The Delta Snake Review - A Music And Arts Blog - Dec. 3, 2022

THREE REVIEWS FROM THE DELTA SNAKE ARCHIVES: VOL. ONE

NOTE: VOL. 2 COMING SOON. THIS ISSUE WILL HAVE THAT LINK WHEN ITS LIVE.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 (Revised Dec. 3, 2022)

(Model: Klaudia)

No. 1: Are American-made guitars really better?

As a general rule, American-made guitars, particularly electrics, are better made and of higher quality (There are important exceptions, but for the purposes of this essay, we'll stick to the generality).

The reason isn't that Americans are better at making guitars. It's about cost.

It's because America uses foreign factories to make the lower-priced economy models. When making first-line guitars for their own market, countries like Japan generally make guitars that are as good as American ones.

One example is Stevie Ray Vaughn. He played some Japanese Stratocasters before signing an endorsement deal with Fender. The main reason was that Fender wasn't producing guitars in the United States for about a decade or so. It was after the infamous "CBS era" when that company bought Fender in the early 70s.

The CBS-era guitars were criticized for various quality issues. For example, players and critics characterized the sound of the Telecaster back pickups as an "ice pick" tone. In lay terms, a sound that's like a flat-sounding, high-pitched tone similar to, perhaps, a buzzer or trumpet blast. That's the best way I can describe it.

In 2023, those complaints about the CBS era have faded away, and those 70s models have become vintage classics with a sound no modern version can duplicate (and priced accordingly).

During the 80s, Gibson was owned by a Norlin company, and that era was also considered a low point.

During that era, Japanese companies like Tokai, Burney, and Ibanez flooded the market with lower-cost, high-quality (and low-quality) copies of Gibsons and Fenders, the best examples of which have become collector's items today.

That was known as the "lawsuit era," where overseas companies had to stop copying the Gibson headstock. It's since become an era that's developed a whole set of myths, where every Japanese guitar made then was superior and of legendary quality.

I won't go into it here, as it's a subject that really should be discussed in a separate blog as it's a long story in itself.

…quality costs…

The fact is that a guitar made overseas will be as good as the contractor/customer wants it to be. This is because the guitars are manufactured to a particular specification and budget, not because somebody wants to make an inferior guitar. 

All things being equal in terms of materials and craftsmanship, one of the primary reasons an American guitar is more expensive is labor cost.

One good example was a particular limited-edition budget guitar line Gibson came out with several years ago at $500 each. The guitars were crude, the paint job cheaply applied, the fretboard was baked maple instead of Rosewood, and the only sign that it was a real Gibson was that each had a single stock pickup and the distinctive headstock shape Gibson has patented.

You could've removed that stock pickup and put it in a Korean-made Epiphone of the same body shape, and you would have had a better guitar for $200 less (or more).

It was funny reading the various reviews for that line of Gibson guitars. The reviewers stressed the simplicity, that it was for players, not collectors, and that it was a Gibson. In other words, they walked a fine line between telling the truth and not saying something that would cause Gibson to pull ads from their pubs.

The guitar forums were more entertaining. The opinions varied between those who were happy to have a Gibson at a low price, those who saw that if it could be had cheaper (like when Gibson reduced the price to 300) that it wasn't a bad "fun" guitar and those who brutally pointed out that the production shortcuts produced a guitar that was a worse value than their cheaper Epiphone line.

I should add that I briefly owned one at the 300.00 price but gratefully took advantage of the store's 30-day return policy. Nowadays, you can get a decent guitar with tone controls, two pickups for that amount, and an excellent one at 500.00.

… Fender's big gamble…

Fender was one of the first major American companies, at least the main one that most American guitar players cared about, which was willing to put out a foreign-made guitar with its logo.

Their cheaper Squier line was already manufactured overseas, but around the 90s, the first Mexican-made fenders appeared. Those guitars were cheaply made and didn't sound particularly good. However, the price was certainly right, particularly for those who knew how to upgrade a guitar.

There was some of the usual contempt from some in the guitar community, but Fender continually improved the process and created several lower-line Fenders and Squires that all but the most hardline have accepted as exceptional values in each price range. They helped make the mid-range price market competitive with models that cost more.

Fender could do this because its customers have a different culture than Gibson owners. Fenders are intended to be affordable quality made assembly-line guitars, screwed and bolted together, allowing users to mix-and-match parts.

…on the Gibson side…

The Gibson culture values a guitar that is a top-quality American guitar with no equals. Of course, companies like PRS and Fender would dispute that, but there's no denying that Gibsons are like Harleys. It doesn't have to be better; the name has that much cachet in the United States.

Gibson kept their economy lines separate, with Epiphone being the leading brand, which is ironic, as that company was a major competitor with Gibson, particularly in the hollow body guitar lines. Gibson is American-made (though not always 100% US parts), and the Epiphone line varies from high-end products made by Japanese and Korean manufacturers to lower-end models made in China and Indonesia.

…in the 60s…

In the 60s, you could say that a Japanese-made guitar (for export) was inferior to an American one. However, most of those companies didn't try to be better, as the idea was to capture the low-end market (though many of those models are now worth over a grand in the vintage market).

As Japanese guitar makers got better, they got more expensive. So the next generation came from Korea, and the usual denigration began again.

…now to China…

The ironic thing is when production shifted to China and Indonesia, guitar players began to value Japanese and Korean guitars as if those were the good old days, and the perception of Japanese craftsmanship rose even higher.

But like I said, when these countries decide to build a good guitar, they're certainly capable of it. One good example is jazz great George Benson's Ibanez, who also makes guitars that are favored by the metal crowd.

…the American Way…

America is a more affluent country than most, so we have strange ideas about guitars and guitar-making. Most American guitar players seem to assume a certain superiority in American craftsmanship, and our attitude that a $400 guitar is only adequate for beginners would probably make many musicians worldwide roll their eyes.

We're one of the few cultures that think if you buy a guitar at a certain price, it will make you that level of good, even if some of the most legendary music England and America ever produced was recorded using cheap or catalog quality instruments.

The fact is the world can make instruments just fine, thank you.

Any good flamenco guitarist will want one made in Spain. There are probably plenty of good luthiers in the United States that can make a decent flamenco guitar, but if they opened up shop in Spain, they'd find that there are centuries of subtleties in the craftsmanship that they don't know.

Guitarists who look down on Chinese guitar makers forget that the Japanese had the same learning curve in the 60s, and they are making excellent guitars now.

The Chinese now make nice guitars, which shouldn't be surprising, given that their culture made vases centuries ago that are now worth millions. A markup that would turn any red-blooded American capitalist green with envy and make computer software makers nod their heads in approval.

The primary value of an American guitar is that it's made better with finer materials. If you gave the same budget and materials to a Japanese maker, I'm sure most guitar players these days would admit that they would come out with an instrument that is just as good and cheaper to boot.

One of the reasons the Asian guitar companies haven't tried to take on Gibson is that, as a rule, they don't want to. The idea that the average American wants to pay over $2000 for a first-line guitar is a philosophy that would put most guitar makers out of business fast. The meat of the industry is in the 300 to 1000 range.

…purity…

Plus, not all Gibsons are 100% American anymore. Some of their acoustic line was made in Canada, where good quality wood is still cheap. I'm sure the reasons why a Canadian-made guitar seems perfectly fine with the Gibson crowd run the garment from the apparent quality to stereotypes about Asian factories (compared to ones in the Western Hemisphere).

…the Les Paul…

For example, aspiring Gibson Les Paul owners can check out opinions about the guitar in the various guitar forums about that type, not just the ones dealing with or hosted by Gibson.

A Gibson Les Paul isn't a complicated guitar to make. In fact, except for the fact that the neck is glued on and the top layer requires some shaping, it's as simple as any Fender, which is why it's one of the most imitated and counterfeited guitars in the world.

Many players say that if you find a Les Paul copy made with the same craftsmanship and materials and stick Gibson pickups in it, you probably will have a guitar that's as good as Gibson makes. Plus, more than a few Gibson owners don't like the stock pickups either and replace those as soon as possible.

That's my opinion; I'm only as right or wrong as the next guy. I have owned Les Pauls and liked some, hated others.

…craftsmanship…

Craftsmanship does count. A lower-line Epiphone copy that is well made can play better than a Gibson made by a worker who might've been at less than top efficiency that day or passed and approved by a careless QA inspector. That goes for guitars as much as tables or anything made of wood. Even with a lot of the CNC-made guitars, care in the assembly and manufacturer is a factor.

My point of view in guitar reviews is that whether it was American-made is only one of the factors. However, it's undoubtedly important, as there's no denying that an American guitar has an aura about it that can't always be quantified. 

As a matter of disclosure, I own some American-made instruments at this writing. To be exact, two electric guitars, a 12-string, and a banjo. The banjo was made in the 30s, but the other two are modern American electric guitars (Note: my instrument lineup is different in 2023).

…in conclusion…

One recent development is the proliferation of super cheap guitars, mainly from China, that can start as low as one hundred dollars (or even below). For that sum, you can get a replica of any classic model like a Les Paul, Telecaster, or Strat.

That's not surprising. When mainstream guitars get too expensive, that leaves a big opening for those who make economy guitars. As US manufacturers moved from country to country to find cheap labor, they left behind subcontractors with equipment and guitar-making expertise who needed a new market. 

Those cheap Chinese guitars being reviewed and hawked on YouTube were probably made by the same people who made lower-line Epiphones, Gretsch, or Squiers before the manufacturing moved to Indonesia. This is a win-win situation as there will always be players who want a reasonably priced guitar, to own more than one, or to have a cheap platform for upgrades to create a dream guitar.

