"We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen is temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"
- The Bible (2 Cor. 4:18) as quoted in John Bunyan's Pilgrims's Progress
I'll be debuting a serial novel called "The Quitters" in the first week of January 2022. It's a fictional account of a punk rocker who played in 1977 at the nightclub and restaurant, Mabuhay Gardens, which was located on Broadway in San Francisco, and was the center of the city's punk rock scene. The first part will cover a time period from the fall of 1977 to January 14th, 1978, the date of the Sex Pistols last performance at Winterland, which I saw and afterwards felt that the first wave in SF had begun to peak and to make way for the more successful second. After this, the story moves down to Southern California.
The chapters are tentatively set to be uploaded bi-weekly, and there are other details which will be revealed in future blog entries which will come more frequently. There'll be another blog entry in November. The first three chapters will be free, so readers will have an ample opportunity to sample the goods and make their decision whether to move on to the paid chapters.
Although I'm going to keep certain parts factual, most will be fictionalized and it goes without saying, any resemblance in the book to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental. I won't be playing coy either, the characters and plot will be my own invention. To paraphrase Rousseau, my facts may not be accurate, but I'll give you the truth.
...actually...
This was actually going to be the next book, parts of which were already in note form, but the priority was Hide In Plain Sight, and I was going to begin serious work on The Quitters after it was published.
However, that priority changed as the "Al and Ivy book" (which is what I actually call it in private) evolved. My original intent was to serialize the book as a feature of the blog, but after the third run through, I decided to make it into a true literary work (as opposed to the episodic quality of a serial). Which in other words, meant a lot more work. I'm figuring Sumner of 2022.
The Quitters was going to be a direct contrast to the Al and Ivy book, which will have multiple layers and a mix of literary styles. It's episodic, full of bits and pieces to add atmosphere and color and it's primary purpose will be to entertain and serve as the lone commercial project instead of monetizing the blog.
The blog is doing well, averaging from 30,000 to 50,000 visits a month, and monetizing it with click through ads or putting it behind some sort of paywall (like Substack, etc) is out of the question. All those things can stall growth, as my goal is 100,000 visits a month, and also, I enjoy the idea of a growing audience for my writing.
However, using it to promote a serial novel seems OK, and since it covers a particularly fun and adventurous time in my life, it'll be pleasure to do, which I can't say is always the case about the Al and Ivy book.
...the end...
This is the last of the large bimonthly entries, and from now on the blog will be uploaded as often as needed to give updates on the serial, which I'll try to make sure includes some background history and trivia of the SF punk rock scene. That will also relieve me of the necessity to make my novel historically accurate (which would be a thankless task if you know the music business at all). Each entry will also include the usual literary essay(s) and drawing(s).
For starters, I've added two old Mabuhay posters as illustrations. I didn't have time to do any pen and ink work, so it's memories this time. The band I was in was called Ointment, and later Black Legion. We played a lot with Negative Trend, who were a very cool bunch and they helped us a lot. To this day I still think they had the best live show in that scene.
...the full picture of SF punk...
Most histories of the SF punk scene have an incomplete picture of the first wave SF bands (technically second wave after the original English punks and the Ramones, etc). Many of them are obscure now, and none ever reached the heights that the Sex Pistols, Clash, and others reached, but they were important. Many of whom I played on the same bill with, and still like and admire the music of.
These groups, plus the many support acts two or three per show), brought in crowds and made the Mabuhay Gardens a sort of punk mecca that made it possible for the next wave to have a showcase. By that time, an infrastructure of Indie labels were beginning to emerge that made at least cult stardom possible.
The punk scene in SF didn't evolve in a vacuum; the 60s and 70s artists were still around and mostly prosperous, disco was going strong, there was a vibrant folk scene, the major labels were busy putting out "punk" and "new wave" artists and using the 60s playbook to create a new myth and resurrect old catalogues by "Godfather's of Punk." All of that will be touched on for context, and because I enjoyed all of it.
...new wave...
With the exception of the almost simultaneous "New Wave," which even included Tom Petty at first, the general reaction to first wave Punk was derision, bewilderment, and more than a little disgust, even by some of the older artists who should have known better.
