Here's a brief rundown of my upcoming events and signings:
Saturday, November 7 1:00-3:00 PM
Elyria Public Library
"Cascade of Authors"
320 Washington Ave
Elyria, Ohio 44035
I will be featured along with a number of other local authors. I'm doing a fifteen minute presentation regarding Cat & Cat and taking any questions from the audience. I will also have a table set up where I will be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 10 7:00 PM
Avon Lake Public Library
"Tuesday Talks"
32649 Electric Blvd,
Avon Lake, OH 44012
I will be reading from Cat & Cat and some new material and taking any questions from the audience. I will also be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, December 6 1:00 PM
Loganberry Books
Sunday Signing
13015 Larchmere Blvd,
Cleveland, OH 44120
I will also have a table set up where I will be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Parallel Universes, Matrix Glitches, Butterfly Effects and Burgess Meredith
Okay, here's one for all you fringewatchers out there. Buckle up. I'm warning you ...
For the last several years, I've been aware of some general weirdness lurking out in the hinterlands of reason. I first heard about the Mandela Effect late one night (or early one morning) on Art's Bell Coast to Coast radio show. That was back in the mid-2000s when I was pulling a second job with RGIS Inventory Specialists and driving home in the wee small hours of the morning. I vividly recall tuning in mid-show and listening for about twenty minutes while trying to piece together that night's topic. Something about thousands of people mis-remembering monumental events such as 9-11, Nelson Mandela's Death or The Challenger Disaster. Bell's guest, a very intense gentleman with a reedy voice, postulated that these incorrect or false memories were proof positive that our universe - the space-time continuum, if you will - is not exactly as it seems. Every day we file memories away in our mind, and for the most part these memories jibe with humanity's recorded history and consensus reality. However, in some instances, we remember some specific event - such as Nelson Mandela dying during the 1980s while in prison - only to learn later that our memory never truly happened. Of course, Bell's guest had some theories to explain this phenomenon he eponymously labeled as The Mandela Effect:
1) We're all living inside a virtual, simulated world - a huge computer program, if you will - a la The Matrix. When confronted by an incorrect memory, like Mandela's death in prison, we are actually encountering a "glitch in the Matrix." In other words, the computer program governing our sense of reality contains an error: two deaths for Nelson Mandela, one death in the 1980s, and one death in 2013. This theory goes on to propose that numerous such "glitches" are evident all around us if we just look for them, e.g. two dates for the Challenger Disaster, 1984 & 1986; a famous portrait of Henry VIII holding a turkey leg that never existed; two different spellings for the famous cartoon Bears, Berenstain and/or Berenstein; multiple or non-existent deaths for celebrities like Ernest Borgnine, Fidel Castro, Larry Hagman and Betty White.
2) Somewhere in our recent past, the wall separating our universe from another parallel universe collapsed. Because this cataclysm occurred on a quantum level between quarks and other subatomic particles, we never consciously sensed anything. As a result of this collision, the parallel universe melded with our universe, and two divergent and sometimes inconsistent timelines now exist side by side. Whenever our minds perceive these timeline anomalies, think of the common deja vu sensation, we filter out any anachronisms and explain away the weirdness with myriad rationalizations. The further we move away from the collision, the more our universe blends with the parallel universe, and the harder it becomes to remember our own separate history before the collision.
3) Time travel exists in our future. Time travelers from our future have traveled back to the past and altered various events, sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. These changes are called Time Shifts. When we mis-remember things like Mandela's death or the spelling of the Berenstain Bears, our minds are actually recalling our reality before a Time Shift occurred. This theory of the Mandela Effect dovetails quite nicely with the concept of The Butterfly Effect, which postulates that one small insignificant disturbance in the timeline - e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings - interacts with reality in such a way as to drastically alter history and create chronological hurricanes in the space-time continuum.
Now the skeptic in me dismissed all this stuff immediately when I heard it, filing it away in my mind for future reference along with hundreds of other kooky notions I've encountered over the years: hollow earths, fake moon landings, 9-11 conspiracies, falsified Obama birth certificates. Occasionally, I'd stumble across mentions of the Mandela Effect in my online reading, but I never really gave it much thought. Then, a week ago, I found myself musing about the Mandela Effect while perusing an article on The Simulation Hypothesis, an actual philosophical argument that pretty much fleshes out explanation 1) above. Later that same week, I was researching various schizophrenic delusions - namely Capgras & Cotard Delusions - and found myself considering the Mandela Effect again. And lastly, this morning I came across the Mandela Effect on Coast to Coast AM again. My curiosity suddenly re-piqued, I decided to do a little digging and re-familiarize myself on the weirdness.
And then it happened ...
I went through Art Bell's archives and discovered that the show I remember hearing around 2005-2006 never aired. According to the Coast to Coast AM website, Art's first shows addressing Time Slips occurred after my employment ended at RGIS. Hmmm. I dug more and came up with the program I remembered, but that aired in 2009. And the guests were Whitley Streiber and Starfire Tor, two pretty famous fringe authors that I am VERY familiar with. I couldn't find my reedy voiced man unless I went to shows in 2007 & 2009 with Lionel Fanthorpe, only he has a decidedly British accent that I don't recall at all. I also discovered that Fiona Broom first began writing about the phenomenon in 2005, but the term Mandela Effect itself did not originate until much later. Once again, well after I quit working late nights with RGIS.
Weird. Or is it ..?
Looking back on my life, I've been living with the Mandela Effect since my childhood. I don't know how many times our family dinner table discussions revolved around mis-remembered events or mis-appropriated deaths. A running joke for years debated the "dead or alive" status of actor Burgess Meredith. We all "knew" the Penguin kicked the bucket back in the early 80s, but then, lo and behold, he'd pop up in another Rocky sequel. The same thing with Elizabeth Taylor, Ernest Borgnine and most recently Kirk Douglas (still alive??) and Lloyd Bridges (dead??). In addition to mis-remembered deaths, my brothers and I also hotly contested the existence of TV episodes that we'd "seen at Grandma's," but never actually aired in our reality, i.e. the last Gilligan's Island where the castaways were rescued or the last Hogan's Heroes where WWII ended. I don't know why we only ever saw these episodes at my grandmother's house. Perhaps, her residence on Trowbridge Avenue existed in some nexus between parallel universes. Whatever the explanation, I'm sure my brothers and I could come up with dozens of more instances where our memories conflict with consensus reality and recorded history.
So what does this mean? Are we truly encountering glitches in a computer simulation, or remnants of a parallel universe, or time slips caused by errant time travelers? Or is the human mind just a relentless story-telling machine that continually reorganizes, revises and rewrites the interior monologue narrative we call life? I certainly don't claim to know the answer. I'm just positive Burgess Meredith died shortly after filming Rocky I. I know because I watched coverage of his funeral live at my grandma's house.
For the last several years, I've been aware of some general weirdness lurking out in the hinterlands of reason. I first heard about the Mandela Effect late one night (or early one morning) on Art's Bell Coast to Coast radio show. That was back in the mid-2000s when I was pulling a second job with RGIS Inventory Specialists and driving home in the wee small hours of the morning. I vividly recall tuning in mid-show and listening for about twenty minutes while trying to piece together that night's topic. Something about thousands of people mis-remembering monumental events such as 9-11, Nelson Mandela's Death or The Challenger Disaster. Bell's guest, a very intense gentleman with a reedy voice, postulated that these incorrect or false memories were proof positive that our universe - the space-time continuum, if you will - is not exactly as it seems. Every day we file memories away in our mind, and for the most part these memories jibe with humanity's recorded history and consensus reality. However, in some instances, we remember some specific event - such as Nelson Mandela dying during the 1980s while in prison - only to learn later that our memory never truly happened. Of course, Bell's guest had some theories to explain this phenomenon he eponymously labeled as The Mandela Effect:
1) We're all living inside a virtual, simulated world - a huge computer program, if you will - a la The Matrix. When confronted by an incorrect memory, like Mandela's death in prison, we are actually encountering a "glitch in the Matrix." In other words, the computer program governing our sense of reality contains an error: two deaths for Nelson Mandela, one death in the 1980s, and one death in 2013. This theory goes on to propose that numerous such "glitches" are evident all around us if we just look for them, e.g. two dates for the Challenger Disaster, 1984 & 1986; a famous portrait of Henry VIII holding a turkey leg that never existed; two different spellings for the famous cartoon Bears, Berenstain and/or Berenstein; multiple or non-existent deaths for celebrities like Ernest Borgnine, Fidel Castro, Larry Hagman and Betty White.
2) Somewhere in our recent past, the wall separating our universe from another parallel universe collapsed. Because this cataclysm occurred on a quantum level between quarks and other subatomic particles, we never consciously sensed anything. As a result of this collision, the parallel universe melded with our universe, and two divergent and sometimes inconsistent timelines now exist side by side. Whenever our minds perceive these timeline anomalies, think of the common deja vu sensation, we filter out any anachronisms and explain away the weirdness with myriad rationalizations. The further we move away from the collision, the more our universe blends with the parallel universe, and the harder it becomes to remember our own separate history before the collision.
3) Time travel exists in our future. Time travelers from our future have traveled back to the past and altered various events, sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. These changes are called Time Shifts. When we mis-remember things like Mandela's death or the spelling of the Berenstain Bears, our minds are actually recalling our reality before a Time Shift occurred. This theory of the Mandela Effect dovetails quite nicely with the concept of The Butterfly Effect, which postulates that one small insignificant disturbance in the timeline - e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings - interacts with reality in such a way as to drastically alter history and create chronological hurricanes in the space-time continuum.
Now the skeptic in me dismissed all this stuff immediately when I heard it, filing it away in my mind for future reference along with hundreds of other kooky notions I've encountered over the years: hollow earths, fake moon landings, 9-11 conspiracies, falsified Obama birth certificates. Occasionally, I'd stumble across mentions of the Mandela Effect in my online reading, but I never really gave it much thought. Then, a week ago, I found myself musing about the Mandela Effect while perusing an article on The Simulation Hypothesis, an actual philosophical argument that pretty much fleshes out explanation 1) above. Later that same week, I was researching various schizophrenic delusions - namely Capgras & Cotard Delusions - and found myself considering the Mandela Effect again. And lastly, this morning I came across the Mandela Effect on Coast to Coast AM again. My curiosity suddenly re-piqued, I decided to do a little digging and re-familiarize myself on the weirdness.
And then it happened ...
I went through Art Bell's archives and discovered that the show I remember hearing around 2005-2006 never aired. According to the Coast to Coast AM website, Art's first shows addressing Time Slips occurred after my employment ended at RGIS. Hmmm. I dug more and came up with the program I remembered, but that aired in 2009. And the guests were Whitley Streiber and Starfire Tor, two pretty famous fringe authors that I am VERY familiar with. I couldn't find my reedy voiced man unless I went to shows in 2007 & 2009 with Lionel Fanthorpe, only he has a decidedly British accent that I don't recall at all. I also discovered that Fiona Broom first began writing about the phenomenon in 2005, but the term Mandela Effect itself did not originate until much later. Once again, well after I quit working late nights with RGIS.
Weird. Or is it ..?
Looking back on my life, I've been living with the Mandela Effect since my childhood. I don't know how many times our family dinner table discussions revolved around mis-remembered events or mis-appropriated deaths. A running joke for years debated the "dead or alive" status of actor Burgess Meredith. We all "knew" the Penguin kicked the bucket back in the early 80s, but then, lo and behold, he'd pop up in another Rocky sequel. The same thing with Elizabeth Taylor, Ernest Borgnine and most recently Kirk Douglas (still alive??) and Lloyd Bridges (dead??). In addition to mis-remembered deaths, my brothers and I also hotly contested the existence of TV episodes that we'd "seen at Grandma's," but never actually aired in our reality, i.e. the last Gilligan's Island where the castaways were rescued or the last Hogan's Heroes where WWII ended. I don't know why we only ever saw these episodes at my grandmother's house. Perhaps, her residence on Trowbridge Avenue existed in some nexus between parallel universes. Whatever the explanation, I'm sure my brothers and I could come up with dozens of more instances where our memories conflict with consensus reality and recorded history.
So what does this mean? Are we truly encountering glitches in a computer simulation, or remnants of a parallel universe, or time slips caused by errant time travelers? Or is the human mind just a relentless story-telling machine that continually reorganizes, revises and rewrites the interior monologue narrative we call life? I certainly don't claim to know the answer. I'm just positive Burgess Meredith died shortly after filming Rocky I. I know because I watched coverage of his funeral live at my grandma's house.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
In Praise of Country Music - "Blowing Away" by Eric Kaz
I write a lot about jazz, blues, bluegrass and classical music. Those who know me even casually hear me constantly rave about my favorite funk bands - Fred Wesley & the JB Horns, George Clinton, Dirty Dozen Brass Band, Big Sam & Funky Nation, EW&F. I've also been known to expound upon Latin music - salsa, son, even some tejano - and other eclectic genres from around the world: Gaelic, Zydeco, Marabi to name a few. Needless to say, I'm very opinionated about my taste in rock music - The Guess Who, Chicago, Blood Sweat & Tears, Toto, Ambrosia, Hall & Oates etc. - which I guess is now called "Classic Rock," or as my young coworkers refer to it "Grandpa Rock." I almost never talk about country music, however.
Buddy Rich, being wheeled into the operating room after one of his heart attacks, was asked if he was allergic to anything. "Yeah," he replied. The ER nurse waited with pen in hand. "Country music," he quipped. I used to laugh at that anecdote uproariously when I was a kid. Although I loved bluegrass, I hated country music. It all sounded like Porter Wagoner to me. I couldn't understand or relate to it. The closest I got was country rock, groups like Pure Prairie League, American Flyer, Atlanta Rhythm Section and The Allman Brothers. Later on, in college, I used these groups as a starting point to explore country music in general. Two songwriters, in particular, served as my bridge into "real" country, Craig Fuller and Eric Kaz.
Fuller, the Columbus, Ohio native formerly with Pure Prairie League, and Kaz (songwriter to the stars) made up one half of the country rock "super group" American Flyer. The other half was comprised of Blood Sweat Tears alum Steve Katz and The Velvet Underground's Doug Yule. I stumbled onto American Flyer via Steve Katz, who I admired from BS&T and its precursor, The Blues Project. When it came to American Flyer, however, Katz took an immediate back seat to Fuller and Kaz who - between the two of them - wrote every memorable song on the group's two stellar albums: American Flyer & Spirit of a Woman.
