Is There an End to the Battle of the Sexes?

By Robin Bates | Published: August 2, 2022
Tracy, Hepburn in Adam’s Rib

Wednesday

An interesting article in the latest New Yorker addressed the age-old battle of the sexes at a time when toxic masculinity is on the rise, even though feminism appears firmly entrenched. Zoe Heller reviews two books arguing that too often the debate between feminists and patriarchs is a zero-sum game–which is to say, it’s bad for both the women and the men.

An even-handed fictional account of the tension appears in an unfinished novel by a dear friend, the now deceased Rachel Kranz, that has stuck with me for years. I share an excerpt with you because, in addition to acknowledging the problem, Rachel points to a possible solution.

Zoe Heller reviews French historian Ivan Jablonka’s A History of Masculinity From Patriarchy to Gender Justice and British columnist Nina Power’s What Do Men Want?: Masculinity and Its Discontents. I focus here on Power’s book.

Power worries that exaggerated complaining about male toxicity (say, about mansplaining or manspreading) has become “a kind of tribal habit among women.” What is lost in the demonization of men, she believes, is that which is “valuable and generative in male and female difference”:

In our haste to declare masculinity a redundant artifact, she says, we have lost sight of some of its “positive dimensions”—“the protective father, the responsible man.” Although we’re often told that modern societies have outgrown the need for male muscle and aggression, we still rely on men to do the lion’s share of physically arduous and dangerous jobs, including the fighting of wars….If we still expect men to do the dirty work, Power asks, shouldn’t some value be attached to male strength? Women in heterosexual relationships, she claims, respect a degree of responsibly channelled aggression in their partners. “However tough you feel, however independent you might be, when it comes down to it, you would like a man to be able to stand up for you, physically at least,” she writes. “Violence is not as far away from care as we might like to imagine.”

Along these lines, Heller’s New Yorker article quotes from Manliness, a 2006 book by

 conservative Harvard philosopher Harvey Mansfield, who regards protection as “a defining task of masculinity.” As he observes in his book,  “A man protects those whom he has taken in his care against dangers they cannot face or handle without him.”

Power appears to want men to be both strong and considerate, assertive when necessary but otherwise committed to living “on terms of scrupulous equality the rest of the time.” To which Heller asks,

Is this plausible? Can women enjoy the warm embrace of he-men without having to endure bossiness and swagger? Harvey Mansfield didn’t think so. “Honor is an asserted claim to protect someone, and the claim to protect is a claim to rule,” he wrote. “How can I protect you properly if I can’t tell you what to do?”

Now to Rachel’s unfinished novel, which I find to be brilliant and which was to be a sequel to her first novel, Leaps of Faith. (The Long Wave in my opinion was 90% complete when she died.) In the novel, psychic Warren is working with a Wall Street bonds salesman who is encountering relationship problems. Warren, a sensitive gay man, doesn’t like Gary, who is everything he is not, but finds himself unexpectedly sympathizing his dilemma.

Gary’s girlfriend wants him to be both the man of the house and a little boy who leans on her for support, mixed messaging that leaves him thoroughly confused and angry. He says that, when he is aggressively assertive, she complains that he isn’t taking her needs into consideration, but that when he tries to be vulnerable and lean on her, she accuses him of being weak and whining. Here he is:

 “She wanted to cut my balls off,” he says bitterly.  “Well, maybe you’ll take her side.  But I’m telling you—”  His voice is harsh and trembling, and I can hear the way he must sound on the phone consummating a deal, angry, offended—when does he ever feel safe?  “She said I wasn’t available enough, and what does that even mean?  She was like, ‘Be home more, pay more attention to me, you never tell me anything,’ but you know if I had done it, she would have been all, ‘Oh, what are you complaining about, Gar, get the fuck over it.’  She said she wanted me to—to—lean on her more—but you know she didn’t mean it, it was like a game for her.  She had no fucking idea what she was asking me to do, and if she had known, she wouldn’t’ve cared.  She just wanted it both ways.”

