On The Road With Al and Ivy: A Homeless Literary Chronicle - May 2021

"...I rode away, thinking, I confess, not so much of the kind mother left alone, and of the home behind me, as of to-morrow, and all the wonders it would bring."

- William Makepeace Thackeray ("Barry Lyndon," 1844)

"Coming of age" rites for young men and women have pretty much remained the same throughout history; men endure epic tests of strength and will, while women are trained in the sacred roles of motherhood, parenting and how avoid getting a case of the ass from dealing with men.

Some cynics have suggested that a woman's parenting training applies to both men and children, while others indignantly insist that following a man's orders requires no special skill. While accurate attribution for such insights isn't possible due to the degraded condition of the ancient source material concerning motherhood discovered in the Chicago 5th Street Salvation Army Store book section in 1989, the debate appears to be divided along male and female lines. [citation would help here]

Further investigation on the subject on web search engines yielded opinions too incendiary to reprint here, and all were under false names, thus making the data only suitable for Internet grade research. However, there is an admittedly tenuous historical link to Sumerian cuneiform tablets on the subject of astronomy, circa 1856, that claim men are from Saturn, and women are from Venus. [citation needed]

...grow up already...

Although maturity is a desirable quality in men (the historical record isn't clear as to when it became so, and women's opinions on the subject weren't documented until, maybe, last year), it's always been treated as an optional quality since women have to do the thinking anyway, and be the adult in situations that doesn't involve fisticuffs, watching football games, or farting exhibitions.

I should note that I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but the accuracy of my facts should fall within acceptable internet standards of truth. [citation probably won't help here]

...back to the point...

Getting back to male rites of passage...it is an important stage and what constitutes coming of age depends on what the society in question believes are the first steps to adulthood. In addition, how society defines maturity varies depending on the sex of the person, regional customs, and how long one can get away with extending the adolescent stage (which generally depends on income level).

I've given the subject of this mystical transition a great of thought since the moment it became obvious that a blog entry was needed for May, and several avenues of inquiry were considered. Hollywood was ruled out because there's already 12,345,668,890 films [citation needed again] about young men trying to trick women into having sex, and it's not clear if they actually attained maturity after doing so. Rock songs were never seriously considered, and that left books as the fount of transitional wisdom. The result will be revealed shortly.

The thing is, the modern age is complex, even if human emotions and frailties haven't changed very much. A rite of passage can now be more than a simple transition to adulthood, which in ancient times came as soon as possible as parents needed extra hands in the fields and the King needed cheap labor for tasks below the dignity of the royal person.

...life experience...

I personally tend to define such rites as a life experience that has a profound effect on a person's development or direction. It can mean the end of innocence, a realization about the true nature of something, but most of all, a moment or time where one finds their true self. 

It doesn't necessarily mean you live happily ever after. Joan of Arc chose a path that lead to persecution and a painful death. Many explorers faced privation and death in remote places, and many great artists achieved everything but material success. A simple, and possibly inadequate way to put it, was that all of them found what it was they had to do.

Jack Kerouac discovered what he was meant to do on a road trip with Neal Cassidy on a road trip across the United States, documented in his seminal book, "On the Road."

...2009...

In 2009, the unpublished 1951 version of Jack Kerouac's book, "On The Road" was released and gave many of the admirers of the 1957 version a chance to revisit the work and it's legacy.

Allen Ginsberg, the legendary Beat poet and close friend, felt that the 1957 version of the book had removed much of the "mad energy" and life of Kerouac's story. Which is true, the Original "Scroll" version, which was typed out on eight long sheets of drafting paper and taped together into a single scroll, differs in some important ways.

The 1957 version was toned down, particularly in sexual details like the sexuality of some of the characters and all of the people in the book were given fictitious names. Which given the straight laced atmosphere of the 50s era, wasn't surprising, and using the real names of living persons can make any book risky to publish.

The Original Scroll (like it's later published version) had an episodic approach to story telling, moving from one scene to another as it appeared in Kerouac's head, as opposed to events tied to a linear time frame. He spends time in the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, yet describes very little of what he saw. Days or weeks are often covered with a single sentence, yet many pages are devoted to conversations with a friend or friends, and if he's waiting for money to come via mail (or wages on payday), he'll just skip over to it's arrival and then the narrative becomes full again.