Punk wasn't just a new fashion or trend, as it was described at the time, but the start of the inevitable changing of the guard, as the younger generation rediscovered rock and roll, and rejected the usual star making machinery and gate keeping the major labels engaged in. If it wasn't punk, it would have been something else, as each generation discovers music all over again.
That's admittedly an oversimplification, but punk was just part of what was occuring in all genres. Even disco was really a return to dance music, which was lost when mainstream music got too mellow, complicated, fat, and real tasty, man.
The resistance to Punk faded as time passed, and the list of artists who claim to be (or have a press agent get a music writer to say it) Godfather's of Punk now outnumber the list of actual punk bands that ever existed. Off the top of my head, I'd put it at around 1,234,758 Godfather's of Punk, but that figure might be off by a few thousand, as due to time constraints, I was forced to use Internet sources for the numbers.
That number might be inflated by the inclusion of artists over the age of 60 who didn't make music that even remotely resembled punk but have good friends in the music press or have PR staffs trying to find new markets for their catalogues. Eliminating that subcategory would bring the figure down to a more manageable 127, but complete historical accuracy might be elusive in the Internet age.
...so, a novel then...
This is just another reason to write a novel. Everyone I'd interview for a history book would lie to me anyway (or give me press materials which is sort of the same thing), so why not eliminate the middle man and make my own myth about such a heady time?
The whole music scene, taken in context, is ripe for satire, which is why the book will be in the humor category, though even a truthful book about the music business would read like a parody of human behavior, full of fake Saints, liars, believers, and swine.
Satire used to be a single thing, a pinprick or a broadside into the hides of the rich and powerful, but it's evolved, like all genres, and the motives now include snobbery, political gain, and making it's audience feel superior and more virtuous. In acknowledgement of the complexity of satire in modern times, I've made sure that the satiric portions of this novel satisfies the tastes of all those target audiences.
...the making of legend...
Those of legendary status, both by acclaim or self-appointed, can be assured that nothing derogatory in the book can be traced back to them as my fictional characters will be given credit for most of the disgraceful and disreputable acts that occurred, particularly the most juicy, as by necessity they need to be interesting to readers. My apologies in advance to any who'll feel slighted by this omission that serves the great but pitiless principle called artistic license.
I should add that almost all of the first SF wave didn't benefit from the groundbreaking work they did, so the satire at times will be gentle, as a blunt tool is more appropriate to skewer the powerful, not the grand failures and deserving. Also, to be clear, this will be a book by someone who enjoyed his time as a punk rocker, liked many of the people in that scene, and has always loved and played music. Even in the most savage passages, you should see an underlying warmth and affection for that era.
That said, all that will be described in the book will be my invention, and like the fable of the blind men examining different parts of an animal and getting different pictures, I'll only be adding another part of the puzzle of what transpired in the late 70s at the Mabuhay Gardens in San Francisco, California.
...safety in groups...
There's an old axiom that says there's safety in a group that provides mutual protection from danger. The main reason any system of law works is that the people involved, who often have communal ties or loyalties, become involved either directly or as witnesses. Societies also try to instill a sense of morality, either through religion or ethics which hopefully adds a sense that transgressions are against the common good and have consequences.
The main reason this doesn't work all the time is the that the law attempts to do a difficult task, which is to deter crime by police response and legal retribution. In other words, enforcement is generally after the fact.
Any person, at almost any time, can commit a crime and if he or she is not known to the victim, has a good chance of getting away with it. Most crimes are solved due to stupidity (like doing it under camera), being a repeat offender who's often brought in on another crime, use of informants, and if there's evidence left at the scene. As a result, a lot of crimes never get solved.
...there's corruption too...
Another factor that can hinder public safety is corruption, where some in government or law enforcement have a vested interest in not fighting crime. The point isn't that public safety is purely an illusion, but that it's a mindset that depends on the hope or assumption that all of the parts will work. The problem with preventing murders, for example, is that those are often crimes of passion (or insanity) that aren't deterred by the fear of punishment (at least at the time).