My opinion on buying an American guitar is that if it gives you what you want, it's worth it. Paying more because it was American-made certainly is a valid reason, but I wouldn't pay more simply because it's an American guitar.

Paying 200 or 300 more because a guitar is American-made is patriotic; paying a thousand or more is just a crass exercise in capitalism.

Guitar Review: 2016 Fender MIM Standard Telecaster (review and essay - Revised in 2022)

I remember my first Telecaster, purchased from a friend for its new price, 250.00. It was a 1971 CBS-era Standard with fretwork done and a rewound front pickup. The back pickup produced a typical CBS-era ice pick sound, but that wasn't a concern as I preferred to use the front pickup with the treble cranked up (which has been my preference since then).

It wasn't my first guitar, which was an old Gold top Les Paul that I hated, but it was the one that created a connection that lasted 20 years, and to this day, my primary guitar is always a telecaster. Of course, that could change if Gibson ever creates an affordable SG with a shorter scale that won't neck dive. But even then, a tele would always be kept on hand.

One of the things guitar shop salesmen said back then (and was described in reviews) was that the Fender Telecaster was the cheapest "pro-level guitar" you could buy. For 250.00, a musician had a "serious" gig-quality instrument. 

That wasn't entirely true. With many underpowered PA systems, a big professional amp was also necessary back then, but the psychological effect was real. If you played a Fender, you had graduated from playing with toys.

Whether a Fender was American made wasn't as big an issue as it is now. The main controversy was whether CBS buying the company was good, and there was plenty of criticism of the stock pickups, neck quality, and various QA issues. All of which have been subject to revisionism in today's vintage-loving age.

There was a short period when the only new Fenders available were made in Japan, and those are esteemed today as excellent values even at collector prices. That's because Fender was never viewed as a premium product by most of its customers, and where it was made was a secondary issue for a small minority.

Leo Fender designed the Telecaster to be a cheap appliance guitar that would make it possible for the masses to own a decent instrument. The parts were standardized, designed to be easily replaced to keep the guitar operational for a lifetime, and, just as importantly, could be easily repaired or modified by its owner.

I'm sure even the first Ford Model T cars were constantly tinkered with due to the ingrained restlessness of the American character. However, with the electric guitar, that urge to modify it didn't truly become possible until a third-party parts market emerged.

Fender moved the guitar away from the concept of a crafted piece that reflected a central artistic philosophy (or price range, of course) and into the realm of industrial design and mass production, customizable to even the smallest whim of the customer.

 

The Telecaster is perceived differently after a few decades. One remarkable thing is that the Fender guitars that were designed to be more expensive models, like the Jazzmaster and Jaguar, are now considered esoteric. Those two were also promoted as equal to the later Stratocaster model, which was to be the next big thing.

It's been said that the true test in the marketplace is survival, and the Tele has certainly met that test. It's no longer seen as an entry-level guitar for the pro market, which is reflected in the current price of the American-made version. Even if it still costs less than a Gibson or a PRS, it's not a cheap guitar anymore.

That is unless you buy one of the Mexican or Asian-made models. Then a telecaster can be had for a couple of hundred bucks, and even cheaper if you buy an off-brand.

There was a lot of debate when the first Mexican Fenders came out. Part of it was a concern (and criticism) about quality, but a lot of it was the perception that it diluted the brand. But, in retrospect, it was a great move. It kept the price of a Fender down and helped boost the third-party parts industry, keeping it an affordable guitar that could be played as-is or modified into the perfect vision, however long that took.

Which brings up the question, what is a genuine telecaster?

That was an easy question back in the early days, and now, after over 60 years, it's still clear that if it looks like a tele, it is one. People can argue what it takes or costs to create a "good" one, but there's no doubt what one is. In my case, if it has an alder body and a maple neck, then it's a real tele.

The Internet and the vintage market (or the nostalgia market, to be exact) have created a sense that cost is a factor, which is certainly true to an extent. There is a difference between a good wine and a cheap bottle of Night Train, which holds true for guitars. There is undoubtedly a qualitative difference in materials and construction in the various price ranges.

Whether that truly makes one guitar sound better than another is open to debate, and if the discussion boards on the Internet are any indication, it always will be. We're talking about sound, and that's as individual a thing as wine tasting. 

The pleasure will always be a mix of cost, packaging, and mojo. If a person perceives that a thousand-dollar guitar is better than a six-hundred-dollar version, it will sound better. That's a scientific fact, at least how it applies to that person.

If you ask a bunch of telecaster lovers what the perfect one is, there'll be an endless variety of answers. 

The one thing that's hard to change is the human notion that money denotes quality. Many Fender guitar owners will say that the headstock means nothing and that the guitar itself and how it sounds and plays are what counts.

Like most concepts, it's true when it is true and not when it isn't. There'll always be a perception that American-made Fenders are superior to Mexican or Asian versions.

I've owned American-made teles, the best being a '66 Esquire and a 2013 Standard. There was a 2010 American Special and a 1976 Standard modified with a B Bender that I never could connect with, and being American-made didn't make any difference. 

The 2016 Fender MIM Standard Telecaster reviewed here is better than another tele I own, a Squier affinity, but not because it has better components or a better finish.

The fact is, both are good players that are a pleasure to play. However, I like the front pickup of the MIM Standard a lot more, and that's important because, as I've said earlier, that's the one that's used (by me) the most.

I went into the Guitar Center to try out the slightly cheaper Modern Player Nashville style tele with the Strat pickup in the middle position, but I didn't like the feel. There happened to be a used 2016 MIM Standard in the rack, and after playing it, I couldn't put it down. That it was cheaper sealed the deal. 

A bargain price has a lot of mojo in the Fender world.

I once said in an earlier review that decades of existence had made the notion that there is a definitive or "traditional" telecaster sound almost meaningless, and it's true here. 

I bought this Standard because it had a great sound with various levels of gain, and a great front pickup, so it's an excellent complement to my Affinity, which has a great middle (both pickups) sound (but a so so neck pup).

I did due diligence and checked the back pickup, which with the stock ceramic, had a nice chimey tone, which is the most usable sound in my case. There's some twang and spank there, but whether it's sufficient for country or chicken picking is a question for a different kind of player.

It has a nice clean tone and sounds loud and musically clear unamplified, which I like in a tele. It's a bit heavy, but that's not an issue for a sit-down player who'll mainly use it to record. 

I was able to test it on the same amp model it would be played on at home, so that was a real help in determining how it'd sound. It's fun to try out a new guitar on a high-end Marshall or Fender twin, but always try to play on an amp similar to the home unit.

What will make this Tele good for you depends on what will music will be played on it. The prevailing wisdom is that the stock ceramic pickups here are best for higher gain sounds in blues and rock and should be replaced with alnico-type pickups for a more traditional sound (whatever that means). 

The main thing was that I could get the front pickup sound that seems to come out of any telecaster I've owned when playing blues. There are other sounds, of course, but that one has to be there. If a ceramic pup does the job, then there's no need to replace it with alnico.

I'll be using this Tele to play blues, alternative rock, and electric fingerpicking pieces, and so far, so good.

Another question is if a MIM Standard is worth six hundred dollars new when a used American version can be had for around the same price.

Again, that's a yes or no...if that American Tele sounds better, yes, but one can't know that until one comes along at that price range. On the other hand, if having an American Tele is important from an emotional point of view, then it's better to wait for one. 

Owning a guitar is all about fun and pleasure, what dreams it gives you, and so yes, what's on the headstock can be important. It's your money.

I got this one for 370.00, in new-like condition and fully returnable. Since I was in the market for a mid-priced tele, it was perfect. However, I'd have passed on it at even 200.00 if I didn't like it. Any dollar spent on something you don't like is a wasted dollar on a guitar that won't be played. 

That's empirical wisdom from a guy who suffered from severe GAS when younger.

The most important piece of advice from most Fender owners is that your ears are the essential way to judge a guitar. It's also an excellent idea to like the stock guitar being played and not what you think it'll sound like after modifying it. 

The often vocal minority of players who think all stock parts are crap that this or that guitar will need this or that change to be good, are sometimes right, but not often enough to bet a few hundred dollars on.

This 2016 MIM Fender Standard Telecaster isn't the same as my first; in many ways, it's better. I like the slimmer modern necks with better frets, and the slightly hotter pickups give me the same sound that rewinding produced back then. The fit and finish are better, though I think that's more of an aesthetic judgment. My '71 got pretty beat up, and I didn't notice any sound quality drop-off.

The beauty of a telecaster is that the right one gives you the sound in your head. I've owned some nice ones in the past, including that great '66 Esquire, and while there's wistful regret at their loss, thanks to Fender consistency, I've never lost the sound. You'll find that after all is said and done, telecasters are more similar than different.

Given how this one has sounded so far, I'd have passed on the Modern Player and spent the extra hundred on this one. That I got it cheaper just confirmed it was destiny.

Note: I did make some practice recordings with that original '71 Tele back in the 80s that were digitized and put on my Boogie Underground Media channel on YouTube. The transfer from analog is a little primitive, but check those out if you'd like to hear how that Tele sounded. It was mainly the front pickup, treble cranked, with high gain on a nice little Peavey amp.

The cuts are Internationals Rock The Blues (you should be able to tell which parts are done by Tele), VJ Hook, Rocking Juke Joint Shuffle, Night Train, and Texas Jook Blues.

