Dr. Metablog

Dr. Metablog is the nom de blague of Vivian de St. Vrain, the pen name of a resident of the mountain west who writes about language, books, politics, or whatever else comes to mind. Under the name Otto Onions (Oh NIGH uns), Vivian de St. Vrain is the author of “The Big Book of False Etymologies” (Oxford, 1978) and, writing as Amber Feldhammer, is editor of the classic anthology of confessional poetry, “My Underwear” (Virago, 1997).

DR. METABLOG’S
GREATEST HITS


  • A Cinematic Dream

    I was in the midst of the usual noir "can't-find-my-way" dream when all at once, without warning, the scene and the genre changed. Suddenly I was in technicolor John Ford territory, holding on for dear life to the cow-catcher of an 1880s railroad engine. Three central-casting bad guys — all whiskers and black hats –were shooting at me with their pistols. Familiar with what's expected such films, I responded by drawing my own Colt 45– and plugged two of them. But the third kept coming, zombie-style, even though I nailed him several times. I was scared.  

    Apparently I was rattling around, because just as I decided that I'd better shoot him between the eyes and be done with it, my faithful bedmate woke me up.  End of dream; what a relief.  

    I must be watching too many Westerns.

    It's fascinating that the material of this dream is not drawn from the events of my "real life," but rather from fiction (in this case, the movies). Have I incorporated such fictions into the deepest layers of my unconscious, from which dreams are supposedly drawn?  

    On the other hand, my watching and absorbing a film is a "real life" event.  

    I can't remember any film in which a character clings to the cow-catcher. Did I invent such an event?  Or just extrapolate it from various western films?

    I should mention that I experienced the dream not in ordinary colors but in the brilliant artificial color of old-fashioned garish Technicolor.

  • I first heard the word "spatchcock" at a Thanksgiving celebration some four or five years ago. The turkey, I was told, had been "spatchcocked." To be absolutely honest, I thought someone was pulling my leg. To my pure and undefiled ears, the word "spatchcock" sounded more than a little obscene. Certainly not something that a civilized person would do to a turkey. Or even to a fellow human being. I admit that I was puzzled: what sort of perverse activity is implied by "spatchcock." And just who would be the spatchcocker and who the spatchcockee?

    But further investigation revealed that "spatchcock" is not a dirty joke nor even a slangy neologism. The word has an eighteenth-century origin and it's not sexual but culinary: "to cut poultry along the spine and spread the halves apart for more even cooking when grilled." Moreover, the word "spatchcock," believe it or not, has a sibling of its own: "spitchcock": "to split an eel along the back and then broil it." So spatchcock and spitchcock, yet as far as I know, no "spotchcock" or "sputchcock"– but why not?  Lots of other land and sea beasts out there to de-spine and roast over an open fire. Spatchcocking, the process, probably dates back to the neolithic, after the taming of fire and long before anyone thought to call it by such a silly name.   

    Etymology?  Though there are theories, I'm going to stick with "origin unknown." The common answer is that the word is "shorthand  for 'dispatching the cock.'" An undocumented, out-of-left-field guess, in my opinion. If I were to propose a theory, I would say that the "cock" must be a version of  "cook." I'm not prepared to venture a guess about the spatch. A mystery, unrecoverable. Perhaps a humorous coinage?

    I'd hypothesize that "cock" might be related to the second part of common surnames such as Hancock, Adcock, Babcock, Hitchcock or Wilcox. Some say that the cock in these names is a hypocoristic suffix "applied to a young lad who strutted proudly like a cock." I'm skeptical. More credible, once again, is "cook." Hancock is Johan the cook, Adcock is Adam the cook, Hitchcock is Richard (Rich, Hich) the cook, and so on.

    The ever-unpredictable Urban Dictionary provides another meaning for "spatchcock": "when you intentionally rub your backpack on a nearby stranger's genitals in an effort to sexually arouse them." What can I say?  Only that I've lived a long life and have never given a single thought to the erotic potential of the backpack. Nor have I ever been spatchcocked either in the traditional culinary nor the speculative contemporary sexual sense of the word (thanks be to all the gods in the pantheon!)