And:

[W]hatever I do, she’ll never be satisfied.  ‘Lean on me, lean on me’—that’s not the way you make money!  Who the fuck is going to respect a man like that?”  He swallows and I swallow, too.  “She thinks I could just turn it on and off, like some fucking machine, like some fucking machine, when she wants me to be the man of the house and when she wants her little boy—”

“So,” he repeats softly, triumphant and resentful, “she’ll never be satisfied.  Will she?” 

All I can see is what he sees, and no, that woman won’t be, ever. 

To break the impasse, Warren asks Gary to tell him what he wants, to which Gary replies, “I want her. But—not like this.  Not where I have to go crawling back to her.  I can’t live like that.”

Warren’s feels stymied but is aided by his psychic intuition. His suggestion is that the two work on the problem together as companions:

“Tell her,” I say slowly, “that you want to be her friend.  Tell her—if it’s true—that you’re going to think about what she said.”

            “And then what?”

            “And then—think about it.  See if—see if there’s a way—” I take a breath.  “Not the man of the house and not the little boy,” I say finally.  “Something—else.”  I don’t know how else to help him, though it astonishes me how much I want to—Gary, of all people.  Both his weakness and his strength seem so deadly to me.

            But he’s nodding as he stands up, gathering his raincoat and briefcase, handing me a check.  “What the hell,” he’s saying in a shaky voice.  “It might work.”

I myself am not what you would call a manly man, but the urge to be my family’s protector and chief breadwinner runs deep in my psyche. Now, I’m a 71-year-old boomer so maybe things are different for the generations that grew up after the feminist revolution. Then again, the two books reviewed by New Yorker seem to indicate that the forces that shaped me are still alive and well.

But I also know that, as a result of the feminist revolution, Julia and I have practiced listening to each other throughout our married life. There have been breakdowns, of course, but our breakthroughs have occurred when we in fact heard what the other said.

Maybe Gary’s problem is that he feels as though he needs to solve everything himself, and maybe his girlfriend’s problem is that she both wants him to fix everything and is frustrated when he tries (and inevitably fails). Maybe, as I used to tell my writing students, they need to make the problem the subject.

Male-female tensions will probably continue to the end of time. But addressing those tensions together? “What the hell, it might work.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Trumpism and the Violence Myth

By Robin Bates | Published: August 1, 2022
Duval and Jone as Texas rangers in Lonesome Dove

Tuesday

Among the other things we learned (and had confirmed) from the January 6 hearings are that entitled people in power will use every means available to stay in power—and if they can’t do so legally, they will employ violence. Setting a mob loose on Congress and on Vice President Mike Pence was not Trump’s first option but it was his predictable last one.

I’ve been thinking about Trump-inspired violence in terms of Richard Slotkin’s 1992 study of the Western, Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. As Slotkin observes, America has often framed political violence as a frontier drama. Although America is hardly the only country to experience violence—in fact, most countries have bloody histories—its particular way of processing its past is to frame it as a drama involving attempts to subdue a recalcitrant wilderness. What emerges is a myth—Slotkin calls it the American myth—of “regeneration through violence.”

Throughout American history, he says, there have been different versions of this myth, from the Puritans emphasizing

the achievement of spiritual regeneration through frontier adventure; Jeffersonians (and later, the disciples of Turner’s “Frontier Thesis” [seeing] the frontier settlement as a re-enactment and democratic renewal of the original “social contract”; [or] Jacksonian Americans [seeing] the conquest of the Frontier as a means to the regeneration of personal fortunes and/or of patriotic vigor and virtue.”

Trumpism is closest to the Jacksonian model, but in each case, Slotkin says, the Myth

represented the redemption of American spirit or fortune as something to be achieved by playing through a scenario of separation, temporary regression to a more primitive or “natural” state, and regeneration through violence.

When Trump in 2017 gave his “American carnage” inaugural address, describing America as a nation under attack by forces domestic and foreign (Muslims, urban Blacks, Central American immigrants), he was invoking this myth, which may be why his vision has resonated with so many. When he has praised the tactics used by thuggish dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un, or when he has pardoned Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, the court-martialed psycho killer, so-called responsible Republicans could rationalize that his actions were the primitive means needed to regenerate American society. Trump might be crude, they often said, but sometimes a society needs such crudeness to shake things up.