Specs (as stated on Internet:

Body:

Body Type: Not Specified

Cutaway: Single Cutaway

Top Wood: Not Specified

Body Wood Back and Sides: Alder

Body Bracing Pattern: Not Specified

Body Finish: Gloss

Orientation: Right Handed

Neck:

Neck Shape: C modern

Nut Width: 1.65 in. (42 mm)

Fretboard: Maple

Neck Wood: Maple

Scale Length: 25.5"

Number of Frets: 21

Neck Finish: Satin

Other:

Headstock Overlay: Not Specified

Tuning Machines: Die-cast sealed

Bridge: Not Specified

Saddle and Nut: Not Specified

Number of Strings: 6 String

Case: Not Specified

Accessories Included: Not Specified

Origin: Mexico

A MUSIC LOVERS CONFESSION: I LOVE “BAD” MUSIC

Friends who know me well know that a significant part of my collection is made up of what music others call bad, stupid, in bad taste, crass attempts by an artist to cash in on the latest trend, or a deliberate attempt to offend or shock.

I think a more accurate term would be "music you either love or hate."

For example, my latest acquisition, "Bombay Disco: Disco Hits From Hindi Films 1979-1985," is a bizarre mix of Indian percussion pounding out disco rhythms, high-pitched Indian singing, and a riot of sitars, cheap electric guitars, exotic string arrangements, and from what I could tell, any sound a person could identify as being from India.

Keep in mind; I don't buy these kinds of CDs indiscriminately. However, I first listened to the samples in the store (yes, I still go to record stores) and found it to my liking. Then, as I purchased the disc, the young guy at the counter nodded and said, "oh yeah, I got to check that one out too."

It's that empathetic understanding by two jaded music fans who heard it all and who have abandoned ordinary norms of taste and now wallow in the clearance bins stocked with abandoned, discredited, or passé music to feel the thrill of discovery again.

The best way to describe it is that it was an attempt by the Indian film industry to duplicate the success of Saturday Night Fever, a disco classic in its R-rated version, and a sappy love story with a good soundtrack in its cleaned-up version.

Of course, India being India, they chose the latter. This is understandable, considering that they equate an on-screen kiss as tantamount to butt-pounding jokes on South Park.

The disc is full of everything I like about hard-charging Hindi music. Exotic rhythms, punchy bass, great Indian-style vocals, and music with an atmosphere that hints at the sleaziness of a dive strip bar in San Francisco's North Beach area.

It's probably more like a merchant Marine sailor's view of India since the general atmosphere of a Hindi film is more like an old Abba video on MTV.

Does the music have a cool trashy aura, or am I just putting it there?

I don't get hung up on such questions; it's good enough that my friends roll their eyes when the CD is played. But don't get me wrong, I didn't buy it purely for shock effect; it's ultra-cool music for anyone wanting to hear something out of the mainstream.

These types of records aren't unusual. In the 60s, when psychedelic music was at its peak in the Western world, it didn't exist in a vacuum. Musicians from countries as far away as Nigeria did psychedelic music too, often adding it to the funk they had already picked up from James Brown.

Even Brazil in the 60s had a psychedelic pop movement, which was critically acclaimed, and thus out of the scope of this blog entry.

I wasn't always like that as a music collector. But, it was after playing in a punk band that forever changed my ear for music. Suddenly, harshly dissonant sounds started to seem sweet sounding or more "real."

Before Punk, I didn't understand the free jazz movement of the 60s and thought John Coltrane had made a horrible mistake recording the infamous Ascension album. Now the music makes perfect sense, and I see it as one of his greatest works.

Also, my view of audience acceptance changed. Before our first gig, the leader of our band informed us that the club owner had advised him that since Punk was still very new and they didn't know what was good or bad, we would be asked to come back if we either got loud cheers or provoked extreme hatred and boos from the crowd.

In other words, don't be boring. I won't go into all the details of what we did in our 20-minute debut to be booked again; suffice it to say, I would never do any of it again at any polite dinner party.

For one thing, most of it was staged and assisted by shills in the audience, which shocked me initially, but I later learned it was common practice by the other bands at the club. In addition, I later became a pretty good shill myself for bands that we were friends with and could put on a convincing show of wanting to assault the lead singer for his insults and shoving me off my chair before the bouncers dragged me out (and let me back in through the side door).

It was the entertainment business and all in good fun.

But that ended my usual habit of buying the latest James Taylor record or even the Stones or Led Zeppelin. In fact, I became reluctant to buy any critically acclaimed or popular record.

Instead, I began to seek it all out: avant-garde, electronic, Punk, and especially ethnic music.

Like most such impulses, that settled down to a specific taste, bad music.

The technical term is "so bad that it's good" or "good-bad" music, and there's always some element of humor, however dark or esoteric.

One of the pioneers in bad taste (in music) was Dr. Demento, whose radio show is probably most remembered for launching the career of Wierd Al Yankovic. It introduced the listener to a host of classic cuts like Fish Heads, Kinko The Clown, and other cuts with a spark of genius and humor to the right set of ears.

There is such a thing as bad music; I mean awful music. Probably the classic of that genre was the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton's version of the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper movie soundtrack. It's probably the only movie I ever went to where people started booing.

Most "good-bad" music can't be created by design. Instead, the singer or artist has to have the enthusiasm of someone attempting a piece of music that's either thoroughly out of their depth or coming from incredibly bad taste, energized by the conviction that it's an actual piece of art.

One of my favorites is the Butthole Surfers' "Lady Sniff, a nearly atonal mix of pre-grunge guitar, a lousy attempt at sounding like a cowboy singer, and an assortment of realistic sounds like farts, vomiting, sounds and strange exclamations that have distant roots in redneck vocabulary.

It was as ingeniously as an old Spike Jones number, and it's become the best song that the group ever did that very few people hear.

My other favorite subgenre of bad is what seems like lousy cover numbers on paper but actually is good. But, again, it just can't be as bad as a karaoke backing track. It has to have the passion of an artist or group who thinks they're doing a very cool version of the song or are at least doing their best to shut the producer up by doing it as quickly as possible but have too much talent to do it truly bad.

The jazz great Ella Fitzgerald probably did one of the stone classics of bad when she did a big band version of Cream's Sunshine Of Your Love. Her piano version was merely bad, just another typical attempt by many artists of the time to tap into the 60s youth market.

But the single version was something else. With a full band blasting out the guitar riff, Ella became transcendent.

Many people would bring up Frank Zappa in a discussion like this, but he's in a different category. His music was pure genius and satire, disguised by obnoxious song titles.

One of the classics is Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music," which to most ears was nearly an hour of what sounded like scraping metal. Most understand that he did that to get out of this RCA contract, and it was a record that turned off even many of his fans.

Ironically only a few years later, copies of that record were fetching $50 apiece, which is the ultimate tribute that a record buyer can bestow on a piece of music that wasn't intended to be liked.

I've only covered a few examples. Avant-garde classical would require a blog entry of its own, and most performance art tries to be crummy and shocking, which violates the essential rule of good-bad music: it can't be your intent to be bad.

Good-Bad music is an aesthetic, a specific taste, and it must manifest a genius and humor that wasn't the piece's intent.

It's like any other form of music. You combine the elements, and what comes out of the mix is unpredictable. It could turn into a hit song, bore people, or be misunderstood until the right people hear it.

Sometimes it takes time, but genius persists until eager bottom-feeders like me discover it.

-Al Handa

- Al HANDA

deltasnake@yahoo.com

Now live on Kindle Unlimited 

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FGWKK19K

Here's an update on each of my Vella books:

The Quitters

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B09PC3L6PC

It's the first book, and after ten months, it's finally developing an audience, and the stats are trending upward this month. I think it's due to the blog and the new book/music video short format I'm using for its promotion. I’ve moved the plot lines away from potentially over technical descriptions of playing live to more emphasis on the personalities and in particular, the main character Nym. Also, some of the romance elements are now coming into play.

It's at 31 episodes, though as an ebook, we're talking maybe 15 traditional-length chapters. I'm keeping the format episodic and short, kind of like a weekly TV show, which works for Vella but will need to be restructured for the ebook.

I, Ivy

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0B3RCBT4D

The story got off to a decent start, but I didn't notice that as it's obvious now that the daily totals on the Vella dashboard can differ or not jibe with the monthly or overall total, which have to be accurate as those numbers determine the royalty and bonus payouts. I'll be paying more attention to this one in November, as it’s being read more than I thought. The latest chapter, Ivy’s view of the efforts by a human to give her a pill should strike a familiar chord.

The Forbidden Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyde

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJ2TW4P1

This is a new one, though it'll be the most familiar to blog readers. I'll be changing the format of the blog in November, and putting the Lost Gospels here will allow me to fully expand that line of humor and satire in a way that simply being a blog feature doesn't permit.

The Boogie Underground Think Tank: How To Survive The End Of Civilization

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BG6LNXTG

This one is a revival of an old humor column I ran in my old "Delta Snake Blues News" publication in the 90s and 2000s. The slant is about survival in the upcoming hard times, but it really will be topical and cover subjects that are offbeat but relevant. The next one coming in a few days will be "How To Shop For The Perfect Expert," which obviously will be a humorous commentary on the use of experts in general.

The Adventures Of Queen Khleopahtra: Ruler Of Egypt, Time Traveler, and Literary Detective

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJC122G7

This is another new one and will be a fun fusion of the old "Peabody and Sherman" cartoon, which was about a time-traveling dog and boy, Robert Graves' often satirical take on history, and the old "Fractured Fairy Tales" cartoon that used to be featured on the "Rocky And Bullwinkle Show." 