Another way to put it is that there's times, situations, or zones in society where there is no actual law, and if there is accountability, it doesn't matter as the damage is done. Almost every homeless area is a de facto anarchy, particularly at night, when a lot can happen under cover of darkness.
...a simple rule...
I had a simple rule while living in the car; to assume there was no law until the cops arrived. If the average response time was a few minutes, I assumed that for that time period, anyone could do anything to me and even if there was an arrest or intervention, the damage would be done.
In certain areas like where there were camps, the cops could arrive quickly, but would have to go out into a pitch dark area and search for me, so I avoided those areas, no matter how safe and communal the transient enclaves seemed.
As related in earlier blog entries, my homeless journey wound it's way through several places, and another axiom evolved, even though it was counter-intuitive, which was the more dangerous the city, the better the cops were. We used to talk about that out there when comparing notes about where to go. When a police force is having to deal with gangs, street drugs, murders and other felonies, they tended to not worry about giving out tickets or harassing the homeless.
...it's the quiet ones...
It was the quiet, upscale places or small towns that had cops that could be cruel to transients. The one exception being certain places in Silicon Valley, as more than a few of the homeless were employed in the service jobs at high tech firms, not making enough to get a place in a overly hot real estate market that was already 100% gentrified. If you knew where to go, you could be left alone but that wasn't a sure thing.
The downside of staying in dangerous areas was obvious, the places are filled with dangerous people, and an important skill was how to tell if an area was safe enough to sleep in. Luckily I ran into some old timers here and there who showed me the ropes, so to speak, and that included how to read people and their intentions.
...variety is the spice of life...
You run into many types, the healthy and the mentally ill, and a lot of those who were in between, and after several months, I often wondered where I was on that scale. It's probably no different than in the real world, but it's more stark out there.
It also depends on your sex. Women run into more sociopaths, whose motives can vary from sexual possession to trafficking, and in the case of males, there's less charm and more territoriality. I saw more aggressive types, particularly at first, as I often made the mistake of parking in claimed areas or didn't realize that many normal gestures of acknowledgement could be seen as aggression.
Believe it or not, I found that having a toy dog like Ivy was very useful, as her cutesy behavior often made us seem like a nonthreat. The downside was that she was a valuable target, and I had to always be careful where I parked if I had to leave her alone.
...the aggressive types...
The aggressive types are often the most visible to outsiders; when the homeless are quiet, people tend to treat them as part of the scenery or in the larger picture, a sight to avoid. I learned to value that anonymity, and would immediately leave an area where there was even a hint of aggressive behavior. It could be just harmless noise, an argument perhaps, but it could quickly attract the cops.
Dealing with aggressive types was one of the early problems that came up, and while there's much more dangerous types out there (you quickly realize that once you get a feel for that scene), properly dealing with such people is especially important for a male who doesn't realize he's not in a schoolyard or Hollywood movie situation anymore.
I never confronted an aggressive type, particularly one that was mentally ill. If that meant slinking away under a hail of insults and even thrown objects, I did and frankly was glad to do it. Part of it was because I had to learn to do that as a child when being harassed by racist bullies who wanted just one excuse to beat the crap out of me. I learned early that once I fought back, I lost. That goes against the macho ethos depicted in literature and movies, but aggression and fighting out there is a lose-lose situation.
...one time...
I recall one aquaintence, who told me he once defended his girlfriend from insults from an aggressive camp member, and successfully drove the guy off at first, but was then suddenly stabbed when he turned to walk away. He was a pretty tough guy, the type you figure would survive well on the streets, but the reality is quite different outside of a Hollywood movie.
He had to defend his girlfriend, and the "law" was in his side, but there was nothing really there in place that could have stopped the attacker, even the prospect of superior force, as he was in a psychological state where the laws of society didn't exist, and could have cared less about being arrested and punished.
That and other incidents had a profound effect on me out there; I realized very quickly that the law was really a psychological process and you had to know when it worked and when it didn't.
...the nature of bullying...