It should be noted that, while the “regeneration through violence” myth had its origins in the Indian wars, it has mapped easily onto other American conflicts, including those involving race and labor movements. For instance, in D.W. Griffith’s racist masterpiece Birth of a Nation, one sees the KKK playing the role of the U.S. calvary, riding to the rescue of people under assault from, not Indians but rampaging ex-slaves. Because they do so, Northerners and Southerners can reunite after their bitter war and a new nation can be born.

One sees the myth played out in many of Hollywood’s greatest westerns, such as High Noon, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and others. In the 1970s, the western got transferred to urban settings but the theme was the same: Dirty Harry resorts to primitive means, with thugs now playing the role previously taken by Indians, as he deals out the violence necessary to restore civilization.

Slotkin focuses mainly on cinema in his study, but one finds literary westerns grappling with the same theme. Two novels that come to mind are Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove and Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian or the Evening Redness in the West. Lonesome Dove mourns (like Frederick Jackson Turner) the closing of the frontier, conveying a sense that the age of heroes is past once we’ve civilized the entire nation. While one is reading the novel, however, one cheers on Gus and Cal, the two Texas rangers who take the law into their own hands. Such actions are necessary in a landscape that includes a murderous Indian (Blue Duck) and a pathological gang of outlaws (the Suggs Brothers).

In the end, the rangers prevail, showing cattlemen that they can take their cattle from Texas to Montana’s green pastures. In their success, however, the rangers render themselves obsolete. Like John Wayne in a number of his movies, Cal cannot join the civilization he has helped bring about. In the process, however, the violence that he and Gus have resorted to has served its purpose.

Blood Meridian focuses less on the regeneration than on the violence as the murderous Judge Holden goes rampaging through the 19th century American west, killing Indians and settlers alike. In the end, he is proclaiming that he will never die, which may be how McCarthy sees America. Perhaps exposing the comforting myth that society can in fact be regenerated. McCarthy’s novel disturbs because it suggests that violence, not social order, always gets the last word.

Trump and Trumpism certainly focus more on violence than on social stability. Only an authoritarian leader, they claim, can bring the safety and security that people crave. The result is cult worship of a leader who praises violent crackdowns. It’s also a formula for perpetual violence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments closed

August: The River Flames Like Brass

By Robin Bates | Published: July 31, 2022
Matisse, Landscape at La Colliloure (1905)

Monday

I know of few poems that capture the feel of August better than this one by Lizette Woodworth Reese, Maryland’s poet laureate in the first half of the 20th century. As we enter the month, use Reese’s sonnet to reflect upon it the little life stirring in this intense heat.

August
Lizette Woodworth Reese

No wind, no bird. The river flames like brass.
On either side, smitten as with a spell
Of silence, brood the fields. In the deep grass,
Edging the dusty roads, lie as they fell
Handfuls of shriveled leaves from tree and bush.
But ’long the orchard fence and at the gate,
Thrusting their saffron torches through the hush,
Wild lilies blaze, and bees hum soon and late.
Rust-colored the tall straggling briar, not one
Rose left. The spider sets its loom up there
Close to the roots, and spins out in the sun
A silken web from twig to twig. The air
Is full of hot rank scents. Upon the hill
Drifts the noon’s single cloud, white, glaring, still.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

The Vanity of Human Wishes

By Robin Bates | Published: July 30, 2022
Joshua Reynolds, Portrait of Samuel Johnson

Spiritual Sunday

I am doubly fortunate with regard to church today. In addition to serving as crucifer, I get to read one of my favorite passages from the Old Testament. Because it’s the passage from Ecclesiastes contending that all is vanity, I turn to Samuel Johnson’s most famous poem, The Vanity of Human Wishes.

To set the stage, here’s today’s reading:

Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem, applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with. I saw all the deeds that are done under the sun; and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind.