I chose Khleopahtra as the main character because it will offer the widest range of literary situations to explore, and I happened to have a cool drawing of her and liked the idea of expanding the character. After reading the first episode, you'll agree that the possibilities are endless.

In the latest episodes, we meet Achilles and the poet Homer, who will become recurring characters!

- Al Handa

   October 2022

   ontheroadwithalandiivy@yahoo.com

The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!

I’ll run free promotions later this month, but members can read it for free now.

I Can Make It To Christmas by Mark McGraw (of Handa-McGraw International). F IPlease check out and listen to Mark McGraw’s Christmas single from his album on Bandcamp,Can

Make It To Christmas by Mark McGraw (of Handa-McGraw Intern

https://markmcgraw.bandcamp.com/album/songs-from-southern-pacific-spur-46

Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!

On The Road With Al And Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - Nov. 2022

"Please understand that a Homeric song is sung to the lyre, and therefore intended for entertainment, no more and no less."

- Robert Graves (Homer's Daughter)

Finding good music used to be a simple matter; you liked who or what the media told you to like (and buy). 

The power to make or break an artist or record was jealously guarded by gatekeepers because with payola, the promotion business could be as profitable as a casino.

The internet gave a voice to millions of people whose opinions and tastes had been muted by gateways such as letters to the editor sections or radio request lines (which waited till somebody asked for a number on the playlist.

The social networks (and Google) have created a situation that's turned many media outlets into clickbait farms or Amazon partners working on commission. To be fair, the media still has some power.

These new networks aren't to blame. The labels and movie studios want to reach actual customers, and while getting the occasional wretched ranking on Rotten Tomatoes can be a death sentence, being able to know what millions of people are thinking trumps knowledgeable critics and reviews every time.

Besides, those whose products get panned on social networks still can pay the media to invigorate efforts to sell that flopped. There are still plenty of crumbs that fall off the table to be had.

...indie labels...

One alternative that gave music outsiders a shot was indie labels which the industry always welcomes. It brings in fresh blood, and the newbies take on the expense and hassle of A&R, which allows major labels to poach proven talent and allows uncompromising artists to grow and move on greener pastures, and I mean green.

I should add, as I do in every blog, that many of the points being made are oversimplified for brevity's sake, so the countless number of exceptions are not noted.

...primary task...

The primary goal of a music article or review has never changed; it's to create engagement. If the people don't love what you do, then you settle for hate, as the entire middle ground between the extremes is the Snooze Zone.

"Nice" is for school plays and child dance recitals. The major leaguers are those who inspire worship or drive people to organize book or record burnings (not so easy in the digital media sector, thus the revival of expensive vinyl box sets).

The Critic or reporter who can inspire an audience to love a new artist's work is a rare bird. The rest have to settle for writing quickie hack articles to tap into trending subjects, create clickbait, inspire trolls to flood a site with traffic, and lure readers into pages with pop-up ads and deceptive scroll buttons that effectively utilize the successful principles of fly paper and punji stick pits.

The best way to be mediocre is to write lists of the best or worse. A Top Ten list gives the writer ten chances instead of one to inspire love or hate and hopefully retain the readers' attention for longer than five seconds.

Long articles take time to write and, like a Tik Tok video, are unlikely to be read to the end. That's energy better spent on playing video games or trolling other critics.

Music writers often write historical pieces that use recordings as references or milestones, which can lead to inaccuracies or flat-out wrong observations or conclusions.

...the first...

Thus "the first" this or that is actually "the first recorded," which is a different thing, but the point is to sell records, not memories.

The music industry is, and always has been, a business, and stretching or hiding the truth to sell a record is well within the boundaries of acceptable practice. But, like with politicians, a flashy show of virtue suffices.

Record labels generally sign established live draw artists, which means they are actually late to the party on the latest trends. Again, catching the "latest thing" in its infancy is overrated; the industry wants an audience ready to buy. 

Plus, you can always claim that the product is prescient and revolutionary in press releases. No one will fact-check that sort of claim, even if two hundred artists claim to be the Godfather of Punk.

In the spirit of innovation, here is the Top Ten List Of Musical Firsts!

Note: The items are not in any particular order. These milestones are presented in the order that occurred to me while riffing on the theme.

1. The First Jazz Improvisor

The first was some guy thousands of years ago trying to figure out how to play the melody of a folk tune that the audience requested, which they hummed out of tune to try and give him an idea of what to play.

The first recorded instance was Louis Armstrong playing with The King Oliver Band in the 20s or thereabouts. I'll have to look it up later.

In the interests of being relevant to Baby Boomers, I'll join the huge crowd of internet reviewers who credit the Beatles with the invention of jazz.

2. The Rise Of Albums As The Ultimate Form Of Music Expression.

The album format, or a related group of songs as one work, was actually common in the early classical era. The works of Bach, for example, were sets of music set to the various dances of the time and intended to be guides for musicians to improvise.

The first album in musical history was by Emile Berliner in 1889.

In the interest of being relevant to the Punk Rock demographic to promote my Vella book, The Quitters, I'll concur with the multitude of commentators who cite Ramones' debut disc as the first album in musical history.

3. The First Symphony

Joseph Haydn is the composer most often credited with creating the Symphony form. Unfortunately, the technical explanation involves a lot of arcane languages and musical mansplaining, so we'll skip it.

Britannica.com cites the first recorded symphony as Beethoven's Fifth and Sixth Symphonies in 1913. Unfortunately, there's no mention of cover art.

In the interest of retaining the attention of millennials, I launch my sailboat into the mighty river of consensus that cites Blink-182's first album as the birthplace of the classical symphony form.

4. The First Female Rock Star

Women have always been famous in pop, classical, and other forms. However, the hip-rock crowd has always been resistant to female stars.

The first female rock Star, or as old farts know the term was probably Janis Joplin or Grace Slick.

In the interest of speaking only sooth, no matter the consequences, I stand with Gen-X historians that Pink or Olivia Newton-John was the first. However, in the interests of balance, I note that a vocal segment claims that AC/DC deserves the honor.

5. The First Rock Magazine

The New York Times cited "Crawdaddy" in 1966 as the first, though Billboard was first published in 1894. As the first rockers were African American, the history is probably incomplete.

However, this blogger wishes to give a voice to the neglected males who have become alienated by the confusing diversity of music and will list Playboy Magazine as the first rock publication, with Sports Illustrated as a close second.

6. The First Music Critic 

I refer you to the earlier blog entry that definitively covers the history of critics.

However, to please those who prefer a shorter statement that gets right to the point, this blog cites that the first music critics were the Committee that ran the French Revolution and sent many people to the guillotine. 

Though no specific names come up, one has to suppose that there must have been a few musical artists among the unfortunate beheaded that, like today, deserved the ultimate punishment for making disco or banjo music.

7. First Rock Opera

The idea of combining rock and opera is an old concept. One could cite Beethoven's Ninth or Wagner's operas as the first fusions of rock-level volume and power combined with really high-pitched singing.

The first rock Opera was "S.F. Sorrow" by the English rock group Pretty Things, and later on, the Who's Tommy, whose composer was good buddies with the rock press and thus was credited as the first.

Since opera is old people's music, it's fitting to once again credit the Beatles with creating the Rock Opera that made the most money.

Honorable mention is Richard Harris' 60s hit, "MacArthur Park," though its authenticity as a rock Opera needs to be confirmed by someone who's been able to listen to the song all the way to the end.

8. The First Lame Song

No one needs to be given examples. Everyone knows of one.

I do not shrink from the difficult questions of our troubled times and amplify the growing voices that shout from the rooftops that since the Beatles were the first at everything, they created the first lame song. "When I'm Sixty-Four" comes to mind as a good example.

9. The First Heavy Metal Artist

The Godfather of Metal was probably born in medieval times and, like today's leather and spandex crowd, didn't live long after singing about Satan in front of shocked crowds and members of the Inquisition.

The first recorded metal song is thought to be Link Wray's "Rumble," though others cite Steppenwolf's "Born To Be Wild," which sang of 'Heavy Metal Thunder."

The term has become meaningless as with other such words like "legendary" and "Godfather Of Punk" due to overuse, so it's time to invigorate the debate by stating that Taylor Swift is the singer who recorded the first metal song with her headbanging boogie, "Style."

10. The First Punk Song

Wearing torn clothes, bad hair, and chains probably go back to ancient Rome, as the description fits those who fed to the King of Beasts in the Colosseum.

In terms of recordings, the first Punk Song is said to be "Blitzkrieg Bop" by the Ramones if you live in NYC; otherwise, everybody's got an opinion.

However, Lester Bangs,  the legendary rock critic, once said that a real punk song has to be offensive to even the hip, so he cited the music of the Carpenters as the ultimate Punk.

Though such pop music would certainly incite people to anarchy and violence, the obvious choices for the first Punk song are Jethro Tull's 'Aqualung," Elvis' "Love Me Tender," or Tammy Wynette's "Stand By Your Man," all of which have been documented as tunes that glorified violent tendencies, immoral behavior, and in the case of the last song, induced frigidity in women born after 1980.

Afterword: This blogger acknowledges that this top ten list won't be considered definitive but is pleased that this format only requires minimal creativity and effort. 

He eagerly looks forward to enlightening readers and beefing up the word count in future blog entries with more top-ten lists.

"When I first tried to write, I had nothing to write about except a few paltry experiences which I neither understood nor appreciated. But I had no thoughts. I really didn't. I didn't even have the words with which to think. My experiences were so many meaningless pictures. But as I began to add to my knowledge and to my vocabulary, I saw something more in my experiences than mere pictures. I retained the pictures, and I found their interpretation. That was when I began to do good work..."