Also, how the story was told was just as important, if not more so, than the plot. The whole work was a grand experiment in form. A description of Lawrence Sternes', "The Life And Opinions Of Tristram Shandy," probably describes Kerouac's book best, that it was about how far you could depart from classic novel tradition and still call it a novel.

...the America dream...

The 1950s in the United States was a time of great prosperity and the fabled "American Dream." The darker side of that vision was conformity and sexual repression, at least from the point of view of the intelligentsia and artists. They did have a point; social injustices such as the McCarthy witch hunt for communists or Jim Crow laws weren't exceptions to the rule, but part of a general attitude that if you didn't fit in, you were out.

That was the America that Jack Kerouac knew, and began to rebel against. He had an interesting and often tumultuous life, too full of detail to easily summarize here (a good subject to for you all to google), but by the time Kerouac began writing the 1951 version of "On The Road," known as the Scroll, his friends and acquaintances already included future greats like Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs. 

The author typed the scroll version out in three weeks, taking Benzedrine to keep on pace, and the feel and energy of the book reflects this. Having been around a lot of meth users during my homeless period, the rhythm and flow of conversation closely matched what I heard out there. It wasn't unusual for a guy on meth to riff out long streams of thoughts which would range from brilliant to banal.

...it was much more...

The book wasn't just a speed rap...the point of laying it all out, straight through without correctly placed periods, commas, and structured paragraphs (often simply separated by three periods) was to break free of the strictures of formal grammar and composition. It was a work with a fluctuating but continuous metre, or rhythm. One could say it was like a long improvisational jazz composition but with words instead of musical notes.

A musician would certainly understand this concept and his Jazz references illuminate that sensibility. It's words as music, not just in sound or rhythm but as an immediate, and direct connection to the creative source without the filter of an artistic process, style or specific form. Everything that flowed onto the scroll was left untouched, with both the good and bad notes, so to speak, bypassing any impulse to self edit or adhere to the rules of grammar (or create something that would sell).

...a view of America...

To understand the basic premise of On The Road, one has to see it for what it was; a statement of Kerouac's view of America. As he saw it, it was a "sad" place, full of conformity, repression and materialism. Whether that was true or not isn't important as far as this book is concerned. It's all about how he saw it, and his explorations were influenced by that outlook.

What makes the book's themes about freedom relevant in 2021 is that much of his rebellion was on a social level, rather than political. Most of the pressures to conform are on a personal level, with the pressure applied by family, peers or acquaintances seen every day. 

Kerouac's road trips weren't an act of rebellion per se, as journeys into the unknown have always been an integral part of the American character (or mythology). What was different was that the aim of the journey was discovery and not material gain.

The underlying morality in the United States in the 1950's (and still is in many ways) was that material success is the end game or validation of any endevour. Most artists, particularly musicians, have experienced that arc of initial approval from others that begins to curve downwards when the pot of gold doesn't arrive. The attitude is that youthful rebellion and dreams are OK, as long as you grow up and get a real job afterwards.

Kerouac didn't buy into that. He sought a more direct connection to life; not what it was supposed to be or what others said it was. His immersion into philosophy, jazz, wandering, and writing was about living for experience, that is to say, leading a spontaneous or "mad" life. There was no pot at the end of the rainbow, his sights were always on the present. Such a life would experience a lot of highs and lows, but without the conception that a life could be ruined by a single mistake or failure.

...all about honesty...

One of the virtues of the Original 1951 Scroll is that it's an honest book. Jack's descriptions of various friends were candid. He describes Neal Cassidy, the other major protagonist in the book, as a Nietzsche-like philosophical primitive who stole cars in his youth, and was a womanizer (in so many words). He has a dispassionate view of another who married a woman because she had money for a road trip and dumped her once it ran out. 

Needless to say, in this day and age, it'd be hard to imagine a woman who'd find such storylines a milestone in modern literature and intellectual freedom. The women in the book, from Kerouac's mother to the various girlfriends and wives, could seem to some readers that they're mainly there for sex, support, and money. However, Kerouac's depictions of females are generally quite warm, particularly with his mother and sister, but his view of women was pretty much like any other male in the 50s. 