    Other words of my life:

    slouch,

    cishet,

    yips

    ramps

    jot and tittle

    worship

    mucilage.

     

     

  • We watched the 1969 western, Rio Bravo, and were crushed with disappointment. How could a film with such famous actors, directed by Howard Hawks (Red River 1948), amount to such piffle?  We could not restrain ourselves from jeering at its flagrant, grotesque failings. A thin, cliched plot, pieced out with obvious meaningless padding. Incoherent, contradictory notions and "themes." An unconscionable reveling in mass slaughter — the bodies of Nathan Burdette's gang falling as thickly as the leaves in Vallombrosa. We adjudicated what seemed like a contest: who is a worse actor, Dean Martin or Ricky Nelson?  (Martin plays a drunken former gunfighter (named Dude!!) whose shaky hands can only be stilled when the Mexican band plays his favorite tune!!! Honest to goodness!!) Nelson is a ridiculously young hotshot gunslinger who would have been better off staying home drinking his afternoon milk and cookies under the supervision of Ozzie and Harriet. 

    We hooted, I'm sorry to say, when impassive reluctant John Wayne kissed Angie Dickinson with all the passion of a man sucking on moldy lemons. We were offended by the racist caricatures of the Mexican innkeepers. And we guffawed when the film allowed both Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson to burst into song — utterly violating their screen characters but perhaps throwing a sorry bone to the ticket-buying audience. (Allow me to confess that we fast-forwarded through the musical interlude.) The irrelevant crooning lost the film any remaining pretense or shred of integrity.

    In short, here was a film that had no reason for being, or so we thought. A travesty, a mere catchpenny.

    Baffled, we turned to the internet for the story. Because there had to be a story. 

    And now comes the surprise. Rio Bravo was the second highest ranking western in the 2012 Sight and Sound critics' poll. Robin Wood, a generally trustworthy critic and the man who wrote the book on Howard Hawks, rated it as his top film of all time. What's going on here? We though the film was ludicrous and embarrassing; others think very differently. Are we completely out of touch? Are we nuts, intolerant. Has our taste been vitiated by age and mental decay? Are there beauties hidden the film that are sufficiently subtle that our grosser intellects could not detect them?  Or does this would-be emperor of a film lack clothes and the critics and journals and the tomatoes are all blinded and deceived.

    And now comes some more internet info, which may or may not explain the opposing views of us and them. 

    "The film was made as a response to High Noon," says Wikipedia. Why? Because High Noon was thought to be a leftist movie, an allegory for Hollywood blacklisting, as well as a critique of McCarthyism. John Wayne called High Noon "un-American." (I've always thought of it as quintessentially American;  what could possibly be more American than a Quaker's turn to violence, as when Amy Kane picks us a rifle and shoots one of Frank MIller's kin. And especially when that turn to violence is portrayed as a step toward a higher morality.

    I'm wondering whether the folks who praise Rio Bravo like it not for aesthetic but for political reasons. I'm suspicious.

    Next step: get my hands on Robin Wood's book on Howard Hawks. Stay tuned, Metablogians.

  • When I get older losing my mind
    Just a few years from now
    Will you still be sending me a Valentine
    Birthday greetings bottle of wine

    If I'd been out till quarter to nine
    Would you lock the door
    Will you still need me, or will you need to feed me
    When I'm ninety-four.
     
    You'll be ancient too
    And if you remember me, 
    I could stay with you.
     
    I could be handy, sorting your pills, 
    When your brains have gone
    You can watch the tv by the fireside
    Sunday mornings wheel in the sun. 
    Sit in the garden, watching the weeds,  
    Who could ask for more
    Will you still need me, or will you need to feed me, 
    When I'm ninety-four.
     
    Yours sincerely, wasting away.
  • Max had a long love affair with New Orleans, and he loved to initiate his friends into the city's splendors and secrets. We were beneficiaries of his generosity. It was because of "mad Max" that