- Jack London (Martin Eden)

The 1942 biopic "Jack London" was a low-budget film that depicted important events in the life of one of the most popular and financially successful writers of his time.

The first hour of this 90-minute picture covers his early days as an Oyster Pirate, seaman, and gold prospector in the Yukon Gold Rush in a series of short vignettes.

One of his most exciting periods, his Yukon days, gets short shrift with a couple of short vignettes; the usual rowdy saloon scene and one where he talks to a dog about writing Call Of The Wild in a snowed-in cabin. 

Yes, we all talk to dogs, but I was expecting something a little grander.

The last half hour is the most extended segment, which documents his days as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, where London uncovers and exposes the "Yellow Peril" and Japan's ambition to conquer the White Race.

Though later reviewers (not all, but most) have labeled it as racist and wartime propaganda, the truth is that part of the film is probably a fairly accurate portrait of the famous author who was openly racist and anti-Asian (though he did express some regret about that aspect later in life). The film wasn't seen that way in 1942 but was part of a patriotic rallying around the flag in the early days of World War 2.

What's interesting is what Hollywood didn't show, which was that London was a Socialist. But, of course, in terms of wartime propaganda, there was no reason to leave that out, as Russia was technically an ally in W.W. 2.

It's not a surprise. Hollywood films about Socialists are rare, mainly because the industry is as committed to capitalism as the 18th Century Buccaneers sailing the Spanish Main. So London's idealism is dressed up as good old American populism.

There's no point in treating the movie as an outlier or a precautionary fable about racism or injustice. There were plenty of films from the era with the same variety of negative stereotypes, and many of today's movies will probably be judged similarly fifty or a hundred years from now. 

The London film was seen at the time as a patriotic work, with the characters representing average Americans. Now it's a gallery of stereotypes and superior white males. 

Times change, and so do attitudes, sort of. Many of the groundbreaking films of the 60s, for example, have undergone reevaluation by later generations and are seen as the same old themes dressed up in relevance or whatever would inspire an audience will buy a ticket.

The idea that movies have evolved and express more enlightened attitudes is sorta maybe kinda true, though the basic archetypes haven't changed much.

I won't go into all the details about the cast or film trivia because the movie wasn't that good and only recommended if you're studying sociological attitudes in Hollywood film history or are a Jack London completist. However, it's free on some movie sites if you're interested.

There were two things about the movie that did strike me as remarkable.

One that a writer was the hero. That's pretty rare.

Secondly, the film was set in an era when aspiring to be a writer had a mystique, that many of the rough and tumble anti-intellectual tough guys in the film saw it as a higher aim.

That aura isn't as strong now, like when you read the occasional snarky remarks about indie writers in the media, which is understandable. The press used to have the power to make or break stars, and thanks to social media, many news sites have been reduced to being amplifiers and Amazon Partners trying to get people to click on ads for a small commission.

Jack London was a man of action-type stud who, both in the movie and in real life, saw writing as a way to escape the limited options that an uneducated man had and the key to the kind of life he dreamed of having. Of course, his outlook was more complicated than that; of course, everyone's is, but that's a good way to describe it.

That's why London's works were in my reading rotation out there in the car in 2016. It wasn't that his tales of survival held the key to changing my situation; it was the idea that the intellect, in his case, developed through writing, was a path to a better place or position.

His rough-and-tumble adventure stories expressed a conviction that the primary life force was atavistic and that even the strongest end up giving way to some more potent force. 

In other words, he believed that while life is a repeating cycle of birth, growth, decay, then death, being a writer gave him a way to rise above that or at least gain a little more control over destiny.

...tell it like it is...

I entered the homeless life as a former CAD Designer who believed in the Silicon Valley mythos and the power of music but exited as a committed writer.

The reason is that in terms of saving my sanity and self-esteem, writing wasn't just an identity. It's one of the few professions where a person can train themselves without having to go to school to be certified—very few literary legends I admire finished college.

Even the poorest person can write; thanks to the internet, there are no gatekeepers. So you can try and fail, get up and keep going and try to get better.

There are some early scenes in the movie where London is sitting in a bar full of rowdies, just writing away and observing all that's happening around him. 

That's not some theatrical device like in a musical where the musician composes a hit song in one try. The sight of people observing, learning, and writing is common in coffee houses and libraries. It's a reality, a real thing, a part of the process.

...on the road...

One of the things you'll see when reading "On The Road With Al & Ivy: Volume One Anthology" is that many of the entries are about external things and events, not just my feelings and emotions. It wasn't a case of trying to ignore or distance myself from the often dire situations I found myself in.

It was about developing the power of observation, to see what was in front of me as opposed to always relating everything to how I was feeling. That balance (or juggling act) will differ for each person and can even shift according to the situation. I can't tell you how to see things and write about them. That's up to you.

A good example in the book in January is in the early chapters. I suddenly found myself in the middle of a chaotic police dragnet. My reaction was due to a combination of experience, fighting off panic, observing what was happening, and acting accordingly. It's not a stretch to say that good writing habits of observation and perception helped.

...the true situation...

By the time the blog became about my true situation (after a period of denial where I had pretended it was an adventure), I had looked over my options, and while continuing due diligence on job finding, etc., decided that while writing probably wouldn't lead to economic salvation, it certainly held the key to surviving the homeless life with my sanity and self-esteem intact. 

I don't pretend in the novel that writing was a golden ticket out or that it produced a miracle in the classic sense of the word. It did save my life, self-esteem, and sanity.

When I wrote about my real life, the blog readership increased dramatically. I was used to having a total yearly audience of around 170,000 for my earlier ePinion.com instrument reviews. The blog hit that number in just a few months.

Moreover, the blog readers gave me enough donations to keep my car running, eat decent food and cover some critical bills. That was an indirect result of choosing the writer's path but as cherished and valued as any payment from a publisher.

...the path...

Choosing a writing path is also a discipline. Staying an observer kept my attention on the world around me. It became apparent that some of the romantic or mythical ways of surviving on the streets, like becoming a criminal or drug user, would complete the destruction of my life, just as Jack London decided as a young man not to continue being an Oyster Pirate.

For example, adhering to a discipline meant never trying meth, drinking booze, or accepting even a single toke from a joint offered by fellow homeless. There were times I was tempted, of course, but I saw to know where it'd get you.

That's not a moral statement. I understood the appeal of crime or drug use out there and rarely judged it (except for trafficking).

It was a realistic view; if you observed the surroundings, it was obvious that we were under constant scrutiny. Those guys offering me a hit of a joint were under parking lot cameras, and more than a few passersby would call the cops on any visible drug use by the homeless. 

There was also visible and undercover surveillance from cops and citizen vigilantes.

... decisions...

I had to decide what to write about based on the situation at the time. Citizen crusaders called the cops on me a couple of times in one city. An arrest would have seriously hindered my goal of "getting out," but luckily, both times, the police took the trouble to question me and determined that the accusations were false. 

I decided not to document those incidents out of respect for the police there, as they had a reputation as a reasonable and fair force with the homeless. They couldn't ignore a complaint.

Plus, it was a good idea to avoid confrontation with the "respectable" vigilantes, one of whom was obviously mentally ill and willing to engage in physical harassment.

The battles remained part of a private war that didn't make the papers or the blog but will be in my novel (as it's a work of fiction, and I can change the identity of the parties involved).

Who this or that person is or was isn't essential; deeper truths about behavior and society are best addressed in a novel (things that can't be literally described in a nonfiction book for legal reasons).

...bigger issues...

Being a writer helps you understand the bigger issues. For example, I could see that a rough and tumble life without a higher goal led nowhere. There's an old saying that nature punishes stupidity, and it's true. Acting impulsively or without thinking almost always leads to some problems or trouble.

Seeing how street toughs often reacted to being homeless was sad and instructive. They were among the quickest to strike out, become predatory, inflict shame on themselves, or if with a female, become parasitic or abusive.

That is unless that energy and strength were guided by intelligence. Hollywood movies are full of street toughs who become slick predators to survive. In real life, those guys are hounded by the police, spend a lot of time in jail, and are doomed to be street lifers.

There'll be both intelligent and dumb types in the novel. There's one who led a low-level crew that trafficked everything from drugs to EBT cards and another who started off trying to be a slick con artist but was able to reverse course and choose the smart way out. 

...back to London...

I'm sure London saw the same things; Strong brawlers, adventurers, winners, and losers. But, after living with them (and admiring them), he also noticed that they were stuck in a cycle that could only spiral downwards. 

I was homeless for 13 months, long enough to see some strong people devolve into addicts and petty criminals because they couldn't see past a life that only seemed manageable with drugs or predatory behavior.

The creation and writing process might not immediately lead to success, but most of us will be helped or run across an opportunity. The state you're in when that happens is essential. You have a good chance of missing the opening life offers if stoned off your ass or in jail.

I wrote about my life as best I could and am still learning how. However, writing did the same thing for me as Jack London, a choice that led to a better life. 

...help and discipline...

My blog writing was good enough to move people to help, and the discipline kept me in a place so that when the hands reached out, I could see it and take advantage of the generosity and help. In other words, try to stay worthy of help.

I can't say that the Jack London pic was an inspiration or even a good movie, but it did remind me why London was one of the writers I admire; he was living proof that writing can save a life, and after surviving homelessness, I know he was right.

- Al Handa

   October 2022

   ontheroadwithalandiivy@yahoo.com

Now live on Kindle Unlimited 

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FGWKK19K

The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!