The honesty I'm talking about goes further than the sex, drug or booze fueled philosophical explorations. He was willing to include a lot of non-heroic details, like when he had to write home to get cash from his mother (though he sends her money too at times), and a lot of his adventures depend on the generosity of strangers. He's not depicting himself as a self-reliant pioneer in the wilderness. 

...Orwell's kind of guy...

George Orwell talked about that type of honesty; the willingness to write something that makes one look weak or disreputable. It's easy to brag about being a drug user in an age where it's fashionable, but would modern writers (who want to look cool) casually depict themselves as freeloaders, petty thieves, or in the case of guys, ones who want to respect women but can't because they love their cheating and freedom too much? Even in modern films, anti-heroes tend to have flaws that accentuate their macho appeal, not diminish it. 

One can have an opinion of how his adventures read in 2021, and since the book is being sold at a premium price, his actions can and will be judged by today's standards (and subject to reader reviews on commercial book sites). But to his credit, he didn't write the book to create a myth.

...until the next episode...

In 2021, Kerouac's book could be seen as a male oriented literary milestone that's at the least a historically valuable look at the beginnings of the Beat Culture, like the movie Easy Rider was of the 60s Counter Culture. At its best, the writing is a pleasure for the serious reader and an inspiration for any writer who aspires to do great work.

The Original Scroll is definitely the version that should have been published. To be clear, it's an uneven work, and there are parts that'll leave a modern reader wondering what all the talk is about, but the best passages come off as fresh and inspired even in 2021,  where most of us have pretty much seen everything written under the sun.

Kerouac's best qualities as a writer, spontaneity and inventiveness, shine very brightly in the 1951 Original Scroll version of On The Road.

"They that know no evil can know no good; and, as the learned tell us, that a stone taken out of the head of a Toad is a good antidote against poison; so a competent knowledge of the Devil, and all his ways, may be the best help to make us defie the Devil and all his works."

- Daniel Defoe (The Political History Of The Devil - 1726)

...banning books, and related acts (part 2 of 3 parts)

I said (in the previous blog entry) that the act of banning a book doesn't always symbolize what it used to, in terms of it's actual effect, though the mentalities involved haven't changed much. Although it's common practice to make the issue all about freedom, the reasons can vary, and have become more complex due to the Internet and mass media.

The thing is, not much has changed in terms of human behavior. People have pretty much done the same things, and acted the same way, even if technology and advances in the sciences make us seem smarter than those who lived in ancient times.

The list of behaviors that haven't changed include; mobs, gangs, punishment of heresy or nonconformity, snobbery, racism, minute analysis of sports, exploitation, persecution, greed, and war. The list could include sexual behavior, but we'll leave that subject out of the discussion as 140,786,234 books have already been written on the subject (figure derived from anonymous internet sources).

...larger forces...

The banning, or burning of books is rarely about the work itself. There's larger forces in play, which can involve a wide variety of motives and agendas. It's often a form of political or even economic theatre, which can only incidentally involve a particular work. This in addition to commercial market forces that eventually condemn most new books to obscurity without any need for intervention. 

In fact, anti-book crusaders often have to act quickly before the merciless jaws of capitalism exile their target to the book section of dollar stores and bargain bins. No wonder many modern attacks are directed at publishers before the sales and distribution stage. That's also the best time to make a fuss if the intent is to increase sales (the book is without redeeming social value! Also available in audio!).

In ancient times, like with the Assyrians and other such early nations, things were simpler; after conquering a country, burning their library or archives was just part of the process of wiping out the conquered culture. One exception was the Sumerians, who had all their records and literature on clay tablets, which in many cases escaped the usual rapine and pillaging. Those earthy tomes were probably mistaken for piles of bricks or something.

...Information Age stuff...

As information technology progressed, and literacy became widespread, it goes without saying that books, in whatever form, began to express a wide range of ideas, creating more complex interactions like political, social, and religious disagreements, and as always, back then as with the present, porn addiction among men.