Also, I relearned the nature of bullying (as it applied to my situation), so that if there was a verbal assault, there'd rarely be a fight if I just let him win and walked away. Out there, if the guy really wanted a piece of you, he'd have just attacked suddenly when you didn't expect it, most often after going to sleep, so if there was blustering or menacing, I was safe in assuming it was territorial and left. After all, I had a little white dog under my care to think about.
The fact is, bullies rarely scared me (unless they were stoned or mentally ill, then I worried). The ones that scared me were the sociopaths, the one who used charm and smiles to get close. They'd come for you later, when you were asleep, and even if the motive was just robbery, they couldn't always stop at simple business, that idea that they're always cool customers under control, is a myth.
...a clockwork orange...
Also, and it's in my book, I encountered two young gangs, and what ran through my mind at the time was that Anthony Burgess' book, "A Clockwork Orange," was eerily prophetic, and described these kids "to a T."
That book was made into a famous and controversial movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, which is considered a classic, and it still has an unsettling edginess and imagery even by today's standards. It was actually, for all of the controversy about the violence depicted, a tamer version of the book, which has a decadence and amorality that even a bold and uncompromising director like Kubrick had to sidestep or change in the 60s to avoid making an ultra X rated feature that would never have been shown in a mainstream theatre.
Note: be advised that I'll be discussing the original ending, which was left out of both the earlier US printing and the movie, and will be pointing out specific sections and aspects that were glossed over in the latter. What was left out of the movie, and in many descriptions and reviews of the book, provides an interesting look at attitudes in the early 60s, particularly towards women, when it was published. So, consider this a spoiler alert.
...early 60s...
"A Clockwork Orange," was a book written by author Anthony Burgess, and published in 1962. It was said to have been a quick job, taking only three weeks to write, and was originally in three parts, each with seven chapters. The US publisher insisted on cutting the 21st chapter, which had the main character, Alex, realizing that his old violent life needed to change and deciding to move on to a more normal life, because it was felt that Chapter 20, which shows him reverting back to his old violent and amoral ways, would appeal more to the U.S. audience.
Given American attitudes towards violence and amoral male characters, perhaps that was a good move at the time, though it'd be difficult, if not impossible, to find any current novelist who's had any level of success accepting a last chapter cut for market reasons. It was obviously a leveraged situation. Hollywood, that's a different situation.
Burgess apparently accepted the change, which may or may not have been a condition for acceptance of the novella, accounts differ on that, but he needed the money and the 20 chapter version became the one American audiences saw, including Director Stanley Kubrick, who used that version for his film adaptation.
...Kubrick...
Kubrick's films almost always had a strain of black humor, so a very dark satire like A Clockwork Orange was right up his alley. Having read the book and seen the film, I'd have to say that he did a brilliant job of adaptation that incorporated imagery and costumes that weren't in the story, but were even better for the purposes of a visual medium like film.
Although the film does cover a lot of the plot points in the book, a major change was in how the main character, Alex, was portrayed. Kubrick, and the English actor, Malcom McDowell, evolved Alex into a charismatic and charming rouge who the audience liked in a way, sort of, and who wasn't as cerebral as the book version.
Also, Kubrick cleaned up Alex's most disreputable behavior, which was mean or cruel sex with ten year old girls (who are depicted as nubile Lolita types). The scene in which Alex and his Droogs," interrupts another gang who've stripped a woman of her clothes and was preparing to rape her actually involved a girl said to be no older than ten. Later on, Alex has a playful romp with two nubiles, but in the book, he treats them roughly to erase what he thinks are pretensions to sophistication. In other words, he knocked them down a notch and sent them running off, abused, humbled and not so cool after all.
...no lurid detail...
Burgess describes these scenes without a lot of lurid detail, and in the context of Alex's personality, which was as a vicious sociopath, gives the character a thought process that both served as the narration, as it's a first person tale, and a glimpse into the inner workings of his mind.
It's a narrative style that's one of the hardest for a writer to pull off, a dispassionate and neutral viewpoint, as the temptation to insert one's morality is strong. Burgess was probably aware that readers could direct outrage to him, yet that would have been more likely if he'd have inserted even the slightest judgement, which would have taken attention off the character.