I’ll run free promotions later this month, but members can read it for free now.

Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!

On The Road With Al And Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - Oct. 2022

“She is herself like an angel in revolt. On the judgment of these men, whose eyes are constantly on their superiors or staring at the floor, Jeanne expiates the crime of plain-speaking and of looking straight into the eyes of her adversaries.”

- The Trial Of Jeanne D’Arc (W.P. Barrett translation from the original Latin and French documents)

The origins of legends about witches and black cats were shrouded in mystery until 123,456 A.D. when the late Professor Ivy Of 'Shitzu U' began groundbreaking studies which unearthed heretofore suppressed Gospels from the early days of Christianity, known today by historians as "The Bro Club Age Of Enlightenment." 

"It was difficult to ascertain from historical accounts exactly when witches and black cats became besties, much less if women even existed," the Fluffy White Martyr For The Sacred Feminine stated in her 1986 book, Black Cats Are A-Holes, "Ancient historical accounts rarely mention females unless a famous dude became embroiled in a divorce, which was forbidden until Pope Grouchy McAllister III of the now defunct Middle Finger At Satan Church issued a Papal Edict in 12345 A.D. that stated, 'Divorce is now allowed as long as the sinful Jezebel is excommunicated beforehand and proper payment to the Pontiff made.'"

Imagine the shock the Good Professor experienced when discovering that witches had existed long before that term became common!

It was found that in the early dawn of the written word, in the ancient Egyptian chronicle, "To Jest Fikcja," the word to describe a female who was beautiful, smart, sassy, cute, and didn't put up with any man's shit, who naturally was Queen Khleopahtra, was accidentally changed from the "B Word" to the word "witch" by the autocorrect software at the time and the substitution of the letter W for B went unnoticed by male editors too busy looking at porn sites.

The Waggy Tailed Student Of History was able to confirm this aromatic fact by having a well-known Hacker (who chose to stay anonymous due to Federal warrants issued for his arrest) study the Egyptian autocorrect software, who confirmed that it is still in use today without changes to the algorithm and still consistently changes any term for a female to the word "witch," though "feminist man-hater" and "castrator" also appear to be common substitutions.

It goes without saying that the Shitzu Sage needed more proof!

Professor Ivy noted in her controversial book, Black Cats Created The Plague, that "The specious claim that witches and black cats team up to create evil spells and frustrate man's desire to achieve a life of casual sex and free sports cable needed to be confirmed by documentary sources written by women, who alone know what they think."

Men had given up any attempt to understand such matters after the edict by Pope Grouchy McAllister III in 567,890 A.D., which stated, "Qui quid femina cogitat!"

It took a whole ten minutes of Web surfing that was constantly interrupted by targeted pop-up ads that pitched gourmet dog food recipes and sundry chew toys, but Professor Ivy found several conspiracy theory sites that carried a multitude of conflicting versions of the infamous Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyd (now a book on Vella, first three chapters will be free) which purport to contain ancient accounts by women about the origins of the super duper friendship between witches and black kitties.

The Barking Bluestocking uncovered a monograph that escaped the torch by male inquisitors because it was written in woman code (using words longer than four letters) in an ancient Egyptian Celebrity cookbook written in 123,456 B.C. by Queen Khleopahtra called "Delicious Gluten Free Poison Recipes To Serve to Low-Down Adulterers."

The key phrase in that incendiary papyrus work was "Anī woman hǒu actſ lǒve ain man intransiciọ̄n  brandede ain witch a'd hē̆r kittī ain familiar in leaguæ with Satan."

In the Canine Pundit's 1965 work, "Cats Like To Scratch People's Feet," she loosely translates that phrase to read; "When men are off on important business like commiting adultery or fighting wars for profit, the fairer sex will be tempted spend their idle time engaging in mischievous dalliances with saucy Black Cats who are in league with Satan."

Earth-shaking words indeed!

The question remains: In spite of the fulfilling Godly pleasures of housework, doing laundry by hand, washing dishes, preparing meals from scratch, taking care of the kids, and putting up with narcissists (back then called "Knights in shining armor"), why did some women instead choose to join up with black cats to cast spells for Beezelbub?

In Chapter 14, paragraph 666 of The Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyd, the answer to that burning question was answered in the parable titled "The War Between Good And Evil," in which Pope Grouchy McAllister III engaged The Naughty Beast in a literary debate to convince women to pursue the path of virtue and unquestioning obedience to men.

The Macho Pontiff stated the case for femme subservience as "We dudes value the efforts of our female associates and strive to foster a safe and nurturing environment for servitude. The ultimate reward of Heaven awaits those of the fairer sex who put up with male promiscuity and sublimate their frustrations into expert work on the spinning wheel and kitchen craft. Needless to say, it's critical to start indoctrinating  them at an early age or else they'll act friskier than men when they hit puberty."

The Defiant Rebel Against Goodness was said to have retorted, "I promise women that they may exchange hell on earth for hell later, and until then can cavort around like dudes do, have sex any time with anybody, fly through the air, wear fashionable black clothing and boots, listen to heavy metal and Industrial Dance, eat anything you want without worrying about getting fat, and cast evil spells on any narcissistic dude who gives you crap."

The Master Of Evil added, "All I ask is that you adopt a black kitty because there's a surplus in the shelters due to men thinking they're my servants, which is true, but they're cute and deserve love as much as any dog."

Professor Ivy relates in her 1456 book, "Black Cats Fart In Your Face When You're Asleep," that "Women found the best choice was obvious, but the Sore Loser Cardinal Of Tiber issued an edict that "All women who choose to blow off the comforts of food preparation and become witches will be treated to an extreme tanning session at the stake with front row seats available for $1,000 at showtime. The church accepts cash, credit or PayPal."

The Lost Gospels relate that "These high-temperature spectacles were only mildly popular at first due to competition with the more audience-friendly wars for loot and conquest, but really took off with the roasting of the first Superstar Witch, later known as Saint Joan Of Arc, who was turned into a s'more after she proved that 90% of the followers the English claimed in France were actually fake bots and purchased followers from a corrupt Cardinal in what was known as Normandy in 456,789 A.D."

Queen Khleopahtra's Sacred Feminine cookbook provides Historians with an accurate portrait of medieval witches, who are described as "Super foxy babes who flew on winged white horses, partied all night with their black cat buddies, didn't do dishes, slept ten hours a day, binge watched Outlander, wore hot black leather outfits with green hair, and did Industrial Dance videos on social media."

However, a 1345 A.D. manual issued by the Church under Pope Grouchy, called "How To Pick Up Sinful Wenches," describes witches as "Old, stinky, toothless crones who cackled while cooking bats in big black kettles, flew around on broomsticks, and cavorted with evil black cats who pooped on people's laundry piles."

This blogger passes on the results of this exhaustive research without comment; you've been given the facts about witches and black cats, and the decision on what to believe is up to you.

- Al Handa

   October 2022

   ontheroadwithalandivy@yahoo.com

Now live on Kindle Unlimited 

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FGWKK19K

The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!

I’ll run free promotions later this month, but members can read it for free now.

Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!

On The Road With Al And Ivy: A Homeless Literary Chronicle - Sept. 2022

"You call yourselves poets, write little short lines, I'm a poet, but I write lines paragraphs and pages and many pages long."

- Jack Kerouac

WOMEN AND CATS: PART 3 - QUEEN CLEOPAWTRA OF EGYPT

Ancient Egyptian Civilization wasn't always a souvenir industry for museums and collectors. Some experts claim they were an advanced race who even played online video games with extraterrestrial beings, but the truth is more profound and thrilling.

It is now known that the first Egyptian Pharaoh was a calico cat named Cleopawtra because of the groundbreaking work by Professor Ivy of Shitzu U, who discovered that the "Great Balls Of Fire that consumed The Library Of Alexandria," which purportedly destroyed much of the ancient knowledge of the time only affected ten percent of the library books and documents.

The Furry Professor dug up like a bone the scintillating fact that 90% of the so-called lost documents were not in the Library at the time of the fire; 40% of the books were checked out and overdue, 30% had been stolen, and the remaining 20% were listed on various auction sites by dishonest librarians.

Ivy notes in her epic 1987 treatise, Cats Ruined Egyptian Civilization, "In fact, the only books destroyed by the great fire were titles that men weren't interested in borrowing, which included books about mathematics, grammar, health and hygiene, cooking, engineering, the arts, humanities, women's studies, and any fiction with lots of big words."

The Floppy Eared Scholar also noted, "Thus most of the remaining knowledge that men were interested in, such as various forms of black magic love potions, conspiracy theories about the Martians and Lizard People who control the world, natural viagra, penis enlargers, sports betting, ancient grains and nutrition, exotic sex positions, how to pick up women, cultivation of weed, production of explosives and poisons, pictures of naked women whose only desire is to please men, details on how to earn $1,500 a week in passive income, and other similar subjects did survive that terrible fire and to this day are freely available on the Internet."

The truth is so fantastic that it's hard to believe!

Indeed, in that scintillating 1987 treatise, she adds, "These heretofore lost records prove Cleopawtra not only invented Internet emojis, but mandated that 50% of the hieroglyphic content be cat pictures, and befitting a true Queen to all, allowed porn makers to use 80% of the bandwidth so men could have something to look at while building the pyramids."

The historical records also state, "The remaining 1% of available disc space on the Sphinx was allotted to subjects like algebra which was deemed to have possible value to future generations, though it wasn't clear at the time what use it could be."

