can provide insight on how expression can defy oppression and survive, and give the reader an understanding of how the artistic drive helped protect her self image and identity when so many tried to extinguish it.

Lady Eleanor Davies may or may not have found eternal life in heaven, but as they say, a soul can live forever through art, and that's how she found it on earth.

...Sherlock preferences...

The June 2020 blog entry described how I prefer to read the Sherlock Holmes stories, but didn't talk much about the big and small screen adaptations. The fact is, I stopped watching any about halfway through the excellent PBS series starring Jeremy Brett, which ran for 41 episodes from 1984-1994. Brett was probably the best screen Holmes, and probably the most accurate (at least in the critic's view), and my reasons for getting bored with the series had nothing to do with quality issues. The acting and production values were impeccable, and for many, it was the definitive portrait.

However, Brett had the same fatal flaw that all of the Holmes actors had; he wasn't Basil Rathbone. There were a few that were better actors, others that were more physically perfect for the part, and in the case of Brett, more meticulous in getting all the details right.

The thing about cinema is that it's a different medium than literature. The aesthetic isn't just visual, like with paintings or comic books. The energy is kinetic and at the center of it all is the actor's personality and charisma. Although one of the core principles is that the actor becomes the character, that's only partly true. Marlon Brando, for example, was always himself, no matter the role, and that's not a flaw. It's through his personality that the character is humanized and becomes more than a laundry list of traits and behaviors.

...Hollywood...

That's why Hollywood always tries to bring back the same actors in a sequel. Hollywood's all about money but it's not stupid. They'd bring back a cheaper cast if they could, but in any performance art, whether it's movies or music, if you change the players, it changes the chemistry and the product. People don't mind changes to the scenery and sets, but they want to see the people who brought that story to life.

That's probably an oversimplification of the dramatic aesthetic, but sufficient for the purposes of this blog entry and fits comfortably within internet standards of accuracy, which only requires one person for the citation of any fact, no matter how broad or outrageous the statement.

The reason Basil Rathbone is my ultimate Holmes is because he's the one saw as a kid. I saw the movies and heard rebroadcasts of the old radio shows even before reading the books.

It was said that when the producers at 20th Century Fox discussed filming the first film, The Hound Of The Baskervilles in 1939, there was no question of who'd play Holmes. Basil Rathbone was the first and only choice, though at the time, he was regarded as a good character actor rather than a leading man. That made him cheaper too, and thus even more ideal for the part.

In fact, in that first film, both Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, who played Watson, didn't even have top billing. The two main supporting actors were actually more well known to the movie public, though of course that changed after the success of the film.

...the big move...

After one more big budget production, the series moved to Universal Studios, and began a long run as a series of B films, which on average ran about 60 minutes. The studio had plenty of sets and costumes, so the Holmes series never looked cheaply made, and the shorter run time made for a tighter, faster moving plot with no filler. In fact, take away special effects extravaganzas, second unit scenery, car chases, irrelevant close ups, and the time consuming process of having a leading man seduce the leading lady and having sex, and one finds that most movies are just one hour flicks anyway.

The Sherlock Holmes movies were quite successful, and although a mixed blessing due to typecasting, both actors became household names and until Rathbone quit the series, there was really no question about finding someone else to play Holmes.

I remember articles about the legendary detective in the 70s, which tended to rank Rathbone in the middle of the pack of screen Holmes (and Nigel characterized as a buffoon who mainly provided comedy relief). Part of that was standard Hollywood revisionism, because Holmes movies were still coming out featuring actors such as Nicol Williamson in the "Seven Percent Solution" and due to the ever growing cult audience of Holmesians who put out books and like most experts, managed to drown the appeal of the stories in a morass of micro-detail and consensus-based dogma.

...good harmless fun...

All that canon creation was just good harmless fun, of course, no worse than anointing rock stars who'd just put out one album as living legends or "Bostonais" assuming New York Yankee fans are uncouth cretins, but it did create a feeling that there was such a thing as an accurate Holmes portrayal, which is arguable, but not necessarily in line with the actual stories by Arthur Conan Doyle.

Sherlock Holmes underwent a series of personality changes over the course of the Strand Magazine stories. He started off as a seemingly egotistical man who was eager to find cases to test his abilities, calmed down and became sure of his abilities to the point where he was happy to let Scotland Yard take the credit for the solved cases, went through a high strung, almost paranoid period because of his obsession with arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, and finally ended up as a quiet recluse in the final set of Strand stories.

There were constants that most of us know about; cocaine use, eccentricity, a close and fast friendship with Doctor Watson, who eventually married and only visited on occasion, the occasional flash of humor, and a lack of interest in women (with only one exception, the immortal Irene Adler).

...my dear Watson...

The most common controversy was over how Watson was portrayed, which in the 20th Century Fox and Universal Studio movies was as a man who always made wrong guesses (and corrected by Holmes) and provided almost all of the humorous moments. That was characterized as "bumbling" by critics and writers who were reviewing and discussing the later films that were all over the map in terms of accuracy but generally depicted Watson as a solid, good old English fellow.