Of all the great country rock tunes on these albums, one truly blew me away (pun intended), Eric Kaz's "Blowing Away" from Spirit of A Woman. Fuller handles the mournful lead while the haunting background vocals are intoned by a young Linda Ronstadt, one of the many stars lining up to sing Kaz's seemingly endless string of pure gold hits. The lyrics - maudlin, melancholy and wistful - are pure country and great in the hands of an able male vocalist like Fuller. But years later, in the hands of superstar Ronstadt, "Blowing Away" truly becomes transcendent on her Living In the USA album.
Truth be told, Ronstadt's version clearly shows that "Blowing Away" is a woman's song, a fact made even more evident by the other female artists like Cher and Bonnie Raitt who have recorded and performed Kaz's hit it to great acclaim. Bonnie herself says as much in this live recording of Blowing Away. Here we have a stripped down arrangement of the tune with Raitt's inimitable phrasing transforming Ronstadt's anthem into a pure country, honky-tonk torch song. A quick word on Bonnie Raitt. I'm constantly and consistently blown away by everything I hear her perform. Not only is she one of the best country vocalists of all time, she sings flawless background harmonies and plays some seriously kick-ass blues/slide guitar to boot. As her rendition of Tennessee Waltz with Nora Jones shows, she can also get down and tasty with the best of them.
But back to "Blowing Away." The song reaches its pinnacle during a live memorial concert for Little Feat frontman Lowell George. In this version, we have Fuller, Ronstadt and Raitt all sharing vocals while Kaz, the songwriter himself, backs them on keyboards. NOTE - this is a live recording of an intimate and very exposed arrangement performed in a large concert hall. From the first note, these pros find themselves fighting sound and acoustic issues symptomatic in every cavernous venue. At the opening, Linda gets a pitch and fearlessly opens a cappella. Then Craig hears his guitar is too loud in the mix and plays it down. Any musician watching spots the non-verbal communication between Linda and Craig immediately, and every time I see Ronstadt cup her left hand over her left ear at :25, I want to hug her. By the time the three-part harmony comes in, though, these cats have solved it all.
Chills!
And you know they've nailed it because Linda comes off mic after the chorus with the biggest smile on her face. That smile also promises what follows will be epic. And it doesn't get much more epic than Bonnie Raitt's turn at the verse. Whereas Linda rendered the melody straight and angelic, Bonnie bends the meter and melody, phrasing the verse in a smoky, gutsy way that indelibly stamps it all her own. Bonnie is first and foremost a musician, and this is exactly how she approaches her vocals, instinctively finding alternate notes and meters the way a guitarist, pianist or horn player develops a phrase. This time, when Fuller and Ronstadt return, Linda takes the high harmony, and for the next choruses the three create an aura and energy that transfigures the tune to another level.
Songs like "Blowing Away" helped me discover pure country music. And performances like Ronstadt, Raitt & Fuller's took me from appreciating country musicians to finally loving pure country in an of itself. Not all of it, mind you. I still don't like Porter Wagoner. But over the years, I've developed a very strong and specific taste for today's pure country artists like Bonnie Raitt, Vince Gill, Alison Krauss, Brad Paisley, Alan Jackson & Martina McBride. Top-notch songwriters and performers evoking the same poignant emotions as traditional country while never compromising melody and musicianship in favor of what I call "Pop Crap". (You know what I mean -voice synthesizers, hysterical vocal histrionics, monotonous computerized rhythms and other studio gimmicks that hacks use to try and hide the fact that they can't carry a tune or play a lick.)
So the next time you check out what I'm listening to on Spotify, don't be surprised if you see some country artists sprinkled in with all the rest of the stuff I typically listen to. Good music is good music, pure and simple. And as a bonus, here's my favorite Eric Kaz tune, "Cry Like A Rainstorm," performed by Craig Fuller & Kaz together, by Linda Ronstadt, and finally by Bonnie Raitt (my favorite version, btw). Just don't expect me to start drinking Budweiser.
Buddy Rich, being wheeled into the operating room after one of his heart attacks, was asked if he was allergic to anything. "Yeah," he replied. The ER nurse waited with pen in hand. "Country music," he quipped. I used to laugh at that anecdote uproariously when I was a kid. Although I loved bluegrass, I hated country music. It all sounded like Porter Wagoner to me. I couldn't understand or relate to it. The closest I got was country rock, groups like Pure Prairie League, American Flyer, Atlanta Rhythm Section and The Allman Brothers. Later on, in college, I used these groups as a starting point to explore country music in general. Two songwriters, in particular, served as my bridge into "real" country, Craig Fuller and Eric Kaz.
Fuller, the Columbus, Ohio native formerly with Pure Prairie League, and Kaz (songwriter to the stars) made up one half of the country rock "super group" American Flyer. The other half was comprised of Blood Sweat Tears alum Steve Katz and The Velvet Underground's Doug Yule. I stumbled onto American Flyer via Steve Katz, who I admired from BS&T and its precursor, The Blues Project. When it came to American Flyer, however, Katz took an immediate back seat to Fuller and Kaz who - between the two of them - wrote every memorable song on the group's two stellar albums: American Flyer & Spirit of a Woman.
Of all the great country rock tunes on these albums, one truly blew me away (pun intended), Eric Kaz's "Blowing Away" from Spirit of A Woman. Fuller handles the mournful lead while the haunting background vocals are intoned by a young Linda Ronstadt, one of the many stars lining up to sing Kaz's seemingly endless string of pure gold hits. The lyrics - maudlin, melancholy and wistful - are pure country and great in the hands of an able male vocalist like Fuller. But years later, in the hands of superstar Ronstadt, "Blowing Away" truly becomes transcendent on her Living In the USA album.
Truth be told, Ronstadt's version clearly shows that "Blowing Away" is a woman's song, a fact made even more evident by the other female artists like Cher and Bonnie Raitt who have recorded and performed Kaz's hit it to great acclaim. Bonnie herself says as much in this live recording of Blowing Away. Here we have a stripped down arrangement of the tune with Raitt's inimitable phrasing transforming Ronstadt's anthem into a pure country, honky-tonk torch song. A quick word on Bonnie Raitt. I'm constantly and consistently blown away by everything I hear her perform. Not only is she one of the best country vocalists of all time, she sings flawless background harmonies and plays some seriously kick-ass blues/slide guitar to boot. As her rendition of Tennessee Waltz with Nora Jones shows, she can also get down and tasty with the best of them.
But back to "Blowing Away." The song reaches its pinnacle during a live memorial concert for Little Feat frontman Lowell George. In this version, we have Fuller, Ronstadt and Raitt all sharing vocals while Kaz, the songwriter himself, backs them on keyboards. NOTE - this is a live recording of an intimate and very exposed arrangement performed in a large concert hall. From the first note, these pros find themselves fighting sound and acoustic issues symptomatic in every cavernous venue. At the opening, Linda gets a pitch and fearlessly opens a cappella. Then Craig hears his guitar is too loud in the mix and plays it down. Any musician watching spots the non-verbal communication between Linda and Craig immediately, and every time I see Ronstadt cup her left hand over her left ear at :25, I want to hug her. By the time the three-part harmony comes in, though, these cats have solved it all.
Chills!
And you know they've nailed it because Linda comes off mic after the chorus with the biggest smile on her face. That smile also promises what follows will be epic. And it doesn't get much more epic than Bonnie Raitt's turn at the verse. Whereas Linda rendered the melody straight and angelic, Bonnie bends the meter and melody, phrasing the verse in a smoky, gutsy way that indelibly stamps it all her own. Bonnie is first and foremost a musician, and this is exactly how she approaches her vocals, instinctively finding alternate notes and meters the way a guitarist, pianist or horn player develops a phrase. This time, when Fuller and Ronstadt return, Linda takes the high harmony, and for the next choruses the three create an aura and energy that transfigures the tune to another level.
Songs like "Blowing Away" helped me discover pure country music. And performances like Ronstadt, Raitt & Fuller's took me from appreciating country musicians to finally loving pure country in an of itself. Not all of it, mind you. I still don't like Porter Wagoner. But over the years, I've developed a very strong and specific taste for today's pure country artists like Bonnie Raitt, Vince Gill, Alison Krauss, Brad Paisley, Alan Jackson & Martina McBride. Top-notch songwriters and performers evoking the same poignant emotions as traditional country while never compromising melody and musicianship in favor of what I call "Pop Crap". (You know what I mean -voice synthesizers, hysterical vocal histrionics, monotonous computerized rhythms and other studio gimmicks that hacks use to try and hide the fact that they can't carry a tune or play a lick.)
So the next time you check out what I'm listening to on Spotify, don't be surprised if you see some country artists sprinkled in with all the rest of the stuff I typically listen to. Good music is good music, pure and simple. And as a bonus, here's my favorite Eric Kaz tune, "Cry Like A Rainstorm," performed by Craig Fuller & Kaz together, by Linda Ronstadt, and finally by Bonnie Raitt (my favorite version, btw). Just don't expect me to start drinking Budweiser.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Where Have You Gone Joe Mannix?
This blog can go a million different ways. I've written it a million different times in a million different ways in my head. Since I don't want to lose my main point over the next umpteen paragraphs, I'll state it right here. TV needs another Joe Mannix. I'm sick of expert consultants - Monk, Castle, Psych, The Mentalist, Elementary - who "work" with police departments. I mean does this job even exist in real life? Yes, police departments call in outside experts versed in particular fields to help with certain cases. But no police department hires private expert consultants to investigate murders. The very notion is absurd.
So, to paraphrase Paul Simon, I'll ask again. Where Have You Gone Joe Mannix? Whatever happened to the private detective on TV? Where are all the Jim Rockfords and Thomas Magnums? Hell, I'd even take one of the freakin' Simon Brothers.
By now, I'm sure my younger readers are scratching their heads and asking, "Who the hell is Joe Mannix?" Okay, then, please let me educate you. You just need to watch the first five minutes for now. Look at that opening sequence! Dig the music, from the brassy, pulsing waltz theme to Jack Sheldon's sweet background trumpet in the opening sequences.
Today's kids would call a guy like Mannix "Boss." From loading his gun to shaving while driving (the best sports car EVER) to scamming a free cup of joe from a jovial news vendor to goofing on his nerdy coworkers, Mannix is the single coolest human being to trod planet Earth. Ever. Throughout season one, our hero struggled as the round peg in entire detective agency comprised of square A-holes. Mannix was a gumshoe John Henry, man against machine. He pitted his street savvy, bruised knuckles and way with the ladies against Intertect's bean counting, number crunching Lew Wickersham and came out Boss every time. Finally, Mannix got sick of being a cog in the machine and struck out on his own. And that's where the legend really began.
From season two through the end of the show's run, Mannix worked out of his home office and employed a beautiful secretary, Peggy, as played by Gail Fischer. The new opening credits did away with Intertect and re-imagined the iconic theme song as a breezier, less brassy affair. The piano break hearkens us to a smoky cocktail lounge rather than a downtown office skyscraper. Mannix worked case after case fist-fighting bad guys, bedding down beauties and wearing the single greatest collection of sports coats ever assembled. Sure, lots of mamby pamby peaceniks complained about the violence, especially whenever one of Joe's old army buddies paid a visit. But waa waa waa.
Look, Mannix was a guy's guy, and he did stuff his own way. The cops liked him personally and put up with him professionally. But he was never on their payroll. Mannix was his own man doing his own job. He would have looked at Adrian Monk or Patrick Jayne and shook his head. Cops are cops. PIs are PIs. And never the twain shall meet. To explain this in a way all you kids can understand, it's like trying to leash a dire wolf in a pack of hunting dogs. Guys like Mannix don't need the cops until it's time to mop up and start cuffing the bad guys.
Which brings us right back to my point. Why are their no PIs on TV anymore? Why does every investigator need to work with the police? The first network who gets the bright idea to bring back the TV PI will have a hit on their hands provided the writing and acting are first-rate. Hell, today's audience will think someone just invented the wheel. Which begs the inevitable question. Why not just remake Mannix?
My first reaction is "Why not just remake the Bible?" Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, but you get my point. Mike Connors didn't play Mannix. Mike Connors is Mannix. Not only that, he pretty much controls all rights to the character. Good for you, Mike. However, to be fair, a retooled Mannix could work if you had A-list writers and production, real sports jackets and real cars, and an every-man lead as charismatic and balls-to-the-wall cool as Mr. Connors. A short list of leading men come to mind: Jon Hamm, Jensen Ackles, Nate Fillion. I'm not saying these guys could ever be Mannix like Mike Connors. But I think they could do a pretty decent job playing the role with the same kind of style, humor and general all around savoir-faire.
Needless to say, a better approach would be to just create a new engaging PI character. (I'm actually trying to do this in my next book, White Picket Jungle, btw) All you need to do is take a little Mannix, a little Magnum, a little Rockford, a smidgen of Longstreet, maybe even some Barnaby Jones. Not too much Cannon, though. A little Cannon goes a long way if you know what I mean. (You kids have no idea what I'm talking about.) This new PI would need to know how to throw down with his fists, but even more importantly take a goddamn punch. That was the thing about Mannix. He was tough as nails, don't get me wrong. But he also got his ass kicked quite a few times. And then he'd get back up, dust off his sports jacket, patch his bullet wound with some fishing line and get back on the job. Which is pretty much the definition of being tough as far as I'm concerned.
For those of you who'd like to know more about Mannix, Youtube has plenty of the old episodes. And JoAnn M. Paul's And Now Back To Mannix is available on Amazon and Scribd. So in closing, I'd like to leave you with a classic Mannix scene with myriad elements that make Joe Mannix the bossest PI who ever laced on a pair of patent leather gumshoes. He orders effing strudel. Priceless! Oh, and if you can't place the face, that's a young Tom Skerritt as the hippie reporter. And now, back to my life ...
So, to paraphrase Paul Simon, I'll ask again. Where Have You Gone Joe Mannix? Whatever happened to the private detective on TV? Where are all the Jim Rockfords and Thomas Magnums? Hell, I'd even take one of the freakin' Simon Brothers.
By now, I'm sure my younger readers are scratching their heads and asking, "Who the hell is Joe Mannix?" Okay, then, please let me educate you. You just need to watch the first five minutes for now. Look at that opening sequence! Dig the music, from the brassy, pulsing waltz theme to Jack Sheldon's sweet background trumpet in the opening sequences.
Today's kids would call a guy like Mannix "Boss." From loading his gun to shaving while driving (the best sports car EVER) to scamming a free cup of joe from a jovial news vendor to goofing on his nerdy coworkers, Mannix is the single coolest human being to trod planet Earth. Ever. Throughout season one, our hero struggled as the round peg in entire detective agency comprised of square A-holes. Mannix was a gumshoe John Henry, man against machine. He pitted his street savvy, bruised knuckles and way with the ladies against Intertect's bean counting, number crunching Lew Wickersham and came out Boss every time. Finally, Mannix got sick of being a cog in the machine and struck out on his own. And that's where the legend really began.