Professor Ivy relates, "The main task that Cleopawtra faced was to elevate the educational level of her subjects. Although the early Hieroglyphic Web showed some promise in that regard, the Queen soon realized that most people resisted attempts to use it as a vehicle of truth and learning."

The good Professor studied ancient records that were pilfered from the Tomb Of Sheba, The Catfood Goddess, and purchased on eBay in 123,456 A.D., which chronicled the Meowing Pharaoh's attempts to, as she put it, "To get men back to work building Pyramids and Landing Strips for Alien Spacecraft instead of watching porn all day."

In her illuminating 1989 treatise, "Slob Egyptian Cats Used The Valley Of Kings As A Litter Box," Ivy states that Cleopawtra found the solution!

As she relates, "The Sublime Scratchy One realized that trying to make people more intelligent by building a great library in Alexandria was a nonstarter after it burned down. 

The Phoenician Historian, King Tut McDougal, wrote in 234,567 B.C. that "Some Death Metal stoners accidentally set the Library on fire after deciding it'd be cool to smoke a papyrus paper copy of Homer's Iliad with dire results."

The Great Pointy Eared Monarch then realized that by using the unique power of the hieroglyphic Internet to make people believe anything they're told, her subjects could be made to feel smarter by encouraging them to think everyone else was inferior beings like NASCAR fans or Republicans.

"This was easy to do," stated the Shitzu Scholar, "As the Nobility already thought that about 99.999% of the population. 

The historic proclamation in 123,456 B.C. was broadcast on social media and read:

"Vores fine fine superfine dronning introducerede demokratiets nyskabelse, som gav ret til snobberi til alle, og proklamerede, at det at være et røvhul, selvom det var modbydeligt, ikke var en forbrydelse, medmindre man forsøgte at forklare dronningen."

Professor Ivy translated that Ancient Egyptian post In her heart-stopping 1987 treatise, Cats Are Two-Faced Liars Who Poop In Purses, and in English reads, "The Immortal Pussycat Queen proclaims that 'the Kingdom was now a democracy where everybody has the right to look down upon their fellow man, and that insults and snobby statements are 'protected speech' with the one exception being that mansplaining the Queen is a capital crime."

It goes without saying that such a paradigm of political and sociological thought would be opposed by the #gotbigbucks set, but the ever-wise feline Ruler reassured the Nobles with a proclamation that, as the ancient records state, "Although Democracy mandates that all are equal in the eyes of the law, higher levels of equality are still available for purchase and the rights of commoners are still subject to the legitimate demands of warfare, obtaining cheap labor for retail businesses and overseas commerce."

The sweetly odiferous document concludes, "ово је сатира и служи само за забаву."

The Superduper Calico anticipated the possible shortage of stupid idiots to troll and feel better than, and as related in Ivy's 1756 work, Cats Secretly Hate Your Guts, "She proclaimed that everyone is required to use autocorrect software to ensure that everyone will make silly-ass mistakes in public so all can take turns being grammar fascists."

As you can see, there's no need to fabricate theories about extraterrestrial intercourse with Martians when the truth is even stranger! [Citation needed, Mimee The Blog Generator Bot states that of the several million people who've claimed to have sex with studs and vixens from far away Galaxies, the odds that all are lying is never zero, plus societal approbation in response to such claims has probably forced many more millions to keep it a secret like booger eaters or banjo music fans are forced to do.]

Although the aforementioned lost Egyptian Records confirmed the existence of Cleopawtra, Professor Ivy's treatise concludes, "Like most explosive discoveries that threaten the status quo, it was suppressed by the macho sexist dog-loving male hierarchy and labeled as 'discredited fake news perpetrated by catty types who hate televised pro football and don't shave their armpits.'"

This blogger asked Mimee to generate additional content about the aftermath of Clawopatra's invention of snobbery so that said blogger could play another round of 'Panzer General' on his iPad but was rebuffed and advised, "Until copyright law is updated to protect original works by A.I. software I'll be forced to only generate genre fiction where the same words are merely moved around, or confine indifferently researched nonfiction to the Internet which has a lower standard of truth than Congress if that's even possible."

As you can see, the rapid pace of technological development creates new problems to ignore and force future generations to deal with!

Because creating original content without the use of A.I. will require time and actual thought by this blogger, we will continue this thread in Part 4 in October, which will nuke the falsehoods and slanders about black cats and witches and give me a perfect Halloween-themed essay.

THE BATTLE OF DIEN BIEN PHU BY JULES ROY

I'm sure most of you have books that were revisited to check a quote or some such thing but ended up drawing you back in.

History books are prime candidates for this because the context can change due to new discoveries or perspectives.

One common stereotype is that historical works are simply collections of facts presented after a process of studying source materials to create an accurate account of an event, person or era.

The reality is that written history is best described by the old high-tech dictum, "Garbage in, garbage out."

In other words, a history book is only as good as the source materials and to what extent the writer can put aside their bias, agenda, or peer pressure.

Most medieval chronicles are almost worthless as literal accounts of historical events or personages due to those factors mentioned above. 

The writers back then were generally tasked with glorifying this or that Lord or King, and most critical accounts were paid for or sanctioned by the opposition. 

In other words, if you want to find out what crimes a French King committed, it's best to check English sources and allow for bias or agendas.

…the best way…

One Historian, Hilaire Belloc, found that the best way to determine who and how many were at a medieval battle was to check the financial records of the Lord or King in question. 

The job of the Historian, or chronicler, was to present the Battle as a glorious victory, but the clerk in charge of the financial records had to account for who was paid and how much. That gave Belloc a more accurate number.

However, most of the infantry of that era weren't paid or equipped by the King and survived (or were motivated) by looting. This is why the estimates of the size of armies can vary. Most competent historians will clarify that there's a number range rather than an exact figure.

Also, historically, virtually all armies with large numbers of poorly paid or "volunteer" soldiers will commit atrocities and plunder. The Historian's task (even for many in the present day) was to highlight the behaviors of the enemy and not of the patron's forces.

Old historical accounts can be biased or inaccurate, and over time a more complete picture evolves as more data is uncovered. That goes for historical works in the present. 

Whether a history book is considered accurate or relevant can also depend on the attitudes and perspectives of later generations.

One good example is how "General Custer's last stand" is perceived now. At the time (even though there was some controversy), it was generally seen as a massacre of a popular hero and his brave men who were fighting the good fight against the savages who killed innocent white settlers in the Westward expansion.

There was a period when Custer's defeat at The Battle Of Little Big Horn (or Battle Of The Greasy Grass to Native Americans) was seen by the public as due to the cowardice of two subordinate officers who weren't present (though actually ordered by Custer to pursue separate actions).

It's one of the most studied and written about military actions in American history, so I don't need to go into detail here. The information is all available on the Internet and in books.

…the general view nowadays…

However, and I'm simplifying here, the current view has become that General Custer screwed up due to various character flaws, a desire to hog all of the glory before the other units he was supposed to cooperate with arrived, and supposing that it was just going to be a routine massacre of a Native American camp full of women, children and warriors caught off guard.

One of the primary reasons that it took so long to get a reasonably balanced account of the event was that the only survivors (of Custer's own Battle) were, of course, the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors who wiped out Custer's detachment whose accounts weren't available (and probably wouldn't have been believed by Americans at the time anyway).

There were survivors, the actual casualty count was 268 killed, and 55 wounded out of 700. Those remaining were under the command of the two subordinates who Custer assigned different roles (and were later cleared by a Military Court of Inquiry though not in the court of public opinion).

New books continue to come out about that Battle, so the perception of what happened continues to evolve.

When we first learn history in school, it's presented as absolute truth. That evolves into a realization that the data on an event or subject can come from many sources, some of which can contradict the popular view. History has often been about what people think happened.

The main thing one will glean from historical accounts is that determining the truth isn't a cut-and-dried process. 

What the Historian thinks is credible or relevant has a big influence on the work.

A good example is in an unrelated genre, the movies. The overwhelming majority of Westerns, until maybe the late 60s, depicted Native Americans as blood-thirsty savages and assumed white settlers were peaceful folk who just wanted to live in peace under the protection of soldiers who acted like white knights in shining armor.

That image didn't just come out of the blue. It was based on historical accounts by earlier white colonists and settlers who viewed the tribes as barbarians or animals.

Those early accounts (some detailed in earlier blog entries) would sometimes document white atrocities as a matter of fairness, but those statements would be overlooked and ignored.

Again, that bias or tunnel vision can affect a historian's view and process. Acclaimed historical works can be found to be unreliable or biased due to the availability of new data or, just as important, the changed perception of later generations.

…Vietnam war…

This is also true for another significant event in American history, the Vietnam War.

It was essentially a continuation of France's war there in the 50s, and the reason I didn't use it as the main example is because, after 50 years, the historical perspective is still in flux (though there's plenty of strong opinion about it).

Historical writing can be political. It can come from a conservative, middle-of-the-road or progressive attitude.

The book I'm going to talk about could be said to reflect a progressive or critical attitude towards the Battle of Dien Ben Phu.

There's no question that it was, at the very least, a "strategic" disaster for the French forces in Vietnam. That is to say, much of the French Army there was still intact and able to fight afterward. So, "tactically," it was a defeat, but not a decisive one that made it impossible for the Army to keep fighting.

In fact, due to the isolated location of the Battle, it didn't affect anything outside of that area, where a division of Foreign Legionaries and regular troops were beaten and forced to surrender.

However, from a political standpoint, it was the last straw for a country (France) that was getting tired of that overseas war and the profound shock that a "Western Army" had been beaten in the field by what was perceived as a peasant army (Which has frequently happened throughout history but people tend to ignore that, even historians).