The primary power of a book is that it can communicate an idea to another person or persons. Just as old school Kings or nobles didn't want the peasants to have truly useful military training (because of the R word), the ability to communicate ideas to others has always been controlled as much as possible to keep the masses on point.

For an earlier example, after the First Council of Nicea, convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine (the first) in AD 325, when the first bible was compiled and sort of agreed upon, Arian of Alexandria, whose beliefs and documents were excluded from the Canon and labeled heretical, was exiled and all of his writings that could be found were burned (though Constantine later rescinded Arian's exile).

That was an early attempt to ban writings, though Arian's view of Christianity survives today through Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Unitarian sects. Also, Constantine the Second turned out to have Arian sympathies, so the attempt to wipe that particular denomination had the same effect that banning a book or writings has today. It often creates sympathy or at least curiousity about a work, rather than wiping it's presence or memory out.

...all of the possibilities...

Thanks to the epic advances of information technology, anyone can now enjoy debating the fine points of political theory with people they consider stupid or below them, get into drunken fights over football teams, enjoy the convenience of cyber bullying instead of having interact with real people to form a mob to burn a witch or future Saint, and of course, for men who are so inclined, to marvel at the bleeding edge advances in porn. That stuff has "ban it" written all over it.

That might be a one sided picture of mankind, and a more balanced view should read: "Humankind is unsurpassed in it's commitment to ensuring the happiness of all who share this unique space called Earth, which is why we're proud to partner with really wealthy guys to release PR statements that raise awareness about the poor people and cows who waste the oxygen that the ever shrinking number of trees produce, and affirm our commitment to sustainable energy so that all can continue to consume beef.

I do have to point out (yes again) that a certain amount of oversimplifying and generalization is necessary to keep the narrative short and the digressions long. To paraphrase Rousseau, I may be short of facts, but not of the truth.

...that darn Internet again...

The effort to ban books has become commonplace due to the Internet, which makes it possible to read a lot of ebooks for free or at low cost. That does increase the chance that some tome or another will be hated or vilified (Keep in mind, I'm not saying every book deserves to be read. That's a different issue).

The Internet though, is anarchic in nature, and resistant (though not immune) to "cancelling." Because of that, nothing's ever truly wiped out. In fact, a hundred years from now, if humans are still around, historians will see the net as a valuable look at the sheer variety of human thought and behavior that existed, but wasn't documented as it used to only matter what kings and wealthy men thought.

As they say, the Internet is forever, and book burners are kidding themselves if they think destroying or banning any book actually eliminates any idea, even ones that deserve to be, from the face of the earth. But 100 years from now, there'll still be those who'll try. Some things will never change.

Note: in part three, I'll talk about some famous book burner types. They're often more interesting and harmful than the ideas and books they tried to destroy.

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

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

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

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

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- From 1957 movie, "The Enemy Below"

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

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

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

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

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

...the cost of war...

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

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

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

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

...there is relevance, though...

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

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

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

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

...critical discussion...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...time waits for no one...

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

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

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

...childhood's end...

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

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

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

- Upton Sinclair (The Profits Of Religion)

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

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

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

...in defense...

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

 

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

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

...a short disclaimer...

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

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

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

...once upon a time...

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

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

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

...absolution...

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

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

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

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

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

- King James Bible

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

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

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

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

...these days...

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

...the interesting thing...

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

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

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

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

...black and white...

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

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

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

...control...

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

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

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

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

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

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

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

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

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Charles Dickens (The Old Curiosity Shop)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

- Kenneth Roberts (Lydia Bailey)

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

- Mario Puzo (The Godfather)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...basic ethos...

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

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

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

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

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

...signs of a winner...

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

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

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

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

...all for one...

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

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

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

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

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

...dry humor...

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

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

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

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

...the reformation and war...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...back to Clemenza...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...motherhood...

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

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

...macho, macho man...

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

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

...the alpha thing...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...modern music...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...music will save your soul...

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

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

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

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

...emotion and practicality...

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

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

...walk on the wild side...

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

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

...some song names...

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

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

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

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

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

...the central pleasure...

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

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

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

...more important...

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

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

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

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

...Topanga...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:

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

Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight

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

-Al Handa

djboogieunderground@gmail.com

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

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