From season two through the end of the show's run, Mannix worked out of his home office and employed a beautiful secretary, Peggy, as played by Gail Fischer. The new opening credits did away with Intertect and re-imagined the iconic theme song as a breezier, less brassy affair. The piano break hearkens us to a smoky cocktail lounge rather than a downtown office skyscraper. Mannix worked case after case fist-fighting bad guys, bedding down beauties and wearing the single greatest collection of sports coats ever assembled. Sure, lots of mamby pamby peaceniks complained about the violence, especially whenever one of Joe's old army buddies paid a visit. But waa waa waa.
Look, Mannix was a guy's guy, and he did stuff his own way. The cops liked him personally and put up with him professionally. But he was never on their payroll. Mannix was his own man doing his own job. He would have looked at Adrian Monk or Patrick Jayne and shook his head. Cops are cops. PIs are PIs. And never the twain shall meet. To explain this in a way all you kids can understand, it's like trying to leash a dire wolf in a pack of hunting dogs. Guys like Mannix don't need the cops until it's time to mop up and start cuffing the bad guys.
Which brings us right back to my point. Why are their no PIs on TV anymore? Why does every investigator need to work with the police? The first network who gets the bright idea to bring back the TV PI will have a hit on their hands provided the writing and acting are first-rate. Hell, today's audience will think someone just invented the wheel. Which begs the inevitable question. Why not just remake Mannix?
My first reaction is "Why not just remake the Bible?" Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, but you get my point. Mike Connors didn't play Mannix. Mike Connors is Mannix. Not only that, he pretty much controls all rights to the character. Good for you, Mike. However, to be fair, a retooled Mannix could work if you had A-list writers and production, real sports jackets and real cars, and an every-man lead as charismatic and balls-to-the-wall cool as Mr. Connors. A short list of leading men come to mind: Jon Hamm, Jensen Ackles, Nate Fillion. I'm not saying these guys could ever be Mannix like Mike Connors. But I think they could do a pretty decent job playing the role with the same kind of style, humor and general all around savoir-faire.
Needless to say, a better approach would be to just create a new engaging PI character. (I'm actually trying to do this in my next book, White Picket Jungle, btw) All you need to do is take a little Mannix, a little Magnum, a little Rockford, a smidgen of Longstreet, maybe even some Barnaby Jones. Not too much Cannon, though. A little Cannon goes a long way if you know what I mean. (You kids have no idea what I'm talking about.) This new PI would need to know how to throw down with his fists, but even more importantly take a goddamn punch. That was the thing about Mannix. He was tough as nails, don't get me wrong. But he also got his ass kicked quite a few times. And then he'd get back up, dust off his sports jacket, patch his bullet wound with some fishing line and get back on the job. Which is pretty much the definition of being tough as far as I'm concerned.
For those of you who'd like to know more about Mannix, Youtube has plenty of the old episodes. And JoAnn M. Paul's And Now Back To Mannix is available on Amazon and Scribd. So in closing, I'd like to leave you with a classic Mannix scene with myriad elements that make Joe Mannix the bossest PI who ever laced on a pair of patent leather gumshoes. He orders effing strudel. Priceless! Oh, and if you can't place the face, that's a young Tom Skerritt as the hippie reporter. And now, back to my life ...
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Some (Hopefully) Quick Answers To Some Hard Questions About the Rebel Flag
First off, I understand my previous post was waaaaay too long for some readers. My sincere apologies. In an effort to present my opinions precisely and thoroughly, I may have erred on the side of circumlocution. Damn! I did it again. Make that long windedness. So, for the sake of brevity, I'll restate my opinions here as succinctly as possible and refer to my previous blog for any further explication. Damn, I did it again, didn't I? Further explanation. How's that?
1) I do believe that southern secession, the creation of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and our resulting Civil War were ultimately and indivisibly rooted in the issue of slavery. I believe calling the Civil War a conflict over "state's rights" is a way of dodging the disturbing reality and cultural heritage of the "peculiar institution." More on this below. Believe me.
2) I do believe there was a fundamental difference between the Confederate Government's Cause and the Cause of rebel fighting men in the field. The Confederate Government waged war to preserve slavery and redress other long-standing issues they had with Northern States and the federal government (Once again, more on this below.) Rebel soldiers and sailors, on the other hand, fought bravely and honorably to protect their friends, families, homes and, yes, their way of life from federal armies marching into the south to "restore order" and punish secessionists. A careful reading of myriad contemporary journals, letters and battlefield accounts from Confederate soldiers, officers and civilians offers little if any proof that the soldiers or citizenry saw the war as anything but a reaction to Northern aggression.
3) I do believe the Rebel Flag rightfully belongs on Civil War memorials wherever they may be located and at commemorative sites and events like reenactments and museums. I also believe any US citizen has the right to display the Rebel Flag and wear merchandise related to it. Conversely, I believe that anyone displaying the Rebel Flag must expect that others will object to its presence while reacting to any such objections with civility and polite disagreement. Likewise, any objections to the Rebel Flag should also be both civil and legal and focus on the issue of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of Confederate fighting men or present-day Johnny Rebs.
4) I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on any official federal, state or municipal flagpoles. In popular parlance, this means "flying over the capitol" or other federal, state of city buildings that posses a flagpole dedicated to the American flag. Nor do I feel the Rebel Flag should be displayed as commensurate or in any way equal to the American flag or any state flags. I feel likewise regarding any flag that specifically represents a particular identity or subculture in American society, e.g. various political banners, ethnic flags, rainbow flags, etc.
That being stated, let me address two responses to my previous blog post, one sent via email by a conservative friend and one addressed in a phone call by a longtime liberal friend.
Regarding the overall cause of the Civil War, my conservative friend advised me that state's rights did not just include the right to own slaves but also the longstanding battle over federal tariffs that favored the industrial Northern interests while slowly bankrupting the agrarian South. "I don't want to embarrass you," my friend wrote, "so I didn't post a public comment." He went on to make a case that federal abuses like the Morrill Tariff were the real cause of the war, not slavery. To this, I replied by maintaining my original position and further explaining that: "The first seven southern states that seceded did not do so over the tariff. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, a presidential candidate that did even appear on the ballots of ten southern slave-holding states. The tariff situation, while certainly eviscerating to the economies of southern states, had existed for decades before the war. In fact, the Tariff previous to Morrill actually favored the South. Ultimately, the tariff battle was being waged in the halls of Congress, not the fields of Bull Run and Gettysburg."
In my response, I also brought up again that the seceding states didn't care much about states rights when it came to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA), which required non-slave states to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves to their owners. In this case, the future states of the CSA demanded strict and absolute adherence to federal law in Northern States like Wisconsin and Vermont that passed laws nullifying the FSA. At this time, I welcome his reply via email or comment here.
The phone call from my longtime liberal friend focused primarily on my support of the Rebel Flag and its "undeniably racist past." I was first informed that the designer of the Rebel Flag, William T. Thompson, specifically stated that it symbolized "Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race." (exact quote mine). I then asked my friend to research the quote further, as well as the flag under question. Thompson, (an unabashed racist, yes!) designed the second national flag of the CSA, the so-called "stainless banner," which did indeed incorporate the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag in its design. But anyone reading my previous post and following the link to an image of the "stainless banner" immediately sees that the Rebel Flag resides in the upper left hand corner of a field of pure white. It is this white field, in the exact words of Thompson, that symbolizes the "supremacy of the white man." He doesn't say anything regarding the red, white & blue iconography of Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag that I can find. If someone can point me to an exact Thompson quote regarding the racist symbology of the Rebel Flag itself, I'll certainly reexamine my position on the inherent symbolic racism of the Rebel Flag.
Next my liberal friend equated the Rebel Flag with the Nazi Flag, which happens to be an argument I really wrestled over before finally forming my own opinion. I certainly respect the feelings of those who react to the Rebel Flag with the same abhorrence as the red, white and black Nazi swastika. I have African American friends and close relatives that will never see the Rebel Flag as anything but a revolting icon of hate. Considering that neo-nazis and hate groups have adopted the Rebel Flag for their own diseased agendas, I can fully understand someone loathing it without exception. Personally, however, I don't have this same reaction because I don't necessarily view Johnny Rebs (past and present) as promoting racism and genocide. I can't say the same for the degenerate scum festooned with Third Reich regalia, though. As much as I despise neo-nazis and other racist pos's, I also acknowledge their right to display their moronic symbols and spout their imbecilic crap as long as it's just speech and symbols.
Basically, if you take nothing away from these last two posts, please at least know this. I'm a free speech guy first and foremost. Repressing or outlawing any words or symbols as offensive or dangerous only gives these words and symbols the real power to become truly dangerous. The only antidotes to bad speech and repulsive symbols are better speech and more uplifting symbols. I welcome reasoned debate and civil discourse. Respectful disagreements promote understanding. Silence and seething resentment perpetuate ignorance.
1) I do believe that southern secession, the creation of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and our resulting Civil War were ultimately and indivisibly rooted in the issue of slavery. I believe calling the Civil War a conflict over "state's rights" is a way of dodging the disturbing reality and cultural heritage of the "peculiar institution." More on this below. Believe me.
2) I do believe there was a fundamental difference between the Confederate Government's Cause and the Cause of rebel fighting men in the field. The Confederate Government waged war to preserve slavery and redress other long-standing issues they had with Northern States and the federal government (Once again, more on this below.) Rebel soldiers and sailors, on the other hand, fought bravely and honorably to protect their friends, families, homes and, yes, their way of life from federal armies marching into the south to "restore order" and punish secessionists. A careful reading of myriad contemporary journals, letters and battlefield accounts from Confederate soldiers, officers and civilians offers little if any proof that the soldiers or citizenry saw the war as anything but a reaction to Northern aggression.
3) I do believe the Rebel Flag rightfully belongs on Civil War memorials wherever they may be located and at commemorative sites and events like reenactments and museums. I also believe any US citizen has the right to display the Rebel Flag and wear merchandise related to it. Conversely, I believe that anyone displaying the Rebel Flag must expect that others will object to its presence while reacting to any such objections with civility and polite disagreement. Likewise, any objections to the Rebel Flag should also be both civil and legal and focus on the issue of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of Confederate fighting men or present-day Johnny Rebs.
4) I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on any official federal, state or municipal flagpoles. In popular parlance, this means "flying over the capitol" or other federal, state of city buildings that posses a flagpole dedicated to the American flag. Nor do I feel the Rebel Flag should be displayed as commensurate or in any way equal to the American flag or any state flags. I feel likewise regarding any flag that specifically represents a particular identity or subculture in American society, e.g. various political banners, ethnic flags, rainbow flags, etc.
That being stated, let me address two responses to my previous blog post, one sent via email by a conservative friend and one addressed in a phone call by a longtime liberal friend.
Regarding the overall cause of the Civil War, my conservative friend advised me that state's rights did not just include the right to own slaves but also the longstanding battle over federal tariffs that favored the industrial Northern interests while slowly bankrupting the agrarian South. "I don't want to embarrass you," my friend wrote, "so I didn't post a public comment." He went on to make a case that federal abuses like the Morrill Tariff were the real cause of the war, not slavery. To this, I replied by maintaining my original position and further explaining that: "The first seven southern states that seceded did not do so over the tariff. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, a presidential candidate that did even appear on the ballots of ten southern slave-holding states. The tariff situation, while certainly eviscerating to the economies of southern states, had existed for decades before the war. In fact, the Tariff previous to Morrill actually favored the South. Ultimately, the tariff battle was being waged in the halls of Congress, not the fields of Bull Run and Gettysburg."
In my response, I also brought up again that the seceding states didn't care much about states rights when it came to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA), which required non-slave states to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves to their owners. In this case, the future states of the CSA demanded strict and absolute adherence to federal law in Northern States like Wisconsin and Vermont that passed laws nullifying the FSA. At this time, I welcome his reply via email or comment here.
The phone call from my longtime liberal friend focused primarily on my support of the Rebel Flag and its "undeniably racist past." I was first informed that the designer of the Rebel Flag, William T. Thompson, specifically stated that it symbolized "Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race." (exact quote mine). I then asked my friend to research the quote further, as well as the flag under question. Thompson, (an unabashed racist, yes!) designed the second national flag of the CSA, the so-called "stainless banner," which did indeed incorporate the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag in its design. But anyone reading my previous post and following the link to an image of the "stainless banner" immediately sees that the Rebel Flag resides in the upper left hand corner of a field of pure white. It is this white field, in the exact words of Thompson, that symbolizes the "supremacy of the white man." He doesn't say anything regarding the red, white & blue iconography of Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag that I can find. If someone can point me to an exact Thompson quote regarding the racist symbology of the Rebel Flag itself, I'll certainly reexamine my position on the inherent symbolic racism of the Rebel Flag.
Next my liberal friend equated the Rebel Flag with the Nazi Flag, which happens to be an argument I really wrestled over before finally forming my own opinion. I certainly respect the feelings of those who react to the Rebel Flag with the same abhorrence as the red, white and black Nazi swastika. I have African American friends and close relatives that will never see the Rebel Flag as anything but a revolting icon of hate. Considering that neo-nazis and hate groups have adopted the Rebel Flag for their own diseased agendas, I can fully understand someone loathing it without exception. Personally, however, I don't have this same reaction because I don't necessarily view Johnny Rebs (past and present) as promoting racism and genocide. I can't say the same for the degenerate scum festooned with Third Reich regalia, though. As much as I despise neo-nazis and other racist pos's, I also acknowledge their right to display their moronic symbols and spout their imbecilic crap as long as it's just speech and symbols.
Basically, if you take nothing away from these last two posts, please at least know this. I'm a free speech guy first and foremost. Repressing or outlawing any words or symbols as offensive or dangerous only gives these words and symbols the real power to become truly dangerous. The only antidotes to bad speech and repulsive symbols are better speech and more uplifting symbols. I welcome reasoned debate and civil discourse. Respectful disagreements promote understanding. Silence and seething resentment perpetuate ignorance.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Reenacting, Race & Raising the Rebel Flag
I'm not going to rehash the horrific tragedy that occurred on June 17 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston. Nor am I going to delve into armchair pyscho-babble and try to analyze the morally and intellectually bankrupt actions of the shooter. Frankly, I care as little about his motive and mental state as I do about his continued existence upon our mortal plane. And, PLEASE NOTE that I'm deliberately not stating his name. I'll refer to him hereafter as the shooter. Yes, there's a part of me that would love to call him Garbage or Piece of Shit or Prison Rape Meat. But that would indicate that I even consider him worthy of my contempt. Frankly, he's a bug to me. The kind you step on and wipe off your shoe before you step away and try to do some good in the world.