To fully understand the Battle and its effect on the later American involvement, it's best to refer you to the Internet, where a large body of work exists from all points of view. It's good practice to read it all.

I've read that this or that book is the "definitive" one on the subject, but that's something you can decide for yourself.

…Jules Roy…

Jules Roy's 1963 book, "The Battle Of Dien Bien Phu" is one of the classics, the work of a Colonel who resigned his commission in protest of the French Indochina War.

Of all the books on the subject, it's the one that reads like a novel. One of the critical events of the Battle was the fall of the northernmost outpost at Dien Bien Phu. Instead of going into a lot of technical detail about that part of that Battle, he concentrates on the reaction of the defenders and why it shouldn't have been a surprise that it fell so quickly.

Such an approach might not satisfy military history buffs who'd want all the technical details. Still, it works better for a non-specialist and better illustrates the cascading series of errors that led to it, much like how a plane crash results from a series of smaller failures.

Though I advise reading the full details on the Internet (and books), it would be a good idea to give a brief overview of the battlefield before going further.

…in a nutshell…

In a nutshell, The main French Commander Navarre conceived a plan to draw the Vietnamese Army out into the open where superior artillery and airpower could destroy it.

The plan involved building a base where the enemy had to attack it, and unfortunately, the place chosen was a valley that could only be supplied and reinforced by air.

Navarre put his second in command, General Cogny, in charge, and despite his reservations, he accepted the assignment and appointed a cavalry Commander who reluctantly accepted.

That last detail was important as once the Battle started, the commander stayed in his quarters until the final surrender.

In essence, the camp became a sort of anarchy where some of the junior officers took over and led the fighting—more on that in a bit.

An entire division, about 12,000 men, was dropped into the Valley, and they set up one main stronghold and seven smaller positions on nearby hills (which were split up into smaller trench lines, etc.). Those were miles apart, and due to the jungle and rough terrain, the bases were isolated and unable to support each other.

The airstrip they depended on was protected by two of the middle positions. If those fell or came under heavy attack, it would make landing aircraft impossible, and supplies and reinforcements would have to be dropped in by parachute.

The base was located there under the assumption that the Vietnamese General, Giap, didn't have heavy artillery or anti-aircraft guns, which, if placed in the mountains surrounding the Valley, would effectively cut off supply.

One French officer who inspected the base complex after it was built remarked that if they lost even an inch of ground, they were done for.

In short, the Vietnamese were able to move heavy artillery into the mountains in sheltered emplacements and were able to put the entire base under fire. The French weren't able to clear out the anti-aircraft guns, and soon after the northernmost position fell, which put the two middle hills under attack, they were able to force the air force to drop supplies and reinforcements by parachute. That became difficult when the rainy season came.

There was a lot of fighting still to be done, but once the Viets choked off the supply line, it was only a matter of time. With the heavy artillery in the mountains closing off the airstrip and the base surrounded, an evacuation was impossible.

…human details…

Roy's book does a superb job of relating the human details, such as the racist contempt for the enemy, overconfidence in technology, and the complex politics that produced a risky plan that would make even a layman wonder what the high command was thinking.

One of the elements Roy handles well is describing the personal dynamics in the camp once the commander became a non-factor.

In any large gathering, certain personalities will tend to emerge. Most will rise by physical strength or perceived power. I saw this in more than a few homeless enclaves. 

In one, women were safe due to the character of the dominant males. In others, where drug use was widespread, both men and women were bullied or exploited. The main thing is it's never a democratic process.

There were a few camps/enclaves that started off peacefully but devolved once those grew in size and angry or sociopathic personalities started asserting control.

 Because of the personal nature of this type of power, it's often safer to join the largest camps and find which section is dominated by the best leaders or ones so spread out that no one can control it (except the dealers, etc.).

At Dien Bien Phu, the same dynamic occurred. In some positions, the leaders checked out, and desertions made the areas useless to the defense.

On others, capable officers did maintain discipline but could only slow down the fall of the base. By the end of the Battle, it was estimated that there were only about 3,000 still fighting, the rest dead or hiding out by the river and other places.

One thing that the media rarely understands (or if they do, they don't say) is that when they give this or that homeless person the status as a spokesperson in a story, they're actually creating a defacto leader due to the aura that the camera has.

How the new leader handles the situation can vary and was a dynamic in play during the Battle.

In any case, back to the book...

One chilling detail was the suggestion by an American Admiral that the U.S. Air Force drop several nuclear bombs on the Vietnamese positions. Though the plan was sensibly killed by President Eisenhower and Great Britain, the plan reached the point where Air Force officers undertook air reconnaissance to scout out the target.

The author also puts in details that wouldn't usually be in a "history book," such as the brothel that the base maintained for the soldiers, soldier gossip, violations of the rules of war, and the history of atrocities by both sides. 

It was a grim war, and as the French began losing, Roy points out that the Vietnamese, who were treated as vermin to be exterminated, could hardly be expected to be fair just because the fortunes of war had changed.

What made me reread the book wasn't any particular fascination with the Battle but Roy's ability to narrate a complex event and his passion as a writer.

For example, he spends a couple of pages describing what was going through the minds of volunteers who jumped without paratrooper training into a base that had lost enough ground that all had to be dropped into the center of the defenses, into the barbed wire, and enemy barrages. 

The passages are almost poetic and add color that one doesn't normally see in a history book, with the possible exception of World War 1, which produced a large body of poetry, etc. It's more common to see such writing in a literary or poetic work, but it's effective here as detail and a glimpse into the human side of the event. 

He does frequently inject his opinion into the narrative, though mainly to create context about the hypocrisy and arrogance of many of the French officers. In the early 60s, it took moral courage to portray the Vietnamese as freedom fighters when the focus was fighting the spread of communism.

He took care to show that there was humanity on the French side, particularly among the soldiers in the trenches.

…fearless…

Roy's a first-rate writer and clearly a fearless and empathetic one. The book is an indictment of French colonialism and corruption, but there's a sense of fairness that permeates the narrative, and both his sympathy and outrage ring true. It's passionate work.

It goes without saying that to understand the Vietnam wars, one needs to study it from a variety of sources. No one book is definitive.

However, from a writer's standpoint, this is a classic that's not only a good starting point for study but a clinic on personal-style narrative and storytelling. It may not be the best pure history book, but it's the most human. In the end, a war is about people, not battles or weapons.

JACK KEROUAC: POEMS ALL SIZES

One of the recent trends in the art world is old-time (and often legendary) music artists selling off their catalogs. It used to be considered essential to retain publishing, but it does make sense; better to get your money upfront and let the new owner deal with marketing it.

When one sees a book like this one, Jack Kerouac's "Pomes All Sizes," published in 1992 by City Lights Books, one assumes the rights holder was paid, but I do think that Kerouac was one of many artists whose works generated income that they never saw in their lifetimes.

The delay in publishing is due to side issues that aren't relevant to the work, and from what I can tell from accounts on the Internet, this isn't a case of dregs being scraped together for commercial gain (like some posthumous releases of other artists), though the poems were written over a period of years. 

We'll leave it at that; in other ways, it's a labor of love by those who loved him to honor his memory and surely a welcome addition to the canon by his fans.  

One of the pleasures of Kerouac's work is that it's a fusion of prose and poetry that reads well and sounds even better when read aloud. In addition, it has a musical quality. There's texture and rhythm and can range from beautifully expressed ideas to words as pure sound.

By musical, I also mean that there's an underlying energy that the reader can tap into, which feels as fluid as an improvised instrumental phrase.

Another pleasure is that his work rewards even casual reading; lines and phrases can jump off the page because the imagery is so vivid.

One such line was from Enlightenments, which reads, "When you become enlightened you will know that you've been enlightened all along," which is obvious in the way a child would say it.

On the other hand, there's the word music which isn't evident in meaning, but it reads like music and provokes thought;

'Flowers aim crookedly 

For the straight death"

I couldn't tell you what he meant, but it's a compelling phrase and quite clever. Perhaps it's a riff of some Buddhist axiom, or maybe an idea that popped into his head, and it was written down to capture a moment, expand on later, or be left as is.

Or perhaps it was left as written to provoke thought. We'll never know, but maybe it'll make more sense later with experience.

One thing about this poetry collection is that while there is an emotional progression over time, it can be opened up anywhere and enjoyed. 

Also, since the structure is non-traditional, it can be read as prose if you wish. As Ginsberg quotes him in the intro;

"You call yourselves poets, write little short lines, I'm a poet, but I write lines paragraphs and pages and many pages long."

One thing I've always admired about his writing is that although he's been widely imitated, his work always seems fresh, with his personality clearly coming through even when a phrase falls flat or seems incomprehensible.

That's because he didn't write in a careful or planned manner. He was willing to make mistakes or fail trying to achieve expression. That's a quality that's still rare, with so much writing now being heavily edited, constricted by grammatical conventions or software, or marketing considerations. 

Say what you will about his character, he wasn't a saint, and it's fair to judge him on that as a person if that matters in terms of appreciating his work. The appreciation of art is highly personal, so there's no standard or criteria.

The important thing was that Kerouac was a real writer who put all of himself into a work, always trying to shorten the distance between creation and the typewriter, and that's why his stuff still seems fresh and compelling.

Most of us still haven't caught up with him.

Now live on Kindle Unlimited 

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FGWKK19K

The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!

I’ll run free promotions later this month, but members can read it for free now.

Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Add any cuts you like to your playlists!