Which wasn't the case in the Strand Stories and books. Watson made a lot of wrong guesses because he was supposed to, as a foil to showcase Holmes' genius. In the stories he displayed behavior that ranged from stolid normalcy to hilarious levels of irritation at his roomie's slovenly house keeping. More importantly, he sort of became the Great Detective's Boswell style biographer, who Conan Doyle implied was the actual author of the Strand Stories, and their discussions about those were used to illuminate Holmes' ideas and philosophy about his craft.

In other words, turning Watson into a straight man tended to create a dead spot in later movies, which wasn't the case when Nigel Bruce portrayed him.

...the obvious solution...

The various movies that started with The Seven Percent Solution were, as I've said, were all over the map. The Holmes character in the movie, "They Might Be Giants," was a man who thought he was the detective and may or may not have been insane. Another movie caused a stir when it implied that the Baker Street pair were gay, and it all only came down to earth with the PBS series with Jeremy Brett.

I never took any of that personally (as a Holmes enthusiast). If I didn't like the premise, then I just skipped the film or show. The reason is that, early on, I quit expecting Hollywood to do any written story or book in an accurate manner.

The basic reason a studio buys the movie rights is to tap into a ready made audience, have control of the story (so it can be changed), and to use the characters. There's a common sense reason to not literally interpret the book, as it's not a good idea to have an audience that already knows the ending. Trying to do it exactly like the book is not always practical, as the movie can get nitpicked to death by hard core fans who know every detail. 

That wasn't a big deal before the internet, when the film company and movie theatre already had everyone's cash in hand before they could object to the changes, but nowadays a mistake or change in the details can be spotted and go viral. While there's no such thing as bad publicity, a trending complaint about a movie can turn off fans of the book, and getting them to come to the theatre is one of the reasons the producers spent the money on the rights in the first place.

...the last of the Mohican movies...

A good modern day example is the film, "Last Of The Mohicans," which came out in 1992, and starred Daniel Day Lewis. It was a great adventure film, with nice period costumes and sets, and full of charismatic performances by Lewis, Wes Studi, and others. It's a classic I saw once, enjoyed, and have never seen again and have no desire to.

The reason is simple; they butchered the book. I read Cooper's Last Of The Mohicans every few years, and enjoy parts of it now and then as casual reading. The most enjoyable character, for me, is Hawkeye, the Pathfinder, who was nothing like the Daniel Day Lewis character in the movie.

The book version of the Pathfinder is an older man, eccentric and basically feral, who loves to engage in long conversations that meander and shows a spiritual side that's as close to being a naturist pagan that a Christian can get and still be called devout. One of the characters in the book (who was omitted from the movie) was David, a young evangelist who engages in debates with the Pathfinder about the nature of God, which feature arguments that were surprisingly sophisticated for a book written in the 18th Century.

...the movie version...

The movie version of the Pathfinder was a 20th Century romance novel stud with long hair, who acted like a Scottish Rebel from the the Outlander TV series (which I like), and the two Mohicans were transformed from wise, intellectual warriors into a father and son Tonto team from the Lone Ranger TV show. That's a bit harsh, I admit, but to paraphrase Doctor Watson, when I see stuff like that, I begin to take on righteous airs.

But like I said, the 1992 film is a classic adventure, and deserved to be a hit, and I've always admired Daniel Day Lewis' acting genius. Like many Hollywood products, it's meant to be enjoyed for what it is.

There was one irritating review of the film in particular, which said that the movie brought new life into a "corny old book," and along with some other observations, made it clear to me that he hadn't really read the book, or if so, didn't remember all that much about it.

I remember writing a long rebuttal, but didn't send it because there was no point. The producers of the film knew what the book was about, so pointing out inaccuracies would have been a waste of time. They just wanted the basic story and name recognition, and they wanted it to be a vehicle to appeal to a modern crowd that wanted plenty of romance, action and Daniel Day Lewis. Hollywood does what it does, and it doesn't change the pleasure I get from the book.

...game of thrones...

If Cooper's Last Of The Mohicans had an audience like the Game Of Thrones crowd, then the producers would have made the characters truer to the book (more or less, Hollywood can only do so much), but as we've all seen, trying to please a crowd of nit pickers can be an impossible task. Heck, I'm still pissed about the final episode of Game of Thrones, I was a big Mother of Dragons fan!

But anyway, back to the movie Holmes. The thing about Basil Rathbone was that he seemed right for the part, even if the portrayal wasn't completely accurate. One reason is that, again, movies are a different medium than books; Rathbone's urbane personality, which could ramp up into high gear, thanks to his experience in Swashbuckler films, was perfect for the visual experience. Also, his voice was perfect for the part, which is why the radio version was popular.

Plus both he and Nigel Bruce were likable. Sure, Holmes was more irascible, and tightly wound in the books, but most people don't like to see that over the course of a whole movie. The idea that an entertainment medium has to make the audience uncomfortable isn't a mainstream concept. That's a valid notion for a smaller scale art or indie film, but the Sherlock films were made to entertain, and that's a whole different trip. The film world is big enough for both.

It'd be easy to get too wordy about the Rathbone films, as in my mind, it worked simply because they found the perfect guy. In fact, if you go into the Internet rabbit hole and read about Basil Rathbone, you'll find that decades down the line, a new generation has found him, thanks to the movies being free in YouTube, and while modern actors may be better (or hipper, etc.) than Basil Rathbone, all of them will have to work under the shadow of the one who got it right.

- 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.