As such, the narrative works because in a sense, it's a case of reportage, and one's disgust, or even fascination stays on the subject. Which is why people can be spellbound with murder mysteries, and fascinated by stories about serial killers. If the writer can stay disciplined, and keep to the narrative, then the reader's attention will stay on the book. If judgement creeps in, the reader can start to judge the author.
...first half...
That's mainly in the first half of the book. The second half is about how Alex gets caught, put into prison, and accepts a revolutionary Pavlov type treatment that makes him ill when thinking of doing evil, then having that process reversed which in the US version of the book and movie, restores the evil Alex again as a kind of triumph (and lampoon) of free will and choice. Burgess' theme is actually about whether someone can be "good" if made to do so by conditioning that punishes evil impulses.
The omitted final chapter actually has Alex deciding to try to be good, which I guess was more offensive to the US publisher than the violence and underage sex.
The main controversy over the book was over it's brutality and violence, which was explicit for 1962. There wasn't so much about the ten year old girls, but that probably wasn't as much of a taboo (outside of movies) for the hipper audience that liked the book, who tolerated or ignored the behavior of 60s rock stars and other artists who liked under aged women.
But it is a fictional work, and should be judged on that basis.
...it's also about style...
One of the reasons the amorality of the characters is muted (which can have the effect of making the violence more prominent), is because the unique narrative style was the actual literary innovation. Burgess wasn't just writing a decadent book, he essentially created a street language for Alex and his gang, which was based on Russian influenced slang, which was used so heavily that later editions of the book include a glossary, though a surprising amount is easy to figure out as most are single words placed in regular English sentences and the meaning becomes obvious as the story progresses.
The use of a Russian influenced vocabulary wasn't an accident. The book is a satire about a dystopian society that's on the surface a Socialist type society that's incredibly corrupt and policed by officers who are essentially thugs in uniform, with most living in state provided housing.
...the US version...
The story of the original US version of the book, and the later movie is interesting. As a writer, I found it incomprehensible that a publisher would cut an important chapter out. I don't buy the reasoning that it was merely a suggestion, and the wide critical acclaim for the book shows that it wasn't a flawed work. The publisher liked another ending better, had the leverage to change the book, and just did it.
Kubrick later commented, after becoming aware of the actual ending, that he liked the cut version better, but frankly, the movie industry has never cared about an author's feelings (unless they're famous) so there's no point in getting worked up over movie versions. Publishers and editors often have a different agenda, which most of all is to make money, and it's not a given that a writer's work will be respected. That's not a unique situation, musicians and other artists have faced the same situation until they can develop a track record.
...you can't go back...
In fairness, there have been cases, like with Thomas Wolfe's novels, that wouldn't have made it to book form without a sympathetic editor and publisher. However, in Wolfe's case, he created a huge manuscript that had to be broken down into separate books.
In the case of A Clockwork Orange, there was a finished book, and the omitted chapter does change the whole tone of the ending and fits the theme of morality and choice. Modern editions are now the restored version, and I've seen a lot of debate online as to the merits of the two versions, and as far as the opinions, each is as good as the next, but at least Burgess' full vision is out there.
I'd have to add, yes he got paid, and however the circumstances, he did agree to the cut, but cutting the chapter drastically altered the author's vision of the work and probably colored his feelings about it for decades. In a perfect world, no writer should have that happen to him or her. People can nod knowingly about commercial considerations and business realities, but one has to think and hope, that deep down, they know that it's a crappy way to treat art.
...a seminal work...
As we all know, the term "seminal work" is now part of the modern lexicon to get you to buy a book, even if it's just a repackaged public domain "classic" (another abused term). A modern publisher's zeal to change and free our minds never rises to the level of dedication of Christians who'll give you a bible for free even if you won't read it, but charging money for everything is one of the endearing qualities of capitalism. (Citation needed from someone outside the 1%; paid shills or fake Amazon reviewers OK).
Which brings us to William S. Burrough's Naked Lunch, which is one of the most influential books of the modern age. It's also on the top ten list of books people claim they've actually read carefully in it's entirety, but had really only skimmed through Bob Dylan's book, "Tarantula," in a bookstore while stoned. It can be really fuzzy where literary stuff really came from.