I hated all my toil in which I had toiled under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to those who come after me — and who knows whether they will be wise or foolish? Yet they will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned and gave my heart up to despair concerning all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes one who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave all to be enjoyed by another who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What do mortals get from all the toil and strain with which they toil under the sun? For all their days are full of pain, and their work is a vexation; even at night their minds do not rest. This also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12-14; 2:18-23)

The poem is actually an imitation of—or riff off of—a poem much admired by 18th century satirists, including Jonathan Swift. There’s little doubt, however, that Johnson also has the passage from Ecclesiastes much in mind.

I won’t do a deep dive in the poem here because I’ve done so in the past, when I applied Johnson’s satire to the early days of the Donald Trump presidency. (You can read that post here.) After providing a taste of the poem, which is quite long, I look at its Christian ending.

Since our family has just been through a death, here’s what the poem says on that score. Johnson that that if we wish for a long life, we are destined to be disappointed with old age. Or as he puts it, “life protracted is protracted woe.” In other words, wishing is vanity. For one thing, life can lose its savor as we get old:

Enlarge my life with multitude of days, 
In health, in sickness, thus the suppliant prays; 
Hides from himself his state, and shuns to know
That life protracted is protracted woe. 
Time hovers o’er, impatient to destroy, 
And shuts up all the passages of joy: 
In vain their gifts the bounteous seasons pour, 
The fruit autumnal, and the vernal flower, 
With listless eyes the dotard views the store, 
He views, and wonders that they please no more… 

Johnson goes on in this vein for another 26 lines before presenting us with a second hypothetical. Suppose we have an ideal aging process. Johnson describes it as follows:

But grant, the virtues of a temp’rate prime 
Bless with an age exempt from scorn or crime; 
An age that melts with unperceiv’d decay, 
And glides in modest innocence away; 
Whose peaceful day benevolence endears, 
Whose night congratulating conscience cheers; 
The gen’ral fav’rite as the gen’ral friend: 
Such age there is, and who could wish its end?

“Yet ev’n on this her load misfortune flings,” Johnson laments. What misfortunes? Johnson tells us:

 New sorrow rises as the day returns, 
A sister sickens, or a daughter mourns. 
Now kindred merit fills the sable bier, 
Now lacerated friendship claims a tear. 
Year chases year, decay pursues decay, 
Still drops some joy from with’ring life away; 
New forms arise, and diff’rent views engage, 
Superfluous lags the vet’ran on the stage, 
Till pitying nature signs the last release, 
And bids afflicted worth retire to peace. 

Faced with the vanity of human wishes, Johnson concludes that our only hope lies with God. The only wishes that are not vain are wishes for a healthful mind, obedient passions, a will resigned, love, patience, and faith. For these we should “pour forth [our] fervors”:

Pour forth thy fervors for a healthful mind, 
Obedient passions, and a will resign’d; 
For love, which scarce collective man can fill; 
For patience, sov’reign o’er transmuted ill; 
For faith, that panting for a happier seat, 
Counts death kind Nature’s signal of retreat: 
These goods for man the laws of Heav’n ordain, 
These goods he grants, who grants the pow’r to gain; 
With these celestial wisdom calms the mind, 
And makes the happiness she does not find.

Only celestial wisdom can calm the mind and reconcile us to our inevitable unhappy state. In short, pray for God’s love.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

O’Connor and Swift on the Death of Others

By Robin Bates | Published: July 28, 2022
Flannery O’Connor

Friday

While losing my mother at 96 is definitely not like Julian losing his mother in Flannery O’Connor’s “All That Rises Must Converge,” I can relate somewhat to his feelings of being adrift once she is gone. In his case, he is entirely dependent upon her, and embarrassed by her, and resentful of his inability to break away from her. Thus, when she dies suddenly after they descend from a bus, he finds himself launched into an unknown world:

Stunned, he let her go and she lurched forward again, walking as if one leg were shorter than the other. A tide of darkness seemed to be sweeping her from him. “Mother!” he cried. “Darling, sweetheart, wait!” Crumpling, she fell to the pavement. He dashed forward and fell at her side, crying, “Mamma, Mamma!” He turned her over. Her face was fiercely distorted. One eye, large and staring, moved slightly to the left as if it had become unmoored. The other remained fixed on him, raked his face again, found nothing and closed.