So if I'm not here to fulminate about the shooting or the shooter, then what exactly am I addressing in this post? Well, to start with I'm going to try to add some perspective to the massacre's aftermath, specifically in regards to the flying of the Rebel Flag. I'll also try to answer some of the questions I've received in my inbox since the shooter's identity and photo album went public.
First off, let me just say something about the media coverage of this crime. What does it say about us that we allow our worst representatives to dominate news cycles and affect public policy while truly decent hardworking visionaries never even get five of their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame? Frankly, I don't know. I just think we should all reflect on that for a moment. Okay, then, let's move onto topic two: the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag.
NO, what people call the Confederate Flag was never the official national flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA). It was, in fact, Robert E. Lee's battle flag for the Northern Army of Virginia. (For those of you interested in Confederate Flags, Wikipedia has a fairly decent entry.) YES, the iconic blue X, white stars and red field were incorporated into two of the Confederacy's national flags, the so-called "stainless" and "blood-stained" banners. But the all-too familiar flag emblazoned on the roof of the Dukes of Hazzard's '69 Dodge Charger was never the flag of the CSA. It did, however, become the recognized symbol of the rebel armed forces during the Civil War. From here on out, then, I'll refer to it as the Rebel Flag.
After the war, the Rebel Flag still hung around, but was mostly displayed at historical sites and events commemorating the Civil War. Then, in the late 1940s and 50s, the flag reemerged in a political context, becoming the emblem of resurgent southern regionalism and, subsequently, resistance to federal authority, i.e. "them fat cats in Washington DC.". And here's where everything gets complicated, convoluted and controversial.
To keep it brief and overly simplistic, the field of US politics experienced a pole shift in the decades between World War II and the Reagan era of the 80s. Southern Democrats (aka Dixie Crats) suddenly found themselves uneasily aligned on the right wing with northern fiscal and social conservatives. African Americans, long affiliated with the classically liberal Republican Party of Lincoln, drifted into camp with the more radical and progressive wing of the Democratic Party. From all the ensuing sociopolitical upheaval, the Rebel Flag arose from the ashes of Margaret Mitchell's wistful and whimsical Lost Cause like the mythical phoenix.
Suddenly, what came to be seen as "The Confederate Flag" popped up on flagpoles - private and public - all over the fruited plain. For every Johnny Reb flying the flag to proclaim a heritage and identity distinct from us Billy Yanks, others displayed the same flag to promote segregation, racism, antisemitism and insurrection against our federal government. As a result, the Confederate Flag Controversy has flared up numerous times over the last thirty to forty years with defenders rallying around the flag's historical significance and cultural heritage while the opposition cites that same history and heritage as the fundamental reason for the flag's removal.
Honestly, I've looked at this situation from every possible angle, and I've concluded that taking any kind of middle ground regarding the Rebel Flag is bound to piss off people on both sides. Coincidentally, this is exactly the situation faced by Chris Telamon, the protagonist in my forthcoming novel, Stalking Mule, a lifelong liberal who suddenly finds himself embedded with the Confederate army in what becomes a very real Civil War reenactment. So, with this in mind and against all better judgment, I guess I'll be pissing off both sides for the remainder of this post.
While I won't go so far as to say my perspective on the rebel flag is wholly unique, I will suggest that my recent experiences do allow me to see the issue from a rather idiosyncratic vantage point. For those of you who don't know me well, I'm literally all over the place as far as politics and social issues are concerned. My liberal friends see me as way too conservative, and my conservative friends see me as way too liberal. Case in point, my recent experiences as a Confederate soldier drilling and marching under the rebel flag with The 27th Virginia.
When I first started researching Stalking Mule, I tried my best at due diligence, I talked to some reenactors and started attending some local Civil War reenactments to internalize the flavor and personality of the events and the devoted volunteers who make them work. I introduced myself to a number of very polite and helpful reenactors on both sides and pumped them for as much information as I could politely obtain. Everyone I met loved talking about their passion, but - to be honest - I just couldn't seem to make the kind of connection necessary for the type of in-depth research the subject demanded.
Then, at the annual Fremont, Ohio reenactment a few years back, I met a Confederate soldier and walking encyclopedia of living history named Phil Reynolds. Phil not only schooled me on some popular misconceptions many of us have regarding fighting men in the Civil War, he also enthusiastically took me under his wing and really showed me what the reenacting hobby is all about. The first thing he taught me, reenacting is much more than a hobby. For the dedicated souls who transform these events into living history, reenacting isn't dress-up, or play-acting. Their level of mental, physical and monetary commitment is equivalent to that of a dedicated amateur marathon runner, mountain climber or a Habitat For Humanity volunteer. I truly realized this when I started drilling with Phil's unit and took part in my first battle at the Painesville reenactment last summer.
For those who regularly read my blog, I recounted my experiences in several previous posts. So I won't repeat myself now. What I didn't write about last summer, however, was the reaction sparked by my enlistment in the Confederate forces. Upon seeing photos of me "fighting" beneath the Rebel Flag, my email inbox immediately filled with some challenging and, at times, disturbing questions: "Did you choose to be a Confederate?" Or "Why were you a Confederate? Are you a racist?" Just the kind of questions, I might add, that Chris Telamon - descendant of a prominent local liberal family involved in the Underground Railroad - must repeatedly address in the pages of Stalking Mule. In fact, once I got a hundred pages into the novel's first draft, I realized that the volatile relationship between Civil War reenacting and race relations in 21st-century America had quickly become one of the novel's central theme.
As I work now to complete Stalking Mule and White Picket Jungle, events in our world continue to dovetail with plot points contrived years ago in my fictional universe. By sheer creative happenstance, Stalking Mule has its own horrific hate crime eerily analogous to the massacre in Charleston, a murderous spree complete with internet photos and loud national conversations debating the cultural heritage of the American Civil War and its symbology in our popular culture. And draped over both worlds - real and reenacted, material and make-believe - is the battle flag of Robert E. Lee's Northern Army of Virginia. Its presence not only posing questions about our present-day Johnny Rebs but also their ancestors.
By now, anyone who's read this far is no doubt dying to ask me the hard questions. Do I think the Rebel Flag is racist? What about Confederate reenactors who display this flag or their forebears one-hundred-fifty years ago who did the same? Is any identification with the Confederate States of America inherently racist? Or can someone proudly display the Rebel Flag without at least believing somewhat in the tenets of white supremacy? Fully aware that I will now alienate my friends on both sides of this issue, let me try to give you my opinions as succinctly as possible.
Over the last one-hundred-fifty years, the Rebel Flag has come to represent the Confederate States of America. Despite never being the Confederacy's national flag, it was and still is the symbol of the southern cause in the Civil War. So what was the southern cause then?
The cause of the Confederate government during the Civil War was to establish a separate nation where slavery would remain the law of that land until said government chose to abolish it. Sorry to all my fellow rebel reenactors (if I'm still welcome after this article). But secession was born with the election of Abraham Lincoln and fermented in the belief that the radical Republicans would abolish slavery and destroy the southern economy and way of life. To say secession was over "state's rights" is sophistry at best and disingenuous at worst. Yes, the secessionist states believed in states rights, most notably a state's right to uphold the tradition of slavery despite any moves the federal government might make to dismantle the peculiar institution. However, those same secessionist states refused to recognize a state's right to refuse cooperation in the Fugitive Slave Act, which was still federal law when General P.G.T. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter in 1861. That being said, the cause of the Confederate government was not necessarily identical to the cause of the individual Confederate soldiers.
Soldiers are peculiar lot. Despite the best efforts of the governments that put them in the field, soldiers don't put their lives on the line for governments or policies or the posturing of politicians. Some soldiers may take up arms under some sense of patriotism, but when the bullets start flying and the stomach starts growling they fight for themselves, their comrades in arms, their families, their homes and their own singular sense of duty. This goes for soldiers in any war - our Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In the case of the average Confederate soldier, the staggering majority of whom neither owned slaves nor had any vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery, he didn't fight, kill and daily risk his life to keep African Americans in bondage. Frankly, with Federal troops invading his home, killing his friends and branding him a traitor, he had much more immediate and life-threatening issues to worry about than maintaining the slaveocracy.
Sorry to all my liberal friends who just really want to hate the Confederate soldiers and therefore rebel reenactors by default (if you still call me friend after this article.) If, for a moment, you'd all just set aside the intellectual interpretations of what happened between Fort Sumter and Appomattox Courthouse and read the actual journals, letters and contemporary battlefield accounts written by the soldiers (and their loved ones) you might be surprised like I was. You won't find much (if anything at all) about white supremacy or hatred of African Americans in these missives. What you will find is hatred of the Federals and Billy Yanks who, until the first Colored and Negro troops were officially commissioned in 1863, were as white as the rebs.
Yes, Confederate soldiers were fighting for a government that wanted to preserve slavery, but I haven't read an account of even one Confederate officer rallying his cold, starving, out-manned and out-gunned troops by invoking the Cause of Slavery. Knowing how the soldiers looked upon the Rich Man's War and poor man's fight, I can't imagine such a pep talk would have met with anything but derision or worse. Confederate officers inspired their troops by appealing to their love of family, friends and homeland, not their government or its policies. Even a cursory reading of contemporary soldiers' opinions of Jefferson Davis and CSA government quickly reveals that, like all soldiers, Johnny Reb didn't have much use for the desk jockeys at the capitol. So, even if the Rebel Flag meant White Supremacy to the Confederate Government, my reading and research just won't allow me to paint the Confederate soldier with the same broad red, white and blue brush. And neither, for that matter, does my real life experience with rebel reenactors.
Are Confederate reenactors racists? I'm sure some are. Hell, racists can be found anywhere and in every walk of life. I will say this, though. I've had the privilege of drilling, bivouacking and fighting alongside rebel reenactors for over two years now, and I've yet to hear any of them say anything that strikes me as overtly or patently racist. Please note, I said me. I'm sure if some of my more liberal friends had been sitting around the same campfire, their feathers might have been suitably ruffled. Also be assured, if the Charleston shooter had decided to bring his brain-dead, racist crap into a camp of rebel reenactors, he would have found his white ass riding out of camp on a rail.
So what do I hear around these rebel campfires, then? Well, today's rebels are predominantly conservatives or libertarians. They long for tighter families, tighter communities and a renewed sense of national pride. Many are church going Christians. By and large, they reminisce wistfully over bygone eras while expressing a deep mistrust of big government and politicians of both major parties. Above all, they steadfastly defend of the common Confederate soldier as a patriot defending his home soil against Yankee aggression. If all this strikes anyone as encoded racism, then we obviously have different definitions of the word, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. But honestly, I've heard much more offensive thoughts while bellied up to a bar with a stranger or standing in line at the DMV.
Do I agree with every sentiment and idea I hear around these rebel campfires? Of course not, and depending on my mood and comfort level I may even jump into a good-natured debate. As a writer, though, I tend to listen more than speak. I'm there to soak up language, cadence and perspective. My goal is to capture the reality of these individuals and let them speak in their own voices, not hear the sound of mine. So what kinds of things do I disagree with then?
For one, I find their almost uniform disparagement of all Union generals and troops as unabashedly partisan and sometimes humorous. I'm also wary of the Lost Cause revisionism that condemns Lincoln as a war criminal, downplays slavery as the cause of secession while over-emphasizing the role of slaves and freed blacks in the Confederate Army. And just for the record, African American men did indeed serve as teamsters and, in a few isolated cases, infantrymen with the rebel armies. However, these "black rebs" were a statistically insignificant exception, and their circumstances can hardly be used as evidence that slaves and freed blacks were treated with anything close to equality in the CSA armed forces. They weren't. Neither, for that matter, were African Americans treated well by the overwhelming majority of Union commanders or troops. (Just read about Sherman's views on race sometime. Eye opening to say the least.)
So where exactly does this put me on the issue of the Rebel Flag. (I bet you all thought I wasn't going to answer that, right?) Okay, here goes nothing.
I believe the Rebel Flag belongs at Civil War monuments and grave sites commemorating fallen American soldiers who fought for their friends, families, homes and sense of honor. I believe the Rebel Flag also belongs at reenactments, and if I ever have the honor of marching under it again, I will do so with pride and respect towards the brave real men who wore the uniform before me and sacrificed their lives for their families, friends and homes. I also believe if a private citizen wishes to display the Rebel Flag or carry Rebel Flag related merchandise, so be it. They should be prepared for backlash, however, and then react with civility and respect for the opinions of others. Conversely, I also believe that opponents and haters of the Rebel Flag have every right to be heard and educate the public as to their views provided they keep their fight legal, civil and aimed at the historical injustice of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of past or present Johnny Rebs.
That being said, I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on a federal, state or municipal flagpole with our American flag. Nor do I believe the Rebel Flag should ever be displayed in any way equal to or commensurate with our American flag. I hold these exact same beliefs for any flag that represents a specific group or subculture in our country whether I agree with their core values or not. We are one nation with one national flag that flies alone over all other flags just as our one nation stands above all the separate, distinct and ofttimes opposing groups that comprise its existence. It's called E Pluribus Unum, and I for one think it's the best thing going.
So if I'm not here to fulminate about the shooting or the shooter, then what exactly am I addressing in this post? Well, to start with I'm going to try to add some perspective to the massacre's aftermath, specifically in regards to the flying of the Rebel Flag. I'll also try to answer some of the questions I've received in my inbox since the shooter's identity and photo album went public.
First off, let me just say something about the media coverage of this crime. What does it say about us that we allow our worst representatives to dominate news cycles and affect public policy while truly decent hardworking visionaries never even get five of their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame? Frankly, I don't know. I just think we should all reflect on that for a moment. Okay, then, let's move onto topic two: the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag.
NO, what people call the Confederate Flag was never the official national flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA). It was, in fact, Robert E. Lee's battle flag for the Northern Army of Virginia. (For those of you interested in Confederate Flags, Wikipedia has a fairly decent entry.) YES, the iconic blue X, white stars and red field were incorporated into two of the Confederacy's national flags, the so-called "stainless" and "blood-stained" banners. But the all-too familiar flag emblazoned on the roof of the Dukes of Hazzard's '69 Dodge Charger was never the flag of the CSA. It did, however, become the recognized symbol of the rebel armed forces during the Civil War. From here on out, then, I'll refer to it as the Rebel Flag.
After the war, the Rebel Flag still hung around, but was mostly displayed at historical sites and events commemorating the Civil War. Then, in the late 1940s and 50s, the flag reemerged in a political context, becoming the emblem of resurgent southern regionalism and, subsequently, resistance to federal authority, i.e. "them fat cats in Washington DC.". And here's where everything gets complicated, convoluted and controversial.
To keep it brief and overly simplistic, the field of US politics experienced a pole shift in the decades between World War II and the Reagan era of the 80s. Southern Democrats (aka Dixie Crats) suddenly found themselves uneasily aligned on the right wing with northern fiscal and social conservatives. African Americans, long affiliated with the classically liberal Republican Party of Lincoln, drifted into camp with the more radical and progressive wing of the Democratic Party. From all the ensuing sociopolitical upheaval, the Rebel Flag arose from the ashes of Margaret Mitchell's wistful and whimsical Lost Cause like the mythical phoenix.
Suddenly, what came to be seen as "The Confederate Flag" popped up on flagpoles - private and public - all over the fruited plain. For every Johnny Reb flying the flag to proclaim a heritage and identity distinct from us Billy Yanks, others displayed the same flag to promote segregation, racism, antisemitism and insurrection against our federal government. As a result, the Confederate Flag Controversy has flared up numerous times over the last thirty to forty years with defenders rallying around the flag's historical significance and cultural heritage while the opposition cites that same history and heritage as the fundamental reason for the flag's removal.
Honestly, I've looked at this situation from every possible angle, and I've concluded that taking any kind of middle ground regarding the Rebel Flag is bound to piss off people on both sides. Coincidentally, this is exactly the situation faced by Chris Telamon, the protagonist in my forthcoming novel, Stalking Mule, a lifelong liberal who suddenly finds himself embedded with the Confederate army in what becomes a very real Civil War reenactment. So, with this in mind and against all better judgment, I guess I'll be pissing off both sides for the remainder of this post.
While I won't go so far as to say my perspective on the rebel flag is wholly unique, I will suggest that my recent experiences do allow me to see the issue from a rather idiosyncratic vantage point. For those of you who don't know me well, I'm literally all over the place as far as politics and social issues are concerned. My liberal friends see me as way too conservative, and my conservative friends see me as way too liberal. Case in point, my recent experiences as a Confederate soldier drilling and marching under the rebel flag with The 27th Virginia.
When I first started researching Stalking Mule, I tried my best at due diligence, I talked to some reenactors and started attending some local Civil War reenactments to internalize the flavor and personality of the events and the devoted volunteers who make them work. I introduced myself to a number of very polite and helpful reenactors on both sides and pumped them for as much information as I could politely obtain. Everyone I met loved talking about their passion, but - to be honest - I just couldn't seem to make the kind of connection necessary for the type of in-depth research the subject demanded.
Then, at the annual Fremont, Ohio reenactment a few years back, I met a Confederate soldier and walking encyclopedia of living history named Phil Reynolds. Phil not only schooled me on some popular misconceptions many of us have regarding fighting men in the Civil War, he also enthusiastically took me under his wing and really showed me what the reenacting hobby is all about. The first thing he taught me, reenacting is much more than a hobby. For the dedicated souls who transform these events into living history, reenacting isn't dress-up, or play-acting. Their level of mental, physical and monetary commitment is equivalent to that of a dedicated amateur marathon runner, mountain climber or a Habitat For Humanity volunteer. I truly realized this when I started drilling with Phil's unit and took part in my first battle at the Painesville reenactment last summer.
For those who regularly read my blog, I recounted my experiences in several previous posts. So I won't repeat myself now. What I didn't write about last summer, however, was the reaction sparked by my enlistment in the Confederate forces. Upon seeing photos of me "fighting" beneath the Rebel Flag, my email inbox immediately filled with some challenging and, at times, disturbing questions: "Did you choose to be a Confederate?" Or "Why were you a Confederate? Are you a racist?" Just the kind of questions, I might add, that Chris Telamon - descendant of a prominent local liberal family involved in the Underground Railroad - must repeatedly address in the pages of Stalking Mule. In fact, once I got a hundred pages into the novel's first draft, I realized that the volatile relationship between Civil War reenacting and race relations in 21st-century America had quickly become one of the novel's central theme.
As I work now to complete Stalking Mule and White Picket Jungle, events in our world continue to dovetail with plot points contrived years ago in my fictional universe. By sheer creative happenstance, Stalking Mule has its own horrific hate crime eerily analogous to the massacre in Charleston, a murderous spree complete with internet photos and loud national conversations debating the cultural heritage of the American Civil War and its symbology in our popular culture. And draped over both worlds - real and reenacted, material and make-believe - is the battle flag of Robert E. Lee's Northern Army of Virginia. Its presence not only posing questions about our present-day Johnny Rebs but also their ancestors.
By now, anyone who's read this far is no doubt dying to ask me the hard questions. Do I think the Rebel Flag is racist? What about Confederate reenactors who display this flag or their forebears one-hundred-fifty years ago who did the same? Is any identification with the Confederate States of America inherently racist? Or can someone proudly display the Rebel Flag without at least believing somewhat in the tenets of white supremacy? Fully aware that I will now alienate my friends on both sides of this issue, let me try to give you my opinions as succinctly as possible.
Over the last one-hundred-fifty years, the Rebel Flag has come to represent the Confederate States of America. Despite never being the Confederacy's national flag, it was and still is the symbol of the southern cause in the Civil War. So what was the southern cause then?
The cause of the Confederate government during the Civil War was to establish a separate nation where slavery would remain the law of that land until said government chose to abolish it. Sorry to all my fellow rebel reenactors (if I'm still welcome after this article). But secession was born with the election of Abraham Lincoln and fermented in the belief that the radical Republicans would abolish slavery and destroy the southern economy and way of life. To say secession was over "state's rights" is sophistry at best and disingenuous at worst. Yes, the secessionist states believed in states rights, most notably a state's right to uphold the tradition of slavery despite any moves the federal government might make to dismantle the peculiar institution. However, those same secessionist states refused to recognize a state's right to refuse cooperation in the Fugitive Slave Act, which was still federal law when General P.G.T. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter in 1861. That being said, the cause of the Confederate government was not necessarily identical to the cause of the individual Confederate soldiers.
Soldiers are peculiar lot. Despite the best efforts of the governments that put them in the field, soldiers don't put their lives on the line for governments or policies or the posturing of politicians. Some soldiers may take up arms under some sense of patriotism, but when the bullets start flying and the stomach starts growling they fight for themselves, their comrades in arms, their families, their homes and their own singular sense of duty. This goes for soldiers in any war - our Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In the case of the average Confederate soldier, the staggering majority of whom neither owned slaves nor had any vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery, he didn't fight, kill and daily risk his life to keep African Americans in bondage. Frankly, with Federal troops invading his home, killing his friends and branding him a traitor, he had much more immediate and life-threatening issues to worry about than maintaining the slaveocracy.
Sorry to all my liberal friends who just really want to hate the Confederate soldiers and therefore rebel reenactors by default (if you still call me friend after this article.) If, for a moment, you'd all just set aside the intellectual interpretations of what happened between Fort Sumter and Appomattox Courthouse and read the actual journals, letters and contemporary battlefield accounts written by the soldiers (and their loved ones) you might be surprised like I was. You won't find much (if anything at all) about white supremacy or hatred of African Americans in these missives. What you will find is hatred of the Federals and Billy Yanks who, until the first Colored and Negro troops were officially commissioned in 1863, were as white as the rebs.
Yes, Confederate soldiers were fighting for a government that wanted to preserve slavery, but I haven't read an account of even one Confederate officer rallying his cold, starving, out-manned and out-gunned troops by invoking the Cause of Slavery. Knowing how the soldiers looked upon the Rich Man's War and poor man's fight, I can't imagine such a pep talk would have met with anything but derision or worse. Confederate officers inspired their troops by appealing to their love of family, friends and homeland, not their government or its policies. Even a cursory reading of contemporary soldiers' opinions of Jefferson Davis and CSA government quickly reveals that, like all soldiers, Johnny Reb didn't have much use for the desk jockeys at the capitol. So, even if the Rebel Flag meant White Supremacy to the Confederate Government, my reading and research just won't allow me to paint the Confederate soldier with the same broad red, white and blue brush. And neither, for that matter, does my real life experience with rebel reenactors.
Are Confederate reenactors racists? I'm sure some are. Hell, racists can be found anywhere and in every walk of life. I will say this, though. I've had the privilege of drilling, bivouacking and fighting alongside rebel reenactors for over two years now, and I've yet to hear any of them say anything that strikes me as overtly or patently racist. Please note, I said me. I'm sure if some of my more liberal friends had been sitting around the same campfire, their feathers might have been suitably ruffled. Also be assured, if the Charleston shooter had decided to bring his brain-dead, racist crap into a camp of rebel reenactors, he would have found his white ass riding out of camp on a rail.
So what do I hear around these rebel campfires, then? Well, today's rebels are predominantly conservatives or libertarians. They long for tighter families, tighter communities and a renewed sense of national pride. Many are church going Christians. By and large, they reminisce wistfully over bygone eras while expressing a deep mistrust of big government and politicians of both major parties. Above all, they steadfastly defend of the common Confederate soldier as a patriot defending his home soil against Yankee aggression. If all this strikes anyone as encoded racism, then we obviously have different definitions of the word, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. But honestly, I've heard much more offensive thoughts while bellied up to a bar with a stranger or standing in line at the DMV.
Do I agree with every sentiment and idea I hear around these rebel campfires? Of course not, and depending on my mood and comfort level I may even jump into a good-natured debate. As a writer, though, I tend to listen more than speak. I'm there to soak up language, cadence and perspective. My goal is to capture the reality of these individuals and let them speak in their own voices, not hear the sound of mine. So what kinds of things do I disagree with then?
For one, I find their almost uniform disparagement of all Union generals and troops as unabashedly partisan and sometimes humorous. I'm also wary of the Lost Cause revisionism that condemns Lincoln as a war criminal, downplays slavery as the cause of secession while over-emphasizing the role of slaves and freed blacks in the Confederate Army. And just for the record, African American men did indeed serve as teamsters and, in a few isolated cases, infantrymen with the rebel armies. However, these "black rebs" were a statistically insignificant exception, and their circumstances can hardly be used as evidence that slaves and freed blacks were treated with anything close to equality in the CSA armed forces. They weren't. Neither, for that matter, were African Americans treated well by the overwhelming majority of Union commanders or troops. (Just read about Sherman's views on race sometime. Eye opening to say the least.)
So where exactly does this put me on the issue of the Rebel Flag. (I bet you all thought I wasn't going to answer that, right?) Okay, here goes nothing.
I believe the Rebel Flag belongs at Civil War monuments and grave sites commemorating fallen American soldiers who fought for their friends, families, homes and sense of honor. I believe the Rebel Flag also belongs at reenactments, and if I ever have the honor of marching under it again, I will do so with pride and respect towards the brave real men who wore the uniform before me and sacrificed their lives for their families, friends and homes. I also believe if a private citizen wishes to display the Rebel Flag or carry Rebel Flag related merchandise, so be it. They should be prepared for backlash, however, and then react with civility and respect for the opinions of others. Conversely, I also believe that opponents and haters of the Rebel Flag have every right to be heard and educate the public as to their views provided they keep their fight legal, civil and aimed at the historical injustice of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of past or present Johnny Rebs.
That being said, I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on a federal, state or municipal flagpole with our American flag. Nor do I believe the Rebel Flag should ever be displayed in any way equal to or commensurate with our American flag. I hold these exact same beliefs for any flag that represents a specific group or subculture in our country whether I agree with their core values or not. We are one nation with one national flag that flies alone over all other flags just as our one nation stands above all the separate, distinct and ofttimes opposing groups that comprise its existence. It's called E Pluribus Unum, and I for one think it's the best thing going.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Manson, Music and Motive - What NBC's Aquarius Gets Wrong and Right
Every armchair criminologist from my generation eventually tackles Charles Manson. He's our Hitler, a larger-than-life incarnation of the ultimate evil that defines the night terrors of our youth. I was four years old and blissfully ignorant when Manson and his Family first initiated the series of killings that would mark 1969's Summer of Blood in Los Angeles and environs. That ignorance would be short-lived, however, and grow into a fascination that persists to this day. Needless to say, when I first got wind of NBC's Aquarius mini-series earlier this year, I went on immediate DVR alert. A look at Manson's nascent psychopathy, i.e. Manson before he became Manson makes must-see TV for a true-crime devotee and cult watcher such as myself. But more on Aquarius later. For now, let's talk about Manson, his music and a possible motive for his crimes.
I first became aware of the Manson murders in elementary school when the nightly news featured regular updates from his trial. My older brother, Bob, worldly and well-read at twelve years old, promptly introduced me to the concept of cult mind control and filled me in on the basics of the crime. (My ever-lasting thanks, Bob!) By the time I was eleven, Manson was safely locked-up in prison while his Family lived on as a creepy coven of real-life bogey women, would-be presidential assassins and fodder for Saturday Night Live Skits. Just one more strain of white noise buzzing in the colorful background of a 70s childhood. A few years later, though, in my early teens, I encountered a new Charlie Manson.
This new Manson wasn't a psycho, evil genius or would-be messiah. Rather he was one of a number anti-establishment antichrists - Anton LaVey, Aleister Crowley, King Diamond - venerated by a sub-set of "satanist" stoners and other proto-goths roaming the halls of North Olmsted Junior High. At that same time in ninth-grade Social Studies, Mr. Evans (NOJHS' coolest teacher) used Manson's Helter Skelter crime spree as launching pad to introduce the current hot topics of counter-culture, "hard drugs" and mind control. Mr. Evans' lectures immediately sent me paper chasing to the Cleveland Public Library downtown where I reviewed news articles from Manson's trial on microfilm and discovered Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 opus Helter Skelter. Needless to say, I devoured the 500-plus pages during a 48-hour reading orgy before augmenting the book with Helter Skelter, the movie, starring a Manson-channeling Steve Railsback.
By the ripe old age of fifteen, then, I knew everything there was to know about Charles Manson, the Tate-LaBianca murders and the Helter-Skelter scenario that fueled his murderous megalomania. Or so I thought before I discovered Charlie's other side. A side only casually mentioned by Bugliosi and others: Charles Manson, the musician.
No doubt that fateful day began normally enough. Just like hundreds of other teenage days during summer vacation. I probably woke up and puttered around the house for a few hours before declaring absolute boredom and hopping a bus to Great Northern Mall. Once at the mall, I looked forward to an afternoon of window-shopping the record stores and hanging out at the food court hoping to meet the one girl on the planet who wouldn't see me as a skinny, acne-ridden, terminally self-conscious loser. On that particular day, I did happen to meet a girl in the food court. Three of them, actually. I later found out they hailed from the neighboring city of Olmsted Falls, which, to my good fortune, meant they didn't know me from school. So they had no preconceptions when I finally grew a pair and struck up a conversation.
Red-eyed, wearing pen-decorated jeans jackets and armed with a small boom-box, these girls advertised who they were to anyone and everyone. Stoner chicks, my friends and I called their kind. Burn-outs. Freaks. The kind of sexy bad girls that fascinated dorks like me. True to their nature, they'd set up camp outside the video arcade, flagrantly disregarding the minor tobacco laws, harassing the rent-a-cops and shouting inappropriate comments towards nearby mall-walking seniors. Circling them for awhile searching for an opening, I eventually caught wind of the music coming from their tape player. Odd, folksy, almost Dylan-esque. Not your typical heavy metal or acid-rock fair for girls such as this. "Who is that?" I finally braved my opening salvo.
"You'll never guess," the loud one in their trio shot back. Seeing as she didn't scream "Rape" or "Faggot," I walked over, sat down and continued listening to their music. After two tracks and some bad guesses (they'd never heard of Tim Buckley or Phil Ochs), the Loud One finally divulged the singer's identity. "That's Charles fucking Manson. She said his name the way I imagine Mary Magdalene referred to Jesus, without the 'fucking' part, of course. What?! Her answer led to further explanations regarding the sociopath songwriter and his surprisingly innocuous music. "He could have been bigger than the Beatles or anybody," the Loud One pronounced as her minions nodded. "But the record business got too scared and censored him. That's what pissed him off, you know. He killed those people because they screwed him out of his record deal. They fucking deserved it." And that was my brief introduction to Charles Manson, the musician, and Sondra I-Forget-Her-Last-Name-Because-The-Phone-Number-She-Gave-Me-Turned-Out-To-Be-Fake.
Years later at OU, I ended up buying a bootleg cassette tape of Charlie's music at Schoolkids Records in Athens. Whereas the music itself never impressed me, the historical and criminological aspect struck my fancy. By that time, several writers had further explored Charlie's failed music career as a motive for his murder spree. The fact that Sharon Tate lived in the house previously rented by record executive and Manson acquaintance Terry Melcher was already an established fact directly tying Manson to the murder house. Manson's friendship and residency with Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, not to mention the band's reworking of Charlie's "Cease To Exist," provided trivia buffs with a curious footnote to the band's legendary legacy. Gary Hinman, one of Manson's first victims, existed on the fringes of LA's music scene, playing keyboards and giving piano lessons before running afoul of The Family. As for Manson's musical pedigree, numerous sources lent credence to prison-yard tales that notorious murderer Alvin "Creepy" Karpis himself taught Charlie how to play the guitar. Given all these factors combined with Manson's well-publicized obsession with hidden prophetic messages in the works of John, Paul, George & Ringo, even an amateur detective like my younger self could sense a deep connection between Music and Murder in Charlie's crazy cosmology.
Periodically over the proceeding 25-30 years, I actively toyed with the idea of doing an in-depth analysis of Manson's aborted musical dreams in relation to his homicidal temper tantrum. Understandably, I wasn't the only one entertaining such notions, and in 2008 filmmaker Ryan Oksenberg's haunting, unlicensed documentary, Cease To Exist, took the internet underground by storm. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2ym7HNoC4 ) Of course, the film takes its title from Charlie's only well-known composition, "Cease To Exist," ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2aAwyzDeE ) later rewritten and re-named by Dennis Wilson as "Never Learn Not To Love," ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0v2bVX8j4 ), which appeared on Beach Boys' 1969 album, 20/20. As Oksenberg's narrative unwinds, we see the actual true motive for The Manson Family's murderous spree, Charlie's failed aspirations and slighted ego. For anyone interested in the murders, I enthusiastically recommend Oksenberg's film.
Considering Cease To Exist's depth and clarity, I won't rehash it here. Rather, I'll turn my focus to Charlie's demo tape, the only known testimony to his musical legacy. At first listen, one is immediately struck by the utter banality of it all. Frankly, Manson sounds like one of the era's countless warbling troubadours strumming acoustic guitars whilst trying to evoke alternating moods of playfulness and poignancy. Granted, introspective offerings like "Ego," "Mechanical Man," "Sick City," "Don't Do Anything Illegal," and "People Say I'm No Good," offer obvious glimpses into Manson's troubled inner world. But I believe his lighter, pop-oriented tunes like "Look At Your Game, Girl" and "Home Is Where You're Happy" provide us a true hint at Manson's own musical vision, which is, to be truthful, insipid and insincere.
In retrospect, Manson's demo tape, later released as the album Lie: The Love And Terror Cult, reveals a desperate, marginally-talented dilettante willing to sing or write anything in any style that someone somewhere might buy. What else explains a campy sing-along like "I'll Never Say Never To Always," treacly fare better suited to the New Christy Minstrels than a counter-culture Antichrist. Despite Charlie's anti-establishment posturing, Lie presents to us a Manson who would have sold out to The Man in a downbeat if it meant receiving even a modicum of the musical success and public adoration he felt was his due. Just think, if Charlie had been just a little better and a lot luckier, we might now regard him as a One Hit Wonder instead of a One-Time Most Dangerous Man Alive.
Having finished the first two installments of NBC's Aquarius, I can't help but feel the miniseries' writers share a similar vision and version of Charles Manson. In each episode thus far, considerable time has been spent exploring Charlie's musical aspirations. Aquarius' Manson uses music not only to cajole his followers, but control his very surroundings. Likewise, his unshakable belief in his own musical destiny guides his every Machiavellian machination on the road to fame and fortune.
As fast and loose as Aquarius plays with historical facts, it seems conversely obsessed with establishing a narrative truth in the development of Charlie's character. The resulting product makes for some pretty compelling television, at least so far. Being a lifelong Manson watcher, I'll definitely keep my DVR tuned to Aquarius despite its flaws. I only hope the entire run stays consistent and doesn't wander down the same muddled path as other once promising endeavors: Lost, The Mentalist, Prison Break and most recently The Following.
I first became aware of the Manson murders in elementary school when the nightly news featured regular updates from his trial. My older brother, Bob, worldly and well-read at twelve years old, promptly introduced me to the concept of cult mind control and filled me in on the basics of the crime. (My ever-lasting thanks, Bob!) By the time I was eleven, Manson was safely locked-up in prison while his Family lived on as a creepy coven of real-life bogey women, would-be presidential assassins and fodder for Saturday Night Live Skits. Just one more strain of white noise buzzing in the colorful background of a 70s childhood. A few years later, though, in my early teens, I encountered a new Charlie Manson.
This new Manson wasn't a psycho, evil genius or would-be messiah. Rather he was one of a number anti-establishment antichrists - Anton LaVey, Aleister Crowley, King Diamond - venerated by a sub-set of "satanist" stoners and other proto-goths roaming the halls of North Olmsted Junior High. At that same time in ninth-grade Social Studies, Mr. Evans (NOJHS' coolest teacher) used Manson's Helter Skelter crime spree as launching pad to introduce the current hot topics of counter-culture, "hard drugs" and mind control. Mr. Evans' lectures immediately sent me paper chasing to the Cleveland Public Library downtown where I reviewed news articles from Manson's trial on microfilm and discovered Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 opus Helter Skelter. Needless to say, I devoured the 500-plus pages during a 48-hour reading orgy before augmenting the book with Helter Skelter, the movie, starring a Manson-channeling Steve Railsback.
By the ripe old age of fifteen, then, I knew everything there was to know about Charles Manson, the Tate-LaBianca murders and the Helter-Skelter scenario that fueled his murderous megalomania. Or so I thought before I discovered Charlie's other side. A side only casually mentioned by Bugliosi and others: Charles Manson, the musician.
No doubt that fateful day began normally enough. Just like hundreds of other teenage days during summer vacation. I probably woke up and puttered around the house for a few hours before declaring absolute boredom and hopping a bus to Great Northern Mall. Once at the mall, I looked forward to an afternoon of window-shopping the record stores and hanging out at the food court hoping to meet the one girl on the planet who wouldn't see me as a skinny, acne-ridden, terminally self-conscious loser. On that particular day, I did happen to meet a girl in the food court. Three of them, actually. I later found out they hailed from the neighboring city of Olmsted Falls, which, to my good fortune, meant they didn't know me from school. So they had no preconceptions when I finally grew a pair and struck up a conversation.
Red-eyed, wearing pen-decorated jeans jackets and armed with a small boom-box, these girls advertised who they were to anyone and everyone. Stoner chicks, my friends and I called their kind. Burn-outs. Freaks. The kind of sexy bad girls that fascinated dorks like me. True to their nature, they'd set up camp outside the video arcade, flagrantly disregarding the minor tobacco laws, harassing the rent-a-cops and shouting inappropriate comments towards nearby mall-walking seniors. Circling them for awhile searching for an opening, I eventually caught wind of the music coming from their tape player. Odd, folksy, almost Dylan-esque. Not your typical heavy metal or acid-rock fair for girls such as this. "Who is that?" I finally braved my opening salvo.
"You'll never guess," the loud one in their trio shot back. Seeing as she didn't scream "Rape" or "Faggot," I walked over, sat down and continued listening to their music. After two tracks and some bad guesses (they'd never heard of Tim Buckley or Phil Ochs), the Loud One finally divulged the singer's identity. "That's Charles fucking Manson. She said his name the way I imagine Mary Magdalene referred to Jesus, without the 'fucking' part, of course. What?! Her answer led to further explanations regarding the sociopath songwriter and his surprisingly innocuous music. "He could have been bigger than the Beatles or anybody," the Loud One pronounced as her minions nodded. "But the record business got too scared and censored him. That's what pissed him off, you know. He killed those people because they screwed him out of his record deal. They fucking deserved it." And that was my brief introduction to Charles Manson, the musician, and Sondra I-Forget-Her-Last-Name-Because-The-Phone-Number-She-Gave-Me-Turned-Out-To-Be-Fake.
Years later at OU, I ended up buying a bootleg cassette tape of Charlie's music at Schoolkids Records in Athens. Whereas the music itself never impressed me, the historical and criminological aspect struck my fancy. By that time, several writers had further explored Charlie's failed music career as a motive for his murder spree. The fact that Sharon Tate lived in the house previously rented by record executive and Manson acquaintance Terry Melcher was already an established fact directly tying Manson to the murder house. Manson's friendship and residency with Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, not to mention the band's reworking of Charlie's "Cease To Exist," provided trivia buffs with a curious footnote to the band's legendary legacy. Gary Hinman, one of Manson's first victims, existed on the fringes of LA's music scene, playing keyboards and giving piano lessons before running afoul of The Family. As for Manson's musical pedigree, numerous sources lent credence to prison-yard tales that notorious murderer Alvin "Creepy" Karpis himself taught Charlie how to play the guitar. Given all these factors combined with Manson's well-publicized obsession with hidden prophetic messages in the works of John, Paul, George & Ringo, even an amateur detective like my younger self could sense a deep connection between Music and Murder in Charlie's crazy cosmology.
Periodically over the proceeding 25-30 years, I actively toyed with the idea of doing an in-depth analysis of Manson's aborted musical dreams in relation to his homicidal temper tantrum. Understandably, I wasn't the only one entertaining such notions, and in 2008 filmmaker Ryan Oksenberg's haunting, unlicensed documentary, Cease To Exist, took the internet underground by storm. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2ym7HNoC4 ) Of course, the film takes its title from Charlie's only well-known composition, "Cease To Exist," ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2aAwyzDeE ) later rewritten and re-named by Dennis Wilson as "Never Learn Not To Love," ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0v2bVX8j4 ), which appeared on Beach Boys' 1969 album, 20/20. As Oksenberg's narrative unwinds, we see the actual true motive for The Manson Family's murderous spree, Charlie's failed aspirations and slighted ego. For anyone interested in the murders, I enthusiastically recommend Oksenberg's film.
Considering Cease To Exist's depth and clarity, I won't rehash it here. Rather, I'll turn my focus to Charlie's demo tape, the only known testimony to his musical legacy. At first listen, one is immediately struck by the utter banality of it all. Frankly, Manson sounds like one of the era's countless warbling troubadours strumming acoustic guitars whilst trying to evoke alternating moods of playfulness and poignancy. Granted, introspective offerings like "Ego," "Mechanical Man," "Sick City," "Don't Do Anything Illegal," and "People Say I'm No Good," offer obvious glimpses into Manson's troubled inner world. But I believe his lighter, pop-oriented tunes like "Look At Your Game, Girl" and "Home Is Where You're Happy" provide us a true hint at Manson's own musical vision, which is, to be truthful, insipid and insincere.
In retrospect, Manson's demo tape, later released as the album Lie: The Love And Terror Cult, reveals a desperate, marginally-talented dilettante willing to sing or write anything in any style that someone somewhere might buy. What else explains a campy sing-along like "I'll Never Say Never To Always," treacly fare better suited to the New Christy Minstrels than a counter-culture Antichrist. Despite Charlie's anti-establishment posturing, Lie presents to us a Manson who would have sold out to The Man in a downbeat if it meant receiving even a modicum of the musical success and public adoration he felt was his due. Just think, if Charlie had been just a little better and a lot luckier, we might now regard him as a One Hit Wonder instead of a One-Time Most Dangerous Man Alive.
Having finished the first two installments of NBC's Aquarius, I can't help but feel the miniseries' writers share a similar vision and version of Charles Manson. In each episode thus far, considerable time has been spent exploring Charlie's musical aspirations. Aquarius' Manson uses music not only to cajole his followers, but control his very surroundings. Likewise, his unshakable belief in his own musical destiny guides his every Machiavellian machination on the road to fame and fortune.
As fast and loose as Aquarius plays with historical facts, it seems conversely obsessed with establishing a narrative truth in the development of Charlie's character. The resulting product makes for some pretty compelling television, at least so far. Being a lifelong Manson watcher, I'll definitely keep my DVR tuned to Aquarius despite its flaws. I only hope the entire run stays consistent and doesn't wander down the same muddled path as other once promising endeavors: Lost, The Mentalist, Prison Break and most recently The Following.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Buy A Book, Grab A Beer
Anyone interested in an autographed hardcover copy of Cat & Cat, I'll be at the Local Tavern in Parma (5513 Pearl Rd) tonight between 5 - 7PM. Buy a book, and I'll buy you a beer or your beverage of choice. I'll be on the patio if it's nice or inside at the stage bar if it's raining. I'm easy to spot because I look like the guy in my picture. If you can't make it and want a copy, message me here, on Facebook, Twitter or Linked In. Or order directly from:
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Cat-Novel-Three-Movements-ebook/dp/B00JAQXIUE
Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/427306
Barnes & Nobel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/cat-cat-mark-kozak/1119459143
Details on Cat & Cat the audio book coming soon!