...jagged...
Naked Lunch is a heroin-fueled fantasy book that satirizes just about every culture, race, subculture, religion, political creed, sexual preference, addicts, job professions, and even animals. It's energy is different than, say, Kerouac's "On The Road," which was more of a high energy meth book, and it's verbal flights combine hallucinogenic streams of consciousness with exaggerated obscenity, sexual episodes with a variety of men, boys and women, and abstract wordplay that lampoons classic literature and erotica. The book makes enough obscure references to fill an internet trivia page, and just for fun, spouts obviously false pseudo facts and stats, which I never do. [citation not necessary, I'm obviously B.S.'ing]
Like any book that butchers the King's English, and/or has experimental passages, it can be seen as uneven with parts that don't seem funny, references that are too obscure, or has language that offends. It's like avante-garde music in that it was probably more fun to play than listen too, but most writers and artists, for example, will see the artistic sensibility behind the apparent chaos and smarty pants one liners, and if parts offend you, I'm sure Burroughs would have understood. It's reach is too broad and savage to be a test of coolness or tolerance, and few people will read it without feeling a wide range of emotions that will include puzzlement and even some boredom.
...uncompromising...
It's an uncompromising work, clearly written for personal satisfaction, exploration and amusement, that was only published after encouragement by Jack Kerouac and other friends, and includes what some might call inside jokes and personal experiences heavily veiled in wordplay and fantasy.
It can be easy to work too hard to decipher hidden meanings in the more abstract phrases, as many of those should be seen as nonsense vocal sound riffs like "whomp babaluba bedangboom," "boomchalakalaka boomchalakalaka," or "sometimes when we touch the honesty's too much," that are primal verbal riffs to boost the energy level
...technical...
My appreciation of the book is for the technical innovations of the writing, and awe at the fact that it's a book that 99.999% of the writers who consider themselves rebels or cutting edge wouldn't dare to write, and probably would have to self publish it as it'd be almost impossible to get a mainstream publisher to print it.
It's aura benefits from coming from an era that even if it was banned at one point, once it entered the stream of literature, it had enough champions to advocate for it and after some time, became a fact of life type object, with a specific context and judgement of it's worth set in stone, so to speak. It can be loved or hated (and often badly imitated) but it will always exist, thanks to the current version of the internet. You still have to buy it with actual money, which says something. [citation needed to define what that says, I don't have the foggiest]
When I first read the passage about Japanese boys as a teen (I read anything I could get my hands on back then), I winced, but figured I had to just take my lumps like any another person of color (or woman) in the 60s, as liberal writers of the era had no qualms about making racist or sexist statements in the fucuifucanttakeajoke era.
...offending everybody...
The interesting thing about the book is that given it's blithe willingness to offend and satirize everyone and everything, it very well could find itself banned all over again by, well, somebody, the satire is that broad, and it could very well again find itself a test of the boundaries of obscenity in a politically correct age. In fact, it's probably banned somewhere on earth right now, I'll have to google it sometime to see where.
That's a creative tension that'll always exist in books that push the boundaries of taste and obscenity. Very few modern classics have retained that quality to challenge, divide, and polarize readers. Many works simply lapse into simple bad taste or even boredom to a jaded public that has, thanks to the internet, seen just about everything.
Old groundbreaking classics like the beat novels, Henry Miller, or others who created works that pushed or moved boundaries have had their impact lessened by a constant stream of imitators, interpreters who bowderdize or focus on the sex, or simply try to shock without any attempt at innovation. But not this guy.
Burroughs may not have sold a lot of books, but he certainly influenced a lot of artists who may not have pushed the boundaries even further, but were able to operate within the freedom that Naked Lunch helped create. Whether that's good or bad, each reader can decide for him or herself, but they have a choice, and that's what great books will do.
No literary classic is for everybody, even the ones that try for universal appeal, and Naked Lunch has retained an edgy genius that will divide society well into the future. It was written by the rarest type of modern author, one who didn't write to be liked.
- Al Handa
The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:
Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight
This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2021.
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.