“Wait here, wait here!” he cried and jumped up and began to run for help toward a cluster of lights he saw in the distance ahead of him. “Help, help!” he shouted, but his voice was thin, scarcely a thread of sound. The lights drifted farther away the faster he ran and his feet moved numbly as if they carried him nowhere. The tide of darkness seemed to sweep him back to her, postponing from moment to moment his entry into the world of guilt and sorrow.

O’Connor’s commitment to minute detail makes the death particularly unsettling, an instance of her Southern Gothic style. That captures Julian’s feelings in the moment. But they are then replaced by his horrified realization that, from this moment on, he is entirely on his own.

Or at least he will realize this once the initial shock dissipates.

Not having Julian’s love-hate relationship, I am not thrown off as much by my mother’s own death. Nevertheless, I have the an unnerving feeling that my buffer is gone. As long as a parent is still alive, it’s as though he or she is running interference, like a blocking lineman for the quarterback. Sooner or later, we’re all going to be sacked, but it appears that the sack will come more suddenly when the person in front of you goes down.

Jonathan Swift captures this situation in “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift,” one of the 18th century’s most remarkable poems. Imagining what people will say about him when he is on his deathbed, and then when he has died, Swift thinks that most will shrug it off fairly rapidly. For instance, here he is imagining himself the subject of gossip at the card table:

My female friends, whose tender hearts
Have better learn’d to act their parts,
Receive the news in doleful dumps:
“The Dean is dead: (and what is trumps?)
Then, Lord have mercy on his soul!
(Ladies, I’ll venture for the vole.)
Six deans, they say, must bear the pall:
(I wish I knew what king to call.)

Even his special friends won’t mourn too long:

Here shift the scene, to represent
How those I love my death lament.
Poor Pope will grieve a month, and Gay
A week, and Arbuthnot a day.

       St. John himself will scarce forbear
To bite his pen, and drop a tear.
The rest will give a shrug, and cry,
“I’m sorry—but we all must die!”
Indifference, clad in Wisdom’s guise,
All fortitude of mind supplies…

There is one group of people who will sincerely grieve, however—and it is those who, like me, feel that they have just lost their buffer against death:

The fools, my juniors by a year,
Are tortur’d with suspense and fear;
Who wisely thought my age a screen,
When death approach’d, to stand between:
The screen remov’d, their hearts are trembling;
They mourn for me without dissembling.

Or as Gerald Manley Hopkins, in “Spring and Fall,” explains to a grieving Margaret, “It is Margaret you mourn for.”

Swift’s satiric point is that people will never feel as sorry for us as we feel sorry for ourselves, which I suppose is true. Julian may seem distraught over his mother’s death, but it is unclear whether the death upsets him as much as the fact that he is now on his own—which means, among other things, that he will have to find a job.

In my own case, I think I just take it for granted that we move somewhat quickly beyond the deaths of others, just as people will one day move more or less quickly beyond mine. It took me months before I was able to do so with my child, but in the end I realized that life needed me more than he did. The same is true with my mother and, because she was old, the acceptance comes much more quickly.

In any event, it’s important to have ritual to honor those we loved and to bring closure to their lives. Furthermore, they are never entirely gone but return in a wide range of memories. At the moment, I’m just grateful that I had as many years with Phoebe Bates as I did.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

On Telling the Homeless to “Move On”

By Robin Bates | Published: July 27, 2022

Illus. from Bleak House

Thursday

Listening to Dickens’s handling of the orphan boy Jo in Bleak House during our trip to Maine, I can’t help but apply it to the way that we treat immigrants at our borders or the homeless at home. We want them “out of sight, out of mind” and deputize law enforcement to make this happen.

