For Laurence Olivier’s Birthday: “You’ve Got a Fucking Cheek, Haven’t You?”

Happy birthday, Laurence Olivier!

Laurence-Olivier

Here’s a funny anecdote from Antony Sher’s book Year of the King: An Actor’s Diary and Sketchbook, his diary detailing his process rehearsing (and creating) Richard III at the Royal Shakespeare Company. Sher was daunted by the ghost-images of the great actors who had played the role, and the diary represents his struggles/stories about finding his “way in.” It’s a wonderful actor’s-process book and I highly recommend it, especially to anyone who thinks acting is magic. The book is also a gossipy backstage look at the theatre world, with some hilarious cameos.

Here’s just one of the anecdotes told in the book, and it’s not even Sher’s anecdote. Michael Gambon told it to Sher.

Tuesday 21 February

CANTEEN I’m having my lunch when I hear a familiar hoarse shout, ‘Oy Tony!’ I whip round, damaged my neck further, to see Michael Gambon in the lunch queue …

Alan Howard (a previous Richard III at the RSC) is standing in front of him, puzzled as to who is being sent up.

Wonderful seeing Gambon again. He and Howard have been rehearsing a play here. They’ve just heard it’s been cancelled because of the scene-shifters’ strike. Everyone assures us that it will be over by the time we go into studio in four weeks.

Gambon tells me the story of Olivier auditioning him at the Old Vic in 1962. His audition speech was from Richard III. ‘See, Tone, I was thick as two short planks then and I didn’t know he’d had a rather notable success in the part. I was just shitting myself about meeting the Great Man. He sussed how green I was and started farting around.’

As reported by Gambon, their conversation went like this:

Olivier: ‘What are you going to do for me?’
Gambon: ‘Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘Is that so. Which part?’
Gambon: ‘Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘Yes, but which part?’
Gambon: ‘Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘Yes, I understand that, but which part?’
Gambon: ‘Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘But which character? Catesby? Ratcliffe? Buckingham’s a good part …’
Gambon: ‘Oh I see, beg your pardon, no, Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘What, the King? Richard?’
Gambon: ‘ — the Third, yeah.’
Olivier: “You’ve got a fucking cheek, haven’t you?’
Gambon: ‘Beg your pardon?’
Olivier: ‘Never mind, which part are you going to do?’
Gambon: ‘Richard the Third.’
Olivier: ‘Don’t start that again. Which speech?’
Gambon: ‘Oh I see, beg your pardon, “Was every woman in this humour woo’d.”‘
Olivier: ‘Right. Whenever you’re ready.’
Gambon: ‘ “Was ever woman in this humour woo’d –” ‘
Olivier: ‘Wait. Stop. You’re too close. Go further away. I need to see the whole shape, get the full perspective.’
Gambon: ‘Oh I see, beg your pardon …’ Gambon continues, ‘So I go over to the far end of the room, Tone, thinking that I’ve already made an almighty tit of myself, so how do I save the day? Well I see this pillar and I decide to swing round it and start the speech with a sort of dramatic punch. But as I do this my ring catches on a screw and half my sodding hand gets left behind. I think to myself, “Now I mustn’t let this throw me since he’s already got me down as a bit of an arsehole”, so I plough on … “Was ever woman in this humour woo’d –“‘
Olivier: ‘Wait. Stop. What’s the blood?’
Gambon: ‘Nothing, nothing, just a little gash, I do beg your pardon …’
A nurse had to be called and he suffered the indignity of being given first aid with the greatest actor in the world passing the bandages. At last it was done.
Gambon: ‘Shall I start again?’
Olivier: ‘No. I think I’ve got a fair idea how you’re going to do it. You’d better get along now. We’ll let you know.’

Gambon went back to the engineering factory in Islington where he was working. At four that afternoon he was bent over his lathe, working as best as he could with a heavily bandaged hand, when he was called to the phone. It was the Old Vic.

‘It’s not easy talking on the phone, Tone. One, there’s the noise of the machinery. Two, I have to keep my voice down ’cause I’m cockney at work and posh with theatre people. But they offer me a job, spear-carrying, starting immediately. I go back to my work-bench, heart beating in my chest, pack my tool-case, start to go. The foreman comes up, says, “Oy, where you off to?” “I’ve got bad news,” I say, “I’ve got to go.” He says, “Why are you taking your tool box?” I say, “I can’t tell you, it’s very bad news, might need it.” And I never went back there, Tone. Home on the bus, heart still thumping away. A whole new world ahead. We tend to forget what it felt like in the beginning.’

Posted in Actors, Theatre | Tagged | 9 Comments

The Books: Cults In Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives, by Margaret Thaler Singer

51Tvf65F1kL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Next book on the Cults shelf (and everyone should have a “cults shelf”):

Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, by Margaret Thaler Singer

This is the Cult Bible. First published in 1996, it continued to be re-issued, with updated information on new cults and “cultic groups” (in Singer’s terminology). Margaret Singer’s book, well-researched, and academic (yet totally readable) is still a landmark – the landmark – in cult studies and brainwashing. It will never be out of date, as long as there are dangerous individuals and groups who operate outside the law, depriving people of the freedom of thought. Margaret Singer was a psychologist (she died in 2003), who made many breakthroughs in her field, not just in regards to brainwashing. She also did important work in schizophrenia research and the field of family therapy/counseling. But it was her work at Walter Reed hospital, counseling US soldiers who had been POWs in the Korean War, that led her into the study of thought control, and what she called “coercive persuasion”. This was at the start of the 1960s, and the 1960s brought cults to the forefront in ways they never had been before, and this continued into the 1970s, culminating with the Jonestown massacre. There was plenty to keep Margaret Singer busy.

It’s interesting that the whole POW thing was really the birth of modern cult studies. I wrote about that in the piece on the first “cult book” on my shelf, Snapping (excerpt here). POWs returned to America, still brainwashed. In a matter of days, they “snapped” back. There were people who noticed this, and who were curious enough about it to take it into further areas of study. What is it in the brain that is susceptible to brainwashing – with the corollary question: what is required to make brainwashing successful? How does brainwashing actually WORK? And also: what is it in the brain that makes “snapping out” of the loop possible? These are multiple complex interconnected questions, but they all derive from the same source. “Cults” weren’t on the table at that time. The problem initially had to do with brainwashed POWs, but cult studies came out of that. Robert Jay Lifton (I wrote about him in that snapping piece) is the “father” of brainwashing studies, and he also “cut his teeth” on working with the POWs from the Korean War. His 8 criteria for thought reform remains definitive. If you think you are in a cult, or if you worry about an organization a loved one is involved in, then pull out those 8 criteria, and ask yourself some hard questions. It’s the gold standard.

Speaking of cults, I cannot WAIT to see this movie.

Singer set about to discover what was happening in these homegrown groups in America, feeling that whatever was going on there was similar to what the POWs experienced in Korea. The result is a massive study, not just of different groups and how they operate, but putting together a system of analysis for anyone looking to understand cults. It’s not just WHAT cults are, but HOW they do what they do that remain the ultimate question. (Robert Jay Lifton, in a swift and elegant manner, laid out the “How” in his 8 criteria. Singer’s work is a continuation of that.)

She came up with theories and systems, breaking down the complexity into its parts, with things like: Theory of Systematic Manipulation of Social and Psychological Influence. Based on interviews with ex-cult-members, who opened up their deepest darkest secrets to her (evidence of her psychological training), she began to see the similarities in how all of these different groups worked. There was a method to the madness. The people running cults may not have studied Robert Jay Lifton’s 8 Criteria, but they understood it. They knew what they were doing. Don’t give people time to think. Make them meditate 24/7. Don’t let them sleep enough. Give them slogans to chant. Slowly put the pressure on. Etc. It’s very sinister. Singer was interested in helping people. She has a psychologist’s mindset, not an academic mindset. The book is meant to be a guide – for those in a cult, coming out of a cult, or loved ones who are concerned.

Singer ran into tons of legal trouble in her career. Landmark Education (“Landmark Forum,” the corporatized step-son of EST) sued her for defamation. She hadn’t called them out in particular as a cult, but they were referenced in Cults In Our Midst. The financial pressure was huge enough from that lawsuit that she removed references to Landmark in later editions. (Her reputation among cult-watchers suffered as a result. As in: Oh Noes, she caved!!) Notoriously, she treads very lightly on the most famous cult in America in her book. It only gets passing reference. It was the 1990s. That cult had sued Time magazine so heavily for an expose that it nearly sunk the magazine. The writer of that Time article was harassed for decades following. Enemy #1. Singer knew that her message was bigger than that one particular organization and she didn’t want her important work to be derailed by a punishing lawsuit that she knew she could never win. So except for a couple of references, comments from ex-members, that cult doesn’t really play in Cults in our Midst. It was a deliberate choice on her part. Leaving it out of the book still didn’t save her from harassment. She – and her family – were harassed until the day she died by that cult, in horrifying and invasive ways. They wanted to “destroy her utterly” (actual words from the cult leader as to how to deal with “critics”).

So it was dangerous waters to tiptoe into. Margaret Singer’s work is still extremely important in the world of cult studies. Her book is compulsively readable. It’s filled with anecdotes and long interviews with ex-cult-members, about what they experienced during the recruitment phase (so important for people to understand, because there’s so much confusion about how these smart people would get sucked into something so controlling), about what life in a cult was like, about how the leaders ran things, how the deputies ran things, about how difficult it was to get out. The importance of her work is really in her “systematizing” all of this information. So you get diagrams showing how the power flows throughout the cult, visuals to help you understand the inner workings. The book is broken up into small sections, with Singer’s categorization models, providing explanations and examples.

It’s an extraordinary accomplishment, this book, and still relevant. Still helpful.

In this excerpt, she discusses Robert Jay Lifton’s 8 criteria, expanding on them with explanations and examples of what he means by his terminology. She makes things concrete. (You’ll notice that she references the most famous cult in America – I still hesitate to name them outright, even though they are now a wounded giant – but she doesn’t name them either.) Robert Jay Lifton wrote the foreword to Margaret Singer’s book, a stamp of approval from the Master.

Excerpt from Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, by Margaret Thaler Singer

Paralleling Singer’s six conditions are the eight psychological themes that psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton has identified as central to totalistic environments, including the Communist Chinese and Korean programs of the 1950s and today’s cults. Cults invoke these themes for the purpose of promoting behavioral and attitudinal changes.

1. Milieu control. This is total control of communication in the group. In many groups, there is a “no gossip” or “no nattering” rule that keeps people from expressing their doubts or misgivings about what is going on. This rule is usually rationalized by saying that gossip will tear apart the fabric of the group or destroy unity, when in reality the rule is a mechanism to keep members from communicating anything other than positive endorsements. Members are taught to report those who break the rule, a practice that also keeps members isolated from each other and increases dependence on the leadership.

Milieu control also often involves discouraging members from contacting relatives or friends outside the group and from reading anything not approved by the organization. They are sometimes told not to believe anything they see or hear reported by the media. One left-wing political cult, for example, maintains that the Berlin Wall is still standing and that the “bourgeois capitalist” press wants people to think otherwise in order to discredit communism.

2. Loading the language. As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group’s jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members’ thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. At first, translating from their native tongue into “groupspeak” forces members to censor, edit, and slow down spontaneous bursts of criticism or oppositional ideas. That helps them to cut off and contain negative or resistive feelings. Eventually, speaking in cult jargon is second nature, and talking with outsiders becomes energy-consuming and awkward. Soon enough, members find it most comfortable to talk only among themselves in the new vocabulary. To reinforce this, all kinds of derogatory names are given to outsiders: wogs, systemites, reactionaries, unclean, of Satan.

One large international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. In one of those dictionaries, criticism is defined as “justification for having done an overt.” Then one looks up overt and the dictionary states: “overt act: an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.” Then the definition of dynamics says: “There could be said to be eight urges in life …” And so, one can search from term to term trying to learn this new language. One researcher noted that the group’s founder has stated that “new followers or potential converts should not be exposed to [the language and cosmology of the group] at too early a stage. ‘Talking whole track to raw meat’ is frowned upon.”

When cults use such internal meanings, how is an outsider to know that the devil disguise, just flesh relationships, and polluting are terms for parents? That an edu is a lecture by the cult leader or that a mislocation is a mistake? A former cult member comments, “I was always being told, ‘You are being too horizontal.'” Translated, this meant she was being reprimanded for listening to and being sympathetic to peers.

A dwindling group in Seattle, the Love Family, had a “rite of breathing.” This sounds ordinary, but in fact for some members it turned out to be a lethal euphemism. The leader, a former California salesman, initiated to this rite, in which members sat in a circle, passing around and sniffing a plastic bag containing a rag soaked with toluene, an industrial solvent. The group called the chemical “tell-u-all.”

3. Demand for purity. An us-versus-them orientation is promoted by the all-or-nothing belief system of the group: we are right; they (outsiders, nonmembers) are wrong, evil, unenlightened, and so forth. Each idea or act is good or bad, pure or evil. Recruits gradually take in, or internalize, the critical, shaming essence of the cult environment, which builds up lots of guilt and shame. Most groups put forth that there is only one way to think, respond, or act in any given situation. There is no in-between, and members are expected to judge themselves and others by this all-or-nothing standard. Anything can be done in the name of this purity; it is the justification for the group’s internal moral and ethical code. In many groups, it is literally taught that the end justifies the means – and because the end (that is, of the group) is pure, the means are simply tools to reach purity.

If you are a recruit, this ubiquitous guilt and shame creates and magnifies your dependence on the group. The group says in essence, “We love you because you are transforming yourself,” which means that any moment you are not transforming yourself, you are slipping back. Thus you easily feel inadequate, as though you need “fixing” all the time, just as the outside world is being denounced all the time.

4. Confession. Confession is used to lead members to reveal past and present behavior, contacts with others, and undesirable feelings, seemingly in order to unburden themselves and become free. However, whatever you reveal is subsequently used to further mold you and to make you feel close to the group and estranged from nonmembers. (I sometimes call this technique purge and merge.) The information gained about you can be used against you, to make you feel more guilty, powerless, fearful, and ultimately, in need of the cult and the leader’s goodness. And it can be used to get you to rewrite your personal history so as to denigrate your past life, making it seem illogical for you to want to return to that former life, family and friends. Each group will have its own confession ritual, which may be carried out either one-on-one with a person in leadership or in group sessions. Members may also write reports on themselves and others.

Through the confession process and by instruction in the group’s teachings, members learn that everything about their former lives, including friends, family, and nonmembers, is wrong and to be avoided. Outsiders will put you at risk of not attaining the purported goal: they will lessen your psychological awareness, hinder the group’s political advancement, obstruct your path toward ultimate knowledge, or allow you to become stuck in your past life and incorrect thinking.

Posted in Books | 4 Comments

Happy Birthday, Cher

With all of the things Cher has done that I treasure, this may very well be my favorite.

Posted in Music | Tagged | 5 Comments

“Does it all sound depressing to you? Queasy? Well, I’m not ashamed.” – Barbara Payton

6a00d83451cb7469e201bb09028b8b970d-400wi

No secret that I love Kim Morgan’s writing. No secret either that we are friends. But this piece, on the re-issue of the autobiography of poor messed-up Barbara Payton – actress, drunk/heroin-addict, prostitute, bar-fly, dead at the age of 39 – an autobiography with the ferocious ahead-of-its-time title I Am Not Ashamed is one of the best things she’s ever written.

There’s an account in O’Dowd’s book of a Payton friend observing Barbara on the street from his car during her downbeat days, running through the rain in the night. She’s wearing short shorts and sopping wet. What a sight. That blonde, wet and rushing through the darkness, her hair glowing. He was horrified by what he saw, but, he could still see that movie star there; the confidence of her gait. She walked like a goddess. Looking at Payton through various police snaps and older sexy shots, the reader can see it too, even in the supposedly ghastly photos taken of Payton for “I Am Not Ashamed.” Yes, she looks bloated and busted with her chintzy little fur and shoved down top, but there’s a beautiful woman in there (even Guild, as mean as he was, could see it). She really was a stunning creature – good bones, luscious lips, a defined jaw –it’s still there – just puffed up and drunk and, for lack of a better word, trashy. So what? How dare she age? How dare she suffer and not stay pretty?

Thinking of her battered body, jumping into all of those stranger’s cars, how is she supposed to look? That image of her running down the street in wet shorts, it’s so sad and sick and insolently sexual. One can see how men would gravitate to her, even in that debased state and exactly for that debased state. She’s not just a diamond in the rough but a diamond you’d find lying in a gutter, covered by a wet mink – you’d have to look closely to see it glistening. And she must have.

Read the whole thing, for God’s sake.

Posted in Actors, Books | 2 Comments

Clearly I’m Doing Something Right

… because in a 24-hour period:

1. Charlie sent me some random texts about the Mitford Sisters. For no particular reason. But if you need to talk about the Mitfords, I am obviously your girl.

2. My cousin Mike hooked me up with someone who needed my expertise on Colonel Tom Parker. There was a deadline. I bombarded the poor guy (whom I have never met before) with so much information (including this), that I felt like a schoolmarm, but he was very excited to get the homework.

Posted in Personal | 23 Comments

“If you want to make characters sound insane, you can do worse than infect their speech with adverbs.”

I love Christian Lorentzen’s writing, in general, and get excited to hear his thoughts on pretty much anything. I loved his recent piece, In Defense of Pretentiousness (“Those who remember me as an adolescent in small-town Massachusetts likely recall an arrogant grade-grubber all too eager to quote the Virgil he’d memorized the night before or to share his deep thoughts about the lyrics of Soul Asylum.”), and his tour de force: Toward a Unified Theory of Joan Didion: it’s essential reading, and expressed some things that I have found disheartening or … disturbing … in the current love-fest around Didion, who has been sort of absorbed into the self-help culture because of her “memoirs”. Lorentzen clocks what is wrong with that, and I breathed a sigh of relief when I read his essay, because it NEEDED to be said. By someone able to say it well.

Onward: I adore his latest essay: Could We Just Lose the Adverb Already?

Sneak peek:

But some adverbs are the most powerful words in English. We can no more escape the adverbs of time than we can escape aging. Without the adverbs of place, we wouldn’t be anywhere, not even nowhere. I am in awe of “yesterday” and “tomorrow” and of “here” and “there.” All these words can provoke potent feelings along the spectrum of sadness and happiness and are essential to getting on with the job of reporting what has or will have happened and where. They’re beautiful words with a simplicity undiluted by suffixes. But their power is best spent in small doses. If you’re deploying an adverb of time in every sentence, you must be writing a police report or singing the Cure’s “Friday I’m in Love.”

Posted in Miscellania | 7 Comments

Film Society at Lincoln Center: Anna Magnani Retrospective 5/18-6/1

tumblr_mf2prpupBa1qlo0rdo1_500

In a recent radio interview about Gena Rowlands, host Jason Di Rosso asked me what other actresses might even enter the foyer of the foyer of what Gena Rowlands does as an actress. I’ve got my Top 4: Gena Rowlands, Isabelle Huppert, Liv Ullmann, and the great Italian actress Anna Magnani. These actresses are different and have a way of making the work of other actors – even highly skilled, even gifted people – look like they’re playing it safe. The concerns of these actresses do not even seem to be “give a good performance.” It’s something else entirely that they are doing. (David Thomson observed about Claude Chabrol’s Violette that while Stéphane Audran gives a very good performance… “Isabelle Huppert is a phenomenon.” Night and day.)

You watch the work of Anna Magnani and you realize you are witnessing a phenomenon.

giphy

Anna Magnani won the Best Actress Oscar in 1956 (for The Rose Tattoo), but her real impact came out of the post-war years in Italy and the rise of neo-realism. It was difficult to place Magnani, outside of that brutal religious and war-torn context, but her work in two films written by Tennessee Williams (both The Rose Tattoo and The Fugitive Kind), showed that her dramatic fearlessness was a perfect match for Williams’ extremely challenging psychological material.

anna-magnani

A lot of her other films are extremely difficult to see. In 2014, I went to see Magnani in The Passionate Thief at The Film Forum, a film that rarely plays anywhere – on TV, in repertory – and that’s the case with a lot of Magnani’s work (outside of the major films she did with Rossellini, Pasolini, and then the Tennessee Williams American films). It was so hilarious that a guy sitting behind us laughed so hard I thought he would have a heart attack. Not that I wasn’t howling too. She is so funny in it (she was a brilliant dry comedian, who could say more with a weary eye-roll than most actresses could say with a 2-page monologue.)

tumblr_nf3gl7nR1e1rfd7lko1_400

Anna Magnani was the only actor that Marlon Brando was openly afraid to work with, so afraid he talked about it. He was talking with Truman Capote (in Capote’s infamous New Yorker profile of Brando) about the stage production of Tennessee Williams’ Orpheus Descending, only in its planning stages at that time, and there was the hope that Anna Magnani would play the lead role, opposite Brando. Brando said to Capote:

“I had no intention of walking out on any stage with Magnani. Not in that part. They’d have had to mop me up.”

And he did end up working with her in The Fugitive Kind: his terror of her, of being “shown up” by her, is why the pairing is so electric. She was AS spontaneous as he was.

anna-magnani-and-marlon-brando-in-the-fugitive-kind-1959

All of this is to say: Exciting news: The Film Society at Lincoln Center is running an Anna Magnani retrospective, from May 18th to June 1. There are the most famous ones, but, eureka, they’re playing the hard to find ones, too, the lesser-known films.

I’ve made out a list of the things I need to see, either because I’ve never seen them on the big screen, or I’ve never seen them at all.

Even better news: This Retrospective will be traveling: it’s going to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Chicago, Houston, and Columbus.

My friend Dan Callahan has written a gorgeous tribute to Anna Magnani: “La Lupa”: A Celebration of Anna Magnani, which is a great guide to Magnani’s career. This part is especially important:

And Magnani brought the same conflict and hope to her other Williams movie role, Lady Torrance in “The Fugitive Kind” (1960), in which she acted with Marlon Brando, listening to the far-out frequencies he is accessing and then responding to them in an overwhelming way. Some people might think what Magnani does is too much, too extreme, but maybe that’s because they are afraid they could never endure such extremity in living themselves.

YES. YES.

The essay has Dan’s typical excellence in analyzing performance and articulating WHY Magnani was so great, so unique, so “above and beyond” that she seems, frankly, to be practicing a different profession than other actresses. She’s in her own category.

avedon03_anna-magnani_cor

Posted in Actors, Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On the Move

ri

The sea wall. My home state. Skateboarders and ocean. Recovery almost complete from the two months of insanity that were March and April.

Posted in Personal | 8 Comments

The Books: Baseball: A Literary Anthology; Excerpt from Baseball When the Grass Was Real, “James ‘Cool Papa’ Bell”, by Donald Honig

A re-post for Cool Papa Bell’s birthday

31253

On the essays shelf (yes, there are still more books to excerpt in my vast library. I can’t seem to stop this excerpts-from-my-library project. I started it in 2006!)

NEXT BOOK: Baseball: A Literary Anthology

Author Donald Honig worked in many genres. He wrote mystery novels, Civil War books, books for kids, as well as baseball books. One of his mysteries was titled The Plot to Kill Jackie Robinson. So baseball was an ongoing theme.

Honig read Lawrence Ritter’s classic The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It (thoughts and excerpt here), Honig was inspired to follow suit and pick up the story. The result was his 1975 book Baseball When the Grass Was Real: Baseball from the Twenties to the Forties, Told by the Men Who Played It. It’s an unofficial sequel to Ritter’s book, picking up where Ritter left off. Ritter interviewed ballplayers whose heyday was in the late 1800s, early decades of 20th century. Honig focused on the 20 years between the two World Wars. He set out on his own lengthy journey around America, tracking down these old-timers and getting them on tape. Honig interviewed Wes Ferrell, Pete Reiser, Lefty Grove. Since it’s an oral history, you get the voices untouched, and they feel unedited, too. Memories lead to other memories, or asides, or thoughtful statements of philosophy, nostalgia, a “damn things have changed” exclamation. Baseball When the Grass Was Real came out in 1975, and brings back an earlier time, not necessarily more innocent (baseball lost its innocence in 1920, when the revelations about the 1919 Chicago White Sox broke), but simpler. Salaries were lower. Ticket prices were low. A simple and happy national pastime for all. But, as the excerpt below illuminates, the “happiness” of the pastime hid an ugly truth. African-American players were shut out of major-league baseball entirely. It’s a stain on the sport’s history, on the culture, and many ball clubs were shamefully late in integrating (hello to my team, the Red Sox). The Negro Leagues had the same set-up as the major leagues, and drew the same audiences – white and black – because who can ever get enough of baseball? – but was sidelined, culturally, financially, and all the rest. Some of those guys were among the best players to ever play, in any league.

I’ve never been, but there’s a Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in St. Louis, and it looks great, I’d love to visit. The Negro Leagues faced similar challenges to those of African-American musicians in the same era, who may have been “allowed” to sing in white night-clubs in the South, but could not drive into town without being pulled over, could not rent a room in a hotel, could not stop for gas. The situation of playing white clubs for white audiences where the performer had to enter through the kitchen door, and where African-Americans were not allowed in as audience members, ended up being part of the breaking-down of racial barriers: Performers – like Ray Charles, like Sam Cooke, like many others, as well as some white musicians, started refusing to play in such clubs. Money talks louder than principles, sad as that may be. There are some chilling stories about Sam Cooke’s early gospel tours in the South, the terror that came over his gospel group if they ran out of gas on a country road in Mississippi, or how they had to pack their own food since they weren’t allowed to eat anywhere, etc. It made the South so unwelcoming that many singers were like, “Fuck it, let’s just skip that whole fucking region in our tours.” Not that the North was integrated, but there were hotels in New York or Philadelphia or Boston where the singers could stay, there were restaurants that served them, those details that made it easier to travel to those regions. Sam Cooke grew up in Chicago, in a black part of town, in a completely segregated world, but even he was freaked out by trips to Alabama, etc. Since African-American baseball players were barred from the major leagues, they organized themselves into their own teams, and would “barnstorm” around the country, playing anyone who wanted to play, in empty fields on the outside of town, wherever.

In 1920, this world shifted when a couple of former players and managers created the Negro National League. With the Negro League came an official structure for all of the talented African-American ballplayers out there. Once the National League was formed, other Leagues formed in other regions, so now, whaddya know, you got a national pastime, albeit on a completely alternate track from the mainstream. Whites, who may have had all manner of racial prejudices politically and socially, loved to see baseball, no matter the race of the players. It was a messed-up situation, unfair, outrageous, but from the players point of view: they just wanted to play. The whites won’t let us in? Let’s do our own damn thing. Once the Negro Leagues were set up, the level of play itself improved, due to more incentive, more competition. That’s always the way it is. Baseball was good economics for African-American communities, too – similar to what happens in any town that has a ball club. Jobs are created. Entire offshoots of business enterprise based on baseball spring into being. Newspapers, journalists, radio stations devoted to the Negro Leagues blossomed everywhere. Black-owned radio stations (not white-owned with black “talent”, an important distinction: the first black-owned black-run radio station started up in Memphis, no surprise there) started to make their mark. As one African-American DJ from Memphis at the time observed: you couldn’t segregate the air waves. The decades between the two world wars also saw the explosion of radio, the technology getting better and better over the years, until WWII helped develop radio technology that could reach the entire nation, making a national conversation possible. You could be sitting in Alaska and listening to a New York Yankees game on the radio. (This was one of the many reasons that Elvis Presley became possible, whereas even 10 years before he would have been a regional star only. It was that radio could now REACH the entire country.)

050112-sports-this-day-black-history-negro-league-baseball

Segregated baseball continued for decades until 1945 when the Brooklyn Dodgers recruited Jackie Robinson. A triumph. But Jackie Robinson, and the opportunity he represented (it was just a matter of time before other ball clubs followed) also meant the Negro Leagues went into eclipse, as African-American players started gunning for the Majors. Change was still slow, and so many Negro League ballplayers found themselves job-less, forgotten, still hustling the barnstorming circuit, but with less official focus on their efforts. The overriding structure was dissipating. It would be another 20 years before the Negro Leagues folded. A lot of players were lost in that shuffle, their names forgotten to history, until finally the Baseball Hall of Fame started to perform long overdue acts of redress, entering players from those old Negro Leagues into the pantheon where they belonged. All of those guys with famous names and stats – Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, “Pop” Lloyd (Babe Ruth said that “Pop” Lloyd was not the best black ballplayer he had ever seen, Lloyd was the best ballplayer he had ever seen PERIOD), Ray Dandridge, and “Cool Papa” Bell (whose memories make up the excerpt today) to name just a few, would have crushed in the Major Leagues. Only the color barrier kept them out.

a323_2x2

“Cool Papa” Bell, (Hall of Famer), was born in 1903 in Mississippi and his life spanned almost the entire century. He witnessed it all. He played in the Negro Leagues from 1922 to 1950, an incredible run, and is often said to be the fastest man to ever play the game. (There’s a famous story, mentioned in every piece about him, first related by Satchel Paige: Bell was so fast that at bedtime he would flip the light-switch in his room and be in bed before the light actually went off.) In 1974, he finally made it into the Hall of Fame. (At least he was alive to experience that.) His lifetime batting average in the Negro Leagues was .377.

Cool-papa-bell

Perhaps the saddest part of his story is that after he retired from baseball, he tried for many years to get a coaching gig in Major League baseball but no one would hire him. Shameful. He did get work as a scout. When they were kids, his brothers played baseball, too, and Bell had no interest in anything other than getting himself in the game. He signed with one semi-pro black ball club (the pay was so dismal he kept a day job at a packing company), and then another, and then another. He started out as a pitcher before moving to the outfield. He was a switch-hitter. He was so fast that when he batted left-handed, the players in the outfield experienced the dread of anxiety because he was a step or two closer to first base. That’s how fast he was. Nobody wanted to walk him, because if he was on first, he would usually steal second. Then he would steal third. Then he would steal home. So a Cool Papa Bell base hit was as treacherous as three separate men on each base and a power-hitter up at bat. If Bell was on first base, he had “I’m headed for home plate” written all over him. He shows up in Ken Burns Baseball where the story is related that he was on first-base and he ended up making it to home plate on a sacrifice bunt, for God’s sake.

549

He and Satchel Paige and a couple of others played for a while in the Dominican Republic and then Mexico. (Baseball was integrated in Mexico.) This was in the late 1930s. Cool Papa Bell won the Triple Crown in the Mexican League. He was well-liked by everyone. A good man, who didn’t go for the hard-living hard-drinking hard-womanizing lifestyle of many ballplayers.

James Bell posed fielding

Cool Papa Bell was #66 on The Sporting News’ list of greatest ballplayers of all time.

Donald Honig tracked Cool Papa Bell down in St. Louis, where he lived. The stories he tells are great (entire games remain clear in his memory, who’s on first, etc., from some game in 1921), and also tremendously sad. But he finishes up his interview saying he does not like to hold onto anger, he does not like to dwell on the bad things: “I’m not mad at Mississippi or any place else. That’s the way it was in those days. I pray that we all can live in peace together.” Bell died in 1991 and there’s a street in St. Louis named in his honor.

The book from which this interview comes, again, is Baseball When the Grass Was Real.

Here’s an excerpt.

Excerpt from Baseball: A Literary Anthology, edited by Nicholas Davidoff. Excerpt from Baseball When the Grass Was Real, “James ‘Cool Papa’ Bell”, by Donald Honig

It was rough barnstorming. We traveled by bus, you see. You’d be surprised at the conditions we played under. We would frequently play two and three games a day. We’d play a twilight game, ride 40 miles, and play another game, under the lights. This was in the 1940’s. On Sundays you’d play three games – a doubleheader in one town and a single night game in another. Or three single games in three different towns. One game would start about one o’clock, a second about four, and a third at about eight. Three different towns, mind you. Same uniform all day, too. We’d change socks and sweat shirts, but that’s about all. When you got to the town, they’d be waiting for you, and all you’d have time to do would be to warm your pitcher up. Many a time I put on my uniform at eight o’clock in the morning and wouldn’t take it off till three or four the next morning.

Every night they’d have to find us places to stay if we weren’t in a big city up North. Some of the towns had hotels where they’d take us. Colored hotels. Never a mixed hotel. In New York we’d stay at the Theresa, in Harlem, or the Woodside. In the large cities in the South we’d stay at colored hotels. In smaller towns we’d stay at rooming houses or with private families, some of us in each house.

You could stay better in small towns in the South than you could in the North, because in a small town in the North you most of the time don’t find many colored people living there. And those that are there have no extra rooms. But in a small town in the South there are enough colored people living there so you an find room in their homes.

Once we were going from Monroe, Louisiana, to New Orleans. We had to cross the bridge over the river at Vicksburg, Mississippi. We were planning to eat lunch at a little town called Picayune. We stopped at a colored restaurant and asked if they had any food.

“Oh, not for all those men,” they said. “It’ll take us too long to fix food for all those men.” It was spring training, and we had about twenty-five men.

When the restaurant people went outside and looked at our bus standing there, they said, “Say, whose bus is this? Any white boys in it?”

“No,” we said.

“Who owns it?”

“We have an owner.”

“Is he white or colored?”

“Colored.”

“And all these boys on the bus are colored?”

“Yeah,” we said.

“Well,” they said, “you all better get out of the state of Mississippi quick as you can.”

“Why?”

“‘Cause if you don’t, they gonna take this bus and all you guys in it and put you all working on that farm out there. They need farm workers real bad. There’s a lot of people now out there on the farm they caught passing through. They jail ’em for speeding and put ’em to serving their sentence out on that farm.”

So we got back on the bus and drove straight through till we were out of the state of Mississippi.

When I was manager of the Kansas City Monarchs’ farm team, we played a lot against the House of David. That was in 1948, ’49, ’50. They had a lot of ex-minor- and -major-league players on their teams. They had to wear a beard. We barnstormed with them through California, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, North and South Dakota, and Canada.

We met a lot of good people, but also a lot that weren’t so good. Some of them wanted to be good. All the people that you see that say, “I don’t want you to do this or that” – they aren’t bad people, they’re worried people a lot of time, worried about the public. When we traveled with the House of David, they had no trouble finding accommodations, so they had all their reservations made out before the season started. But we had to go to places where we never did know whether we could sleep. Most of the time we’d stay in these cabins on the edge of town. They call them motels today, but in those days they called them cabins.

We went into a lot of small towns where they’d never seen a colored person. In some of those places we couldn’t find anyplace to sleep, so we slept on the bus. If we had to, we could convert the seats into beds. We’d just pull over to the side of the road, in a cornfield or someplace, and sleep until the break of day, and then we’d go on into the next town, hoping we’d find a restaurant that would be willing to serve colored people.

All those things we experienced, today people wouldn’t believe it. The conditions and the salaries, and what we had to go through. Lots of time for months and months I played on percentage – all of us did – and we’d be lucky to make $5 a game.

But I had a lot of fun in baseball. Saw a lot of great ballplayers. Guys you probably never heard of. Pitcher named Theodore Trent. He’d beat Paige an awful lot of the time. And he never lost a game to a big-league team barnstorming. When we played Max Carey’s all-stars, Trent struck those guys out again and again, with that great curveball he had. One game he struck Bill Terry out four times.

Trent was a great pitcher, but he got TB and died young.

Satchel was the fastest, though. I never saw a pitcher throw harder; you could hardly time him. I’ve seen Walter Johnson, I’ve seen Dizzy Dean, Bob Feller, Lefty Grove, all of them. Also Dick Redding and Smokey Joe Williams among our boys. None of them threw as hard as Paige at the time I saw them. All he threw for years was that fastball; it’d be by you so fast you could hardly turn. And he had control. He could throw that ball right by your knees all day.

Posted in Books, On This Day | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

2010 Paris Review Interview with Katherine Dunn

12-katherine-dunn.w529.h529

Over on Facebook, there’s been a public mourning over the death of Geek Love author Katherine Dunn as intense as the passing of Prince. It’s not as huge a population, but it’s as devoted. My friend Mitchell said, “I see Olympia everywhere.” I do too. The characters stalk your dreams. People who have read it say they are “haunted” by it. Because Katherine Dunn didn’t write too many novels, and the novels she did write came almost 20 years apart, there’s even more of a mystique around her. Geek Love exploded like a bomb in 1989. And then … silence. Of course she WASN’T silent. She wrote about boxing, she was a sports journalist for various newspapers, she traveled around covering boxing matches. This is not the “norm” for a writer who writes a book like Geek Love. And that made it almost better. Geek Love was not a book like any other book, and so it was perfect that the author would not be like other authors. When Dunn died, I did a Search on my site to see what I had already written about her over the years, and came across this fragment of hilarity: snippets of conversation between me and Michael, an old flame, who came and stayed with me for a week in 2006. And this is (some of) what we talked about. I didn’t even remember this post, and I read some of that and laughed out loud. I sent it to Michael and he was roaring too. The Fuck buddy moment? Libertarian Magicians?? What the hell. It’s a great snapshot of our friendship. But anyway, back then we discussed Katherine Dunn, which is why that forgotten post came up in Search, and the substance of that conversation is something I’ve talked about with other friends who loved Geek Love. Geek Love (at least my copy, and it was the first paperback copy) had no author photo. You couldn’t “attach” anything to her. It was just her voice and the characters she created. Katherine Dunn was a complete and utter mystery at the time, and you couldn’t Google her. It was perfect that I had no idea what she looked like. And because the characters in Geek Love are “freaks” and “geeks” on the sideshow circuit, and because it’s a first-person narration, it made you wonder … Of course, it’s even better that all of the characters came from her imagination, but still: we all talked about Katherine Dunn, and who we imagined her to be all the time.

With the advent of the Internet, it was easier to keep track of Katherine Dunn. And whenever you heard anything about her, it was always fascinating, and unexpected. Yes, of course, it would have been great if she had written more novels … or maybe it wouldn’t have been. I always missed her. I always wished I had heard more from her. Hers was one of the most essential and unique voices to come along in a long LONG time. Sorry, but Geek Love blows away anything that any of the Big Kahuna Men – like DeLillo or Jonathan Franzen or whoever – have ever attempted, or even dreamt of.

Yesterday, I was Googling around finding interviews with Dunn (there aren’t many, at least not recently), and came across a wonderful 2010 interview she gave to the Paris Review. There is so much great stuff. A couple of things I love, emblematic of why I love her, and why I find her so inspirational:

Twenty years is a long time for something to gel, what has happened?

I don’t want to be glib here, but twenty years worth of life and work happened. Some might say I’m right on schedule by my lights.

Is being a woman advantageous or disadvantageous for ringside reporting?

Thirty years ago it was an advantage because at most fights the lines to the women’s restroom were short.

Do you box?

No, I’ve never competed. I did, however, train in a boxing gym with a good coach beginning in 1993… Last November a young woman tried to snatch my purse on the street. I punched her out until the cavalry arrived. Most fun I’ve had in years.

Posted in RIP, writers | Tagged , | Leave a comment