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Cat-Novel-Three-Movements-ebook/dp/B00JAQXIUE
Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/427306
Barnes & Nobel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/cat-cat-mark-kozak/1119459143
Details on Cat & Cat the audio book coming soon!
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Cat & Cat Hardcover Now Available at Amazom.com
Just got my Amazon.com listing for the hardcover edition of Cat & Cat.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692417974
For anyone local, you can save yourself some time and money and just message me on Facebook, Linked In, Twitter, or email me: m_e_kozak@yahoo.com ; chris.telamon65@gamil.com . I'll get the book to you.
I'm also running a limited-time offer, Buy A Book and Get a Drink. So if you want to buy Cat & Cat and grab an adult beverage or coffee while you're at, let me know. Save yourself shipping and get a complimentary drink of your choice up to $8.99. This is a limited-offer. Message me here if you're interested.
Have fun & Keep Reading!
Mark Kozak
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692417974
For anyone local, you can save yourself some time and money and just message me on Facebook, Linked In, Twitter, or email me: m_e_kozak@yahoo.com ; chris.telamon65@gamil.com . I'll get the book to you.
I'm also running a limited-time offer, Buy A Book and Get a Drink. So if you want to buy Cat & Cat and grab an adult beverage or coffee while you're at, let me know. Save yourself shipping and get a complimentary drink of your choice up to $8.99. This is a limited-offer. Message me here if you're interested.
Have fun & Keep Reading!
Mark Kozak
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Oh The Places You'll Go - Indy Author Meets Indy Wrestlers
Back in 2009, my unemployment odyssey took me into a temp position with Moen answering consumer phone calls. Basically, the job entailed verbally assisting people with installing or fixing their Moen faucets, i.e. being a plumber over the phone. Training consisted of an eight week school that covered everything from installing and repairing Moen faucets to navigating the company's various computer systems. On the first day of class, I met a guy named David Wilson, and given our similar age and shared experiences we became fast friends. Over the next few weeks, David and I exchanged our biographies and outside interests. I told him about my aspirations as a writer, and he filled me in regarding his dual identity - David Powers - past experiences and ongoing passion for professional wrestling.
Now I know I strike many as an intellectual & cultural snob, what with my incessant prattling about jazz and classical music, the literary canon, history, science, philosophy, theology and craft beers. But pro wrestling - like comic books, Cleveland sports and prime-time television - formed a large part of my childhood worldview and still remains a not-so-guilty pleasure to this day. Needless to say, meeting an honest-to-goodness ex-pro wrestler who could not only talk grappling greats like Abdullah The Butcher or Larry Zbyszko but actually knows them was a huge kick. Even to this day, whenever David and I grab a beer, I always end up pumping him for anecdotes about Tully Blanchard, Paul Orndorff or Mr. Wrestling II. Anyone who knows me well knows I eat up "road stories," be they from the back of the Buddy Rich Big Band bus or a high school gymnasium on the southern Ohio-West VA wrestling circuit.
Of course, like any writer, I can't be content with just knowing interesting people or hearing great stories. Those long conversations with David ended up impacting my creative life and actually inspired the development of a character in my forthcoming novel Stalking Mule. When David mentioned his involvement with a local independent wrestling association, The UXWA based in Brooklyn, Ohio, I jumped at the chance to help sponsor their latest show on May 16th, meet some of the guys and do a little first-hand research on the world of independent professional wrestling. And that's how I found myself at the Dr. Martin Luther Church in Brooklyn last night, rollicking to some bone-crushing take-downs and hawking copies of Cat & Cat at a vendor table.
One day later, writing this blog entry, I can't help but consider last night one of those unexpected lessons you just stumble across in life. As one of countless unknown struggling writers trying to gain traction, it's impossible to know where or when you may end up meeting potential readers and hopefully making new fans. While libraries, bookstores, cafes and artsy pubs are definitely the lifeblood of any writer looking to be heard, sometimes you need to wander out of the comfort zone and go meet folks outside the standard demographic, Maybe you sell some books, or maybe you don't. That's not the point, really. The Experience is the point, the sound of new voices, the ambiance of hitherto unexplored worlds. Like the noted twentieth-century philosopher Theodor Seuss Geisel once said, "Oh, The Places You'll Go!"
Saturday, May 9, 2015
The Obligatory Cleveland Post-Season Playoff Post
"So why even watch it, then?" My wife is 100% sincere when she asks me this, eyeing me with a mixture of annoyance and concern while I hurl a few choice obscenities at the television, the officials, the opposing team and our own team's lackluster play. It doesn't matter the sport, the season, the year, the players. I've been through this a dozen times since I can remember. They really could win it ALL this year ... They being the Browns, Cavs or Indians. No matter how many times I've explained The Truth before, I always find myself forced to impart my wisdom once more.
God just doesn't hate Cleveland. He/She/It hates me. Period.
On December 27, 1964, Cleveland won its last championship in a REAL sport. (Sorry, all you Hector Marinaro fans. Bush League Soccer doesn't count.) Exactly one month later, January 27, 1965, I was born. As a card-carrying skeptic, I'm not one to believe in curses or supernatural whammies. Except the one where the entire universe and all its forces are poised against me. Somewhere jotted down in the Book of Life, right between the Big Bang and the Apocalypse, is a quick note by the Almighty that reads, "No Cleveland Championships while Mark Kozak is alive."
Look, I've heard all you Pollyannas before. My whole effing life as a matter of fact. From "We've got a lot of young talent" to "Don't worry, we'll come back" to "Wait til next year", I've watched Cleveland fans contort themselves through every permutation of positive thinking in the vain effort to shake a fist at the Iron Will of Divine Providence. Ain't gonna happen, folks. As long as yours truly breathes, Cleveland is destined to come up short time after time after time after time after .. well, you get the picture.
The worst part are the slogans and songs. "Rutigliano's Super Bowl Team," "Bernie Bernie," arrghhhh! Listen, if you go into a Cleveland playoff game armed with banners and bromides, you will have your heart ripped out with the added of privilege of being permitted to see the beating, bloody pulp before you die. Instead of the "All In" or "Witness" gear, how about fitting fans with some good old fashioned hair shirts?
Post Season Sports in Cleveland is not a celebration. It's a penance we all pay for the sin of hope that someday, some way one of our teams will alter ALL natural laws and win a championship. Instead of cheering, we need to be flagellating and scourging ourselves in an effort to extinguish every last vestige of optimism from our sickeningly indomitable spirits. Maybe then, God will take pity on our wretched souls and give us a freaking ring. I mean, hell, we've tried building bullpens, drafting franchise players and bringing in proven genius coaches. Why not try marching en masse around the banks of the Cuyahoga with crosses on our back?
God just doesn't hate Cleveland. He/She/It hates me. Period.
On December 27, 1964, Cleveland won its last championship in a REAL sport. (Sorry, all you Hector Marinaro fans. Bush League Soccer doesn't count.) Exactly one month later, January 27, 1965, I was born. As a card-carrying skeptic, I'm not one to believe in curses or supernatural whammies. Except the one where the entire universe and all its forces are poised against me. Somewhere jotted down in the Book of Life, right between the Big Bang and the Apocalypse, is a quick note by the Almighty that reads, "No Cleveland Championships while Mark Kozak is alive."
Look, I've heard all you Pollyannas before. My whole effing life as a matter of fact. From "We've got a lot of young talent" to "Don't worry, we'll come back" to "Wait til next year", I've watched Cleveland fans contort themselves through every permutation of positive thinking in the vain effort to shake a fist at the Iron Will of Divine Providence. Ain't gonna happen, folks. As long as yours truly breathes, Cleveland is destined to come up short time after time after time after time after .. well, you get the picture.
The worst part are the slogans and songs. "Rutigliano's Super Bowl Team," "Bernie Bernie," arrghhhh! Listen, if you go into a Cleveland playoff game armed with banners and bromides, you will have your heart ripped out with the added of privilege of being permitted to see the beating, bloody pulp before you die. Instead of the "All In" or "Witness" gear, how about fitting fans with some good old fashioned hair shirts?
Post Season Sports in Cleveland is not a celebration. It's a penance we all pay for the sin of hope that someday, some way one of our teams will alter ALL natural laws and win a championship. Instead of cheering, we need to be flagellating and scourging ourselves in an effort to extinguish every last vestige of optimism from our sickeningly indomitable spirits. Maybe then, God will take pity on our wretched souls and give us a freaking ring. I mean, hell, we've tried building bullpens, drafting franchise players and bringing in proven genius coaches. Why not try marching en masse around the banks of the Cuyahoga with crosses on our back?
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Cat & Cat - new hardcover and audio editions; White Picket Jungle and Stalking Mule
All the pieces and funds are finally together for the hard cover version of Cat & Cat. I just put money down at the printers, so there's no turning back now. To everyone who told me, "I can't read ebooks, but I'll buy it when it's a real book," you're all on notice. The hardcover should be available in May, and I'll keep you all posted.
I also have some readings scheduled for the summer, and I'm willing to go pretty much anywhere to hawk the book. So if anyone knows a venue that hosts first-time, self-published authors, please let me know.
Other Cat & Cat news - I'm currently looking into recording an audio version of Cat for those - like me - who prefer listening to fiction. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to attempt the reading myself or find some voice talent for the endeavor. Forthcoming details here, on Facebook, Linked-In & Twitter, and at zakomark.com.
For those awaiting Stalking Mule and my short story collection, White Picket Jungle, I've made real progress on both this week, and I hope to have some more details later this spring. Thank you all for your patience. It goes without saying that finding time to write can be a little difficult when you have a day job and family responsibilities. I'm hoping the warm weather will give me more opportunities to propel these projects forward.
I also have some readings scheduled for the summer, and I'm willing to go pretty much anywhere to hawk the book. So if anyone knows a venue that hosts first-time, self-published authors, please let me know.
Other Cat & Cat news - I'm currently looking into recording an audio version of Cat for those - like me - who prefer listening to fiction. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to attempt the reading myself or find some voice talent for the endeavor. Forthcoming details here, on Facebook, Linked-In & Twitter, and at zakomark.com.
For those awaiting Stalking Mule and my short story collection, White Picket Jungle, I've made real progress on both this week, and I hope to have some more details later this spring. Thank you all for your patience. It goes without saying that finding time to write can be a little difficult when you have a day job and family responsibilities. I'm hoping the warm weather will give me more opportunities to propel these projects forward.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Plagiarism: What It Is and What It Isn't
Okay, after being harangued by dozens of friends and family, I finally listened to Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams' "Blurred Lines" versus Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
I did a quick comparison and found ... this is the most ridiculous plagiarism case victory I've ever encountered. Yes, they sound similar. DUH!!?? So do a lot of other tunes when compared to other tunes in the same vein. But is it plagiarism? Let's dig a little deeper.
First off, I need to confess one thing right off the bat. I know Marvin Gaye's music because it's in my wheelhouse. All I know about Robin Thicke is that he's Alan's kid. Although I may know today's pop artists by name and sight, I never heard "Blurred Lines" until a few days ago. Similarly, I can't identify one Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber or Ariana Grande song; nor do I know ANYTHING current on the pop or country charts unless it's been tastefully redone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-FS96IlOFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgZKAYFU3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VBTH72bS8
When I do listen to rock/pop music (which is often), it's The Guess Who, Paul Simon, Hall & Oates, Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, The Jess Roden Band, Long John Baldry, Billy Joel, Elton John, John Mellencamp, or Nora Jones. Stuff played and sung by musicians that makes musical sense to me. Just so you know my prejudices. You can now judge what follows and trust that I'm not impartial, nor would I ever claim to be. I'm a trained, schooled musician - jazz, classical & rock - descended from three generations of successful professional musicians who all supported their families playing and making music. Yes, that makes me a musical snob. Deal with it.
That being said, I'm not going to bore non-musicians with a bunch of talk about chord progressions, bass lines, drum beats, etc. All I'm going to say here is that musical elements ARE NOT copyrightable (yes, that's a word) in and of themselves. Take the "Bo Diddly Beat" for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeZHB3ozglQ
Now listen to Buddy Holly and Blues Project use the same beat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyTtFNGzFsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3zDatgVo4
If musical motives like this were subject to copyright, then over 50% of classical, jazz, rock & pop music would be in violation of plagiarism laws. So now, as a service to anyone interested, let me present a brief overview of what constitutes musical plagiarism (IMHO), and what doesn't.
The Doors "Hello, I Love You" vs. The Kinks "All Day & All of the Night"
Listen for yourself and join me back here when you're done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM71scYw0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMWNwHof0kc
And here's a mash up that pretty much makes it so clear a child can understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSPQFD4FzZQ
Despite Robby Krieger's protestations to the contrary, I have to believe Jim & The Doors knew they were on thin ice here, British courts sure thought so, which is why UK royalties for "Hello" are paid to Ray Davies & the Kinks. My verdict? This case is dicey. Similar? Hell yes! Especially when compared to "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up." But, honestly, "Hello" & "All Day" are different despite the obvious common elements.
The Romantics "What I Like About You" vs. John Mellencamp's "R.O.C.K. In the USA" vs. John Cafferty's "On The Dark Side vs. Neil Diamond's "Cherry, Cherry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqnw5IfbZOU - Romantics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQrAKhg-4c - John Mellencamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQ-6IAS1cc - John Cafferty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlcuAsgc5-c - Neil Diamond
Anyone with even a tin ear knows these songs are essentially the same. They all even use the same clap on the off-beat against the the guitar riff. Bar bands have been mixing and matching and mashing up various elements of these tunes for decades. Just search Youtube and you'll even find Lady Antebellum poking fun at their audience with this inside musical joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jumv9vmxe6Y . Once again, these songs are all waaaay closer to one another than "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up." But no one ever sues over a riff, just like they don't sue over chord progressions. And that leads me into jazz and classical music.
A big part of be-bop music rests in taking standard chord changes, such as found in tunes like "I Got Rhythm" and "How High The Moon," and then writing new melodies over the progressions:
"I Got Rhythm": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-cej-5dkc0
"Rhythm-A-Ning": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Di_mswqhLU
"How High the Moon": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Ji4uG4cac
"Ornithology": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LphuCadyQi0
To non-musicians, "Rhythm-A-Ning" probably sounds completely different when compared to "I Got Rhythm," the same way "Ornithology" seems like a different tune than "How High The Moon." But to jazz musicians playing these tunes, they are infinitely more identical than "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up"; so much so that early be-boppers got in a lot of trouble lifting standard chord-lines, applying new melodies and crediting themselves as composers. If you still don't hear how "How High The Moon" is "Ornithology," I'll just let Professor Benny Golson demonstrate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq0MuQQLoG8
Play the tunes at the same time, and they layer over each other perfectly.
Plagiarism? HELL NO. You may as well accuse Mozart of ripping off Haydn, and then Beethoven for plagiarizing both of them. Or any other classical composers for taking folk melodies or popular arias and reconstituting them in their own symphonies, concerti or tone poems. Musical elements are like colors in a painter's pallet. It's what you do with them that defines whether you are creating something new (even if it is derivative) or just copying or mimicking.
So what, then, is musical plagiarism? My best case is actually hypothetical. What if Weird Al Yankovich recorded "Eat It" or "Another One Rides the Bus" or "White & Nerdy" and didn't credit Michael Jackson, Queen or Chamillionaire respectively. THAT WOULD BE PLAGIARISM. If you want a real example of real plagiarism, I'll point to Robert Van Winkle's direct lift of the bass line from David Bowie's "Under Pressure", adding a quick grace note while keeping the accompanying piano chords for the intro to "Ice Ice, Baby."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk6NhjD3Dbg
I understand I'm on shaky ground here because "Ice Ice" is a completely different song than "Under Pressure." But since I've already confessed to my prejudices above, I guess you'll just have to consider the source.
What you shouldn't have to consider is whether Thicke & Williams' "Blurred Lines" plagiarized Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." They didn't. Just like countless bands who've written tunes over the Bo Diddly Beat (see above), they lifted a "feel" - a drum beat and a similar bass pattern. The chord progressions are distinctly different, however. Listen to them again now in light of what we've just explored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
Do they sound similar? Sure they do. But now that we've reviewed songs that really are more identical, can you hear that "Blurred Lines" was NOT PLAGIARIZED. Thicke and Williams are hacks I wouldn't cross the street to hear for free. But they're not .. I repeat NOT plagiarists. Obviously, however, I must not know what I'm talking about because a jury of their peers heard the case and sided against them.
A jury of their peers? Really? Thicke and Williams may be devoid of any real talent (IMHO), but they're still working song writers and performers. So a true jury of their peers wouldn't consist of convenience store clerks or accountants, but rather other working song writers and performers. You may as well have retail clerks and salesmen judging whether two rival nuclear physicists violated a patent on a super-collider. Hell, I'm even 100% confident Marvin Gaye himself would have laughed at the idea that Willams and Thicke plagiarized him. I know Marvin's music, and he let his influences seep into his songs all the time. It's called music. Like it, hate it, ignore it, it doesn't change what it is and isn't. And "Blurred Lines" isn't "Got To Give It Up," at least not in any universe where I reside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
I did a quick comparison and found ... this is the most ridiculous plagiarism case victory I've ever encountered. Yes, they sound similar. DUH!!?? So do a lot of other tunes when compared to other tunes in the same vein. But is it plagiarism? Let's dig a little deeper.
First off, I need to confess one thing right off the bat. I know Marvin Gaye's music because it's in my wheelhouse. All I know about Robin Thicke is that he's Alan's kid. Although I may know today's pop artists by name and sight, I never heard "Blurred Lines" until a few days ago. Similarly, I can't identify one Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber or Ariana Grande song; nor do I know ANYTHING current on the pop or country charts unless it's been tastefully redone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-FS96IlOFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgZKAYFU3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VBTH72bS8
When I do listen to rock/pop music (which is often), it's The Guess Who, Paul Simon, Hall & Oates, Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, The Jess Roden Band, Long John Baldry, Billy Joel, Elton John, John Mellencamp, or Nora Jones. Stuff played and sung by musicians that makes musical sense to me. Just so you know my prejudices. You can now judge what follows and trust that I'm not impartial, nor would I ever claim to be. I'm a trained, schooled musician - jazz, classical & rock - descended from three generations of successful professional musicians who all supported their families playing and making music. Yes, that makes me a musical snob. Deal with it.
That being said, I'm not going to bore non-musicians with a bunch of talk about chord progressions, bass lines, drum beats, etc. All I'm going to say here is that musical elements ARE NOT copyrightable (yes, that's a word) in and of themselves. Take the "Bo Diddly Beat" for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeZHB3ozglQ
Now listen to Buddy Holly and Blues Project use the same beat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyTtFNGzFsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3zDatgVo4
If musical motives like this were subject to copyright, then over 50% of classical, jazz, rock & pop music would be in violation of plagiarism laws. So now, as a service to anyone interested, let me present a brief overview of what constitutes musical plagiarism (IMHO), and what doesn't.
The Doors "Hello, I Love You" vs. The Kinks "All Day & All of the Night"
Listen for yourself and join me back here when you're done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM71scYw0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMWNwHof0kc
And here's a mash up that pretty much makes it so clear a child can understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSPQFD4FzZQ
Despite Robby Krieger's protestations to the contrary, I have to believe Jim & The Doors knew they were on thin ice here, British courts sure thought so, which is why UK royalties for "Hello" are paid to Ray Davies & the Kinks. My verdict? This case is dicey. Similar? Hell yes! Especially when compared to "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up." But, honestly, "Hello" & "All Day" are different despite the obvious common elements.
The Romantics "What I Like About You" vs. John Mellencamp's "R.O.C.K. In the USA" vs. John Cafferty's "On The Dark Side vs. Neil Diamond's "Cherry, Cherry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqnw5IfbZOU - Romantics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQrAKhg-4c - John Mellencamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQ-6IAS1cc - John Cafferty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlcuAsgc5-c - Neil Diamond
Anyone with even a tin ear knows these songs are essentially the same. They all even use the same clap on the off-beat against the the guitar riff. Bar bands have been mixing and matching and mashing up various elements of these tunes for decades. Just search Youtube and you'll even find Lady Antebellum poking fun at their audience with this inside musical joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jumv9vmxe6Y . Once again, these songs are all waaaay closer to one another than "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up." But no one ever sues over a riff, just like they don't sue over chord progressions. And that leads me into jazz and classical music.
A big part of be-bop music rests in taking standard chord changes, such as found in tunes like "I Got Rhythm" and "How High The Moon," and then writing new melodies over the progressions:
"I Got Rhythm": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-cej-5dkc0
"Rhythm-A-Ning": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Di_mswqhLU
"How High the Moon": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Ji4uG4cac
"Ornithology": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LphuCadyQi0
To non-musicians, "Rhythm-A-Ning" probably sounds completely different when compared to "I Got Rhythm," the same way "Ornithology" seems like a different tune than "How High The Moon." But to jazz musicians playing these tunes, they are infinitely more identical than "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up"; so much so that early be-boppers got in a lot of trouble lifting standard chord-lines, applying new melodies and crediting themselves as composers. If you still don't hear how "How High The Moon" is "Ornithology," I'll just let Professor Benny Golson demonstrate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq0MuQQLoG8
Play the tunes at the same time, and they layer over each other perfectly.
Plagiarism? HELL NO. You may as well accuse Mozart of ripping off Haydn, and then Beethoven for plagiarizing both of them. Or any other classical composers for taking folk melodies or popular arias and reconstituting them in their own symphonies, concerti or tone poems. Musical elements are like colors in a painter's pallet. It's what you do with them that defines whether you are creating something new (even if it is derivative) or just copying or mimicking.
So what, then, is musical plagiarism? My best case is actually hypothetical. What if Weird Al Yankovich recorded "Eat It" or "Another One Rides the Bus" or "White & Nerdy" and didn't credit Michael Jackson, Queen or Chamillionaire respectively. THAT WOULD BE PLAGIARISM. If you want a real example of real plagiarism, I'll point to Robert Van Winkle's direct lift of the bass line from David Bowie's "Under Pressure", adding a quick grace note while keeping the accompanying piano chords for the intro to "Ice Ice, Baby."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk6NhjD3Dbg
I understand I'm on shaky ground here because "Ice Ice" is a completely different song than "Under Pressure." But since I've already confessed to my prejudices above, I guess you'll just have to consider the source.
What you shouldn't have to consider is whether Thicke & Williams' "Blurred Lines" plagiarized Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." They didn't. Just like countless bands who've written tunes over the Bo Diddly Beat (see above), they lifted a "feel" - a drum beat and a similar bass pattern. The chord progressions are distinctly different, however. Listen to them again now in light of what we've just explored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
Do they sound similar? Sure they do. But now that we've reviewed songs that really are more identical, can you hear that "Blurred Lines" was NOT PLAGIARIZED. Thicke and Williams are hacks I wouldn't cross the street to hear for free. But they're not .. I repeat NOT plagiarists. Obviously, however, I must not know what I'm talking about because a jury of their peers heard the case and sided against them.
A jury of their peers? Really? Thicke and Williams may be devoid of any real talent (IMHO), but they're still working song writers and performers. So a true jury of their peers wouldn't consist of convenience store clerks or accountants, but rather other working song writers and performers. You may as well have retail clerks and salesmen judging whether two rival nuclear physicists violated a patent on a super-collider. Hell, I'm even 100% confident Marvin Gaye himself would have laughed at the idea that Willams and Thicke plagiarized him. I know Marvin's music, and he let his influences seep into his songs all the time. It's called music. Like it, hate it, ignore it, it doesn't change what it is and isn't. And "Blurred Lines" isn't "Got To Give It Up," at least not in any universe where I reside.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
From my Scribd Library - Slender Man - 34 Most Asked Questions on Slender Man by Walter Rodriguez
The Cy-buran Legend of the Slender Man or Slenderman (SM) is one of the most fascinating, original subcultures spawned from the internet. I myself was a typical goon lurking and occasionally posting on the forums at somethingawful.com when SM first appeared in a somewhat random post by fellow goon Victor Surge (aka Eric Knudsen).
The concept behind SM was simple enough. Surge created a skinny, tentacled, faceless ghoul, inserted him in various news stories and photographs, and created a fictitious folkloric history akin to the Vanishing Hitchhiker, Hook Man or Bloody Mary. I found the meme amusing and many of the subsequent SM tales spun by other goons (called creepypasta) to be creative and amusing. To be honest, though, I never really considered SM groundbreaking or revolutionary. Imagine my surprise, then, when I started reading news accounts detailing violent crimes and eventually an attempted murder committed in the name of Slender Man.
Since encountering these horror stories come to life, I've felt the need for a definitive scholarly study of the Slender Man meme-omenon, one that addresses not only his whimsical origins but his collaborative, ad hoc development and unique stature as the first true internet-created folk legend. Unfortunately, Walter Rodriguez's poorly conceived, barely intelligible effort isn't the book the world is waiting for. https://www.scribd.com/book/246753839/Slender-Man-34-Success-Secrets-34-Most-Asked-Questions-On-Slender-Man-What-You-Need-To-Know Only my fascination with SM allowed me to choke down prose that isn't even lucid enough to be deemed turgid. In fact, Rodriguez's relentless abuse of grammar, vocabulary and punctuation makes me question whether he speaks English as a second or even a third language:
"Professor Sira Chess of the University of Georgia has marked that the Slender Man exemplifies the resemblances amid customary legends and the open origin ethos of the Internet, and that, dissimilar these of customary monsters such like lamias and werewolf/werewolves, the Slender Man's Mythos may be followed and signposted, assigning a strong perceptiveness in to in what way legend and legends shape."
If you can read and comprehend the above passage, then you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. My eyes start glazing over by the time I reach the phrase "open origin ethos."
Look, I'm not a jerk. I understand that my above critique may strike many as snarky and downright cruel. I myself hesitated before clicking PUBLISH. However, I feel not only compelled but justified in my criticism seeing as I actually endured every word of Rodriguez's book.
All writers owe it to themselves and any potential readers to at least present a clean, edited copy for consideration. Had Rodriguez collaborated or consulted with a writer or editor, the information he presents may have actually added to the understanding of Slenderman and this new breed of folklore - the oral tradition gone viral. Instead we are left with a muddled and missed opportunity to shed light on this newest, darkest aspect of the modern myth-making.
For those of you piqued to investigate Slender man further, I can point you to Wikipedia :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man :: and numerous other web entries involving the attempted murder of twelve-year-old Payton Leutner, e.g. http://www.people.com/article/slender-man-stabbing-suspects-speak-interrogation-videos . As for me, I'm going to keep scouring online resources until I find a scholarly study worthy or my time and hard-earned disposable income.
The concept behind SM was simple enough. Surge created a skinny, tentacled, faceless ghoul, inserted him in various news stories and photographs, and created a fictitious folkloric history akin to the Vanishing Hitchhiker, Hook Man or Bloody Mary. I found the meme amusing and many of the subsequent SM tales spun by other goons (called creepypasta) to be creative and amusing. To be honest, though, I never really considered SM groundbreaking or revolutionary. Imagine my surprise, then, when I started reading news accounts detailing violent crimes and eventually an attempted murder committed in the name of Slender Man.
Since encountering these horror stories come to life, I've felt the need for a definitive scholarly study of the Slender Man meme-omenon, one that addresses not only his whimsical origins but his collaborative, ad hoc development and unique stature as the first true internet-created folk legend. Unfortunately, Walter Rodriguez's poorly conceived, barely intelligible effort isn't the book the world is waiting for. https://www.scribd.com/book/246753839/Slender-Man-34-Success-Secrets-34-Most-Asked-Questions-On-Slender-Man-What-You-Need-To-Know Only my fascination with SM allowed me to choke down prose that isn't even lucid enough to be deemed turgid. In fact, Rodriguez's relentless abuse of grammar, vocabulary and punctuation makes me question whether he speaks English as a second or even a third language:
"Professor Sira Chess of the University of Georgia has marked that the Slender Man exemplifies the resemblances amid customary legends and the open origin ethos of the Internet, and that, dissimilar these of customary monsters such like lamias and werewolf/werewolves, the Slender Man's Mythos may be followed and signposted, assigning a strong perceptiveness in to in what way legend and legends shape."
If you can read and comprehend the above passage, then you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. My eyes start glazing over by the time I reach the phrase "open origin ethos."
Look, I'm not a jerk. I understand that my above critique may strike many as snarky and downright cruel. I myself hesitated before clicking PUBLISH. However, I feel not only compelled but justified in my criticism seeing as I actually endured every word of Rodriguez's book.
All writers owe it to themselves and any potential readers to at least present a clean, edited copy for consideration. Had Rodriguez collaborated or consulted with a writer or editor, the information he presents may have actually added to the understanding of Slenderman and this new breed of folklore - the oral tradition gone viral. Instead we are left with a muddled and missed opportunity to shed light on this newest, darkest aspect of the modern myth-making.
For those of you piqued to investigate Slender man further, I can point you to Wikipedia :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man :: and numerous other web entries involving the attempted murder of twelve-year-old Payton Leutner, e.g. http://www.people.com/article/slender-man-stabbing-suspects-speak-interrogation-videos . As for me, I'm going to keep scouring online resources until I find a scholarly study worthy or my time and hard-earned disposable income.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)