It’s a centuries-old problem, as I learned when I took a Tudor England history class in college and learned about “the wandering poor.” We’re going to see much more wandering in the decades to come as extreme climate events disrupt whole populations while autocrats indulge in ruinous foreign wars and domestic crackdowns. Dickens gives us a close-up picture of one such person affected.

Jo is a poor and illiterate boy who sweeps the street every day for whatever pennies people will give him and then goes home to a wretched crawlspace in Tom-All-Alone’s, the poorest part of London. Though his actions hurt no one, those responsible for “public decency” insist that he “move on”:

Mr. Snagsby descends and finds the two ‘prentices intently contemplating a police constable, who holds a ragged boy by the arm.

“Why, bless my heart,” says Mr. Snagsby, “what’s the matter!”

“This boy,” says the constable, “although he’s repeatedly told to, won’t move on—”

“I’m always a-moving on, sar,” cries the boy, wiping away his grimy tears with his arm. “I’ve always been a-moving and a-moving on, ever since I was born. Where can I possibly move to, sir, more nor I do move!”

“He won’t move on,” says the constable calmly, with a slight professional hitch of his neck involving its better settlement in his stiff stock, “although he has been repeatedly cautioned, and therefore I am obliged to take him into custody. He’s as obstinate a young gonoph [pickpocket or thief] as I know. He WON’T move on.”

“Oh, my eye! Where can I move to!” cries the boy, clutching quite desperately at his hair and beating his bare feet upon the floor of Mr. Snagsby’s passage.

“Don’t you come none of that or I shall make blessed short work of you!” says the constable, giving him a passionless shake. “My instructions are that you are to move on. I have told you so five hundred times.”

“But where?” cries the boy.

“Well! Really, constable, you know,” says Mr. Snagsby wistfully, and coughing behind his hand his cough of great perplexity and doubt, “really, that does seem a question. Where, you know?”

“My instructions don’t go to that,” replies the constable. “My instructions are that this boy is to move on.”

Dickens at this point intervenes to deliver one of his characteristic lectures, lambasting Parliament for its failure to devise social solutions:

Do you hear, Jo? It is nothing to you or to anyone else that the great lights of the parliamentary sky have failed for some few years in this business to set you the example of moving on. The one grand recipe remains for you—the profound philosophical prescription—the be-all and the end-all of your strange existence upon earth. Move on!

Then Dickens makes a contrast between “move on” and “move off.” I think (but am not sure) that “moving off” would require some kind of policy prescription—as in “move off to ____.” As Dickens notes,

You are by no means to move off, Jo, for the great lights can’t at all agree about that. Move on!

From this perspective, I suppose it is to his credit that Donald Trump yesterday proposed a concrete solution, even though one that calls for forcible removal—which is to say, a crime against humanity. As Yahoo News reports, his own phrase is “move out”:

Donald Trump said homeless people should be forcibly removed from urban centers and moved to purpose-built camps on the outskirts of major United States cities during a speech at the America First Policy Institute’s summit in Washington this week.

“You have to move people out,” Mr Trump told an audience during his keynote address at Tuesday’s summit.

As Trump sees it, the homeless should be moved out—or off—to “large parcels of inexpensive land in the outer reaches of the city.” And then, to make his idea slightly more palatable, he recommends housing them in “thousands and thousands of high-quality tents.”

Given GOP parsimony when it comes to the poor, I wouldn’t bet on high quality anything. The idea of cleansing our cities by forcibly relocating undesirables to internal refugee or concentration camps, however, is perfectly consistent with authoritarian thinking.

Towards the end of the novel, the constant moving on finally ends in Jo’s death, leading to a Dickensian denunciation, complete with savage sarcasm:

Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, right reverends and wrong reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day.

But at least in the grave where Jo asks to be buried—next to a poor scrivener who was kind to him—he will be out of sight, out of mind.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Returning at Last with Weary Feet

By Robin Bates | Published: July 26, 2022
Freeman as Bilbo returning home

Wednesday

Updated from a May, 19, 2019 post

Julia and I have just returned home from a Maine reunion, where we joined relatives to bury some of my mother’s ashes. As in the past, when I’ve returned after a full day on the road, I lack the energy to write a new post and so repurpose an old essay on the poem that Bilbo chants as he nears the shire.

When I went to Wikipedia to find “The Road Goes Ever On and On,” I discovered that there are three versions. The first one alludes to many of the adventures in The Hobbit:

Roads go ever ever on
 Under cloud and under star,
 Yet feet that wandering have gone
 Turn at last to home afar.
 Eyes that fire and sword have seen
 And horror in the halls of stone
 Look at last on meadows green
 And trees and hills they long have known.

“Fire and sword” and “horror in the halls of stone” may well be oblique references to Tolkien’s World War I experiences in the trenches. Imagine what it must have meant to him to come home to England’s meadows, trees, and hills.

I like the way the other two versions capture the different feelings one has, first when one embarks on a journey and then when one comes to the journey’s end. The first poem, as the Wikipedia article notes, talks of eager feet while the second of weary feet. Right now, like many travelers reaching the end of their journeys, I’m experiencing weary feet. The first poem is spoken by Bilbo as he sets off for Rivendell in the third chapter of Fellowship of the Ring. The second is spoken by Bilbo in Rivendell in The Return of the King after Frodo and the others return from the ring quest, weary and in shock. I’ve labeled them “before” and “after.”

Before:

The Road goes ever on and on
 Down from the door where it began.
 Now far ahead the Road has gone,
 And I must follow, if I can,
 Pursuing it with eager feet,
 Until it joins some larger way
 Where many paths and errands meet.
 And whither then? I cannot say.

After:

The Road goes ever on and on
 Out from the door where it began.
 Now far ahead the Road has gone,
 Let others follow it who can!
 Let them a journey new begin,
 But I at last with weary feet
 Will turn towards the lighted inn,
 My evening-rest and sleep to meet.

I can report my meeting with evening-rest and sleep went very well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments closed

Cut the Heat, Plow Through It

By Robin Bates | Published: July 25, 2022
Matisse, The Sea Seen from Collioure

Tuesday

We’re on our way back from Maine, where temperatures uncharacteristically soared into the upper 90s—and this is mild compared to many parts of the world, which saw triple digit numbers (or numbers over 37.7 C) on their thermometers. Climate change, global warming, and extreme weather events are all alive and well.

Here’s a heat poem by H.D. (a.k.a. Hilda Doolittle) to capture the experience. Overwhelmed by the temperature, she begs the wind to rip the heat apart. The air is so thick, she says, that fruit cannot drop. In other words, it blunts and suffocates everything.

In the final stanza, she imagines cutting through heat like a plough. Heat this intense, she indicates, has the thickness of earth.

Or maybe she imagines herself as Moses cutting through the Red Sea. In any event, she conjures up violent fantasies of relief.

Heat
By H.D.

O wind, rend open the heat,
cut apart the heat,
rend it to tatters.

Fruit cannot drop
through this thick air–
fruit cannot fall into heat
that presses up and blunts
the points of pears
and rounds the grapes.

Cut the heat–
plough through it,
turning it on either side
of your path.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Donald Trump Is Our Harold Skimpole

By Robin Bates | Published: July 24, 2022
Nathaniel Parker as Harold Skimpole

Monday

We’ve been listening to Charles Dickens’s Bleak House on our trip to Maine and that, combined with the January 6 Investigation Committee wrapping up its current set of hearings, lead me to associate Donald Trump with Harold Skimpole, one of the more disagreeable characters I’ve encountered in a while. At issue with both men is their utter lack of accountability.

Skimpole is a mildly talented artist who leeches off his friends, including the benevolent John Jardyce. He explains that he is an innocent child and therefore cannot be expected to be responsible. In the following passage, for instance, we see him answer a question about principle—or rather, his own lack of principles. The question is how he can leech from both parties in a dispute, to which, “in his gayest manner and with his most ingenuous smile,” he replies,

Upon my life I have not the least idea! I don’t know what it is you call by that name, or where it is, or who possesses it. If you possess it and find it comfortable, I am quite delighted and congratulate you heartily. But I know nothing about it, I assure you; for I am a mere child, and I lay no claim to it, and I don’t want it!

At one point he employs such reasoning to deny offering assistance to homeless orphan Joe:

“You had better turn him out,” said Mr. Skimpole.

“What do you mean?” inquired my guardian, almost sternly.

“My dear Jarndyce,” said Mr. Skimpole, “you know what I am: I am a child. Be cross to me if I deserve it. But I have a constitutional objection to this sort of thing. I always had, when I was a medical man. He’s not safe, you know. There’s a very bad sort of fever about him.”

Mr. Skimpole had retreated from the hall to the drawing-room again and said this in his airy way, seated on the music-stool as we stood by.

“You’ll say it’s childish,” observed Mr. Skimpole, looking gaily at us. “Well, I dare say it may be; but I AM a child, and I never pretend to be anything else. If you put him out in the road, you only put him where he was before. He will be no worse off than he was, you know. Even make him better off, if you like. Give him sixpence, or five shillings, or five pound ten—you are arithmeticians, and I am not—and get rid of him!”

“And what is he to do then?” asked my guardian.

“Upon my life,” said Mr. Skimpole, shrugging his shoulders with his engaging smile, “I have not the least idea what he is to do then. But I have no doubt he’ll do it.”

Now to an important observation by Liz Cheney in the January 6 hearings. She offered it to counter those arguing that Trump’s advisors, not Trump himself, should be held responsible for the attempted coup:

 “In this version the president was, quote, poorly served by these outside advisors,” she said. “The strategy is to blame people his advisors called, quote, ‘the crazies’ for what Donald Trump did.”

“This of course is nonsense,” she said. “President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.”

Far too many have used the Skimpole excuse for Trump, holding him to a lower standard because he behaves like a spoiled child. If he indeed thought that he won the election, they say, is he wrong to have attempted to reverse the results?

Bucket, the always hovering detective in Bleak House, has witnessed a number of Skimpoles and Trumps. As he notes to Esther Summerson, people who use the child excuse are remarkably good at getting money out of people:

Now, Miss Summerson, I’ll give you a piece of advice that your husband will find useful when you are happily married and have got a family about you. Whenever a person says to you that they are as innocent as can be in all concerning money, look well after your own money, for they are dead certain to collar it if they can. Whenever a person proclaims to you ‘In worldly matters I’m a child,’ you consider that that person is only a-crying off from being held accountable and that you have got that person’s number, and it’s Number One. Now, I am not a poetical man myself, except in a vocal way when it goes round a company, but I’m a practical one, and that’s my experience. So’s this rule. Fast and loose in one thing, fast and loose in everything. I never knew it fail. No more will you. Nor no one.

Donald Trump is fast and loose in everything, and it has proved to be a devastatingly effective way of prying money out of people—and of avoiding responsibility for his actions.

I haven’t yet finished Bleak House and so don’t know whether Skimpole is ever held to account for his irresponsible behavior. It doesn’t help, just as it doesn’t with Trump, that he has enablers. Chief among these is the benevolent John Jarndyce, who bails him out time and again. Trump’s enablers are not so beneficent but, over and over, they have allowed him to escape the consequences of his actions.

Unfortunately, as with Trump, others are harmed by Skimpole’s self-absorbed behavior. He graciously accepts a bribe from the unscrupulous lawyer Vole for an introduction to his acquaintance Richard Carstone. Carstone, who is already at risk of being captured by the unending and ruinous Jarndyce v Jarndyce case, goes on to be held captive by Vole’s empty assurances, with catastrophic consequences.

It’s particularly frustrating to encounter Skimpole at a time when I, like many Americans, hunger for accountability. If someone can get away with inciting an insurrection (not to mention all Trump’s other infractions), then “justice for all” is just an empty catchphrase. I haven’t finished Bleak House and so don’t know if Skimpole is ultimately held to account, and of course we don’t know how the Trump saga will end.

The suspense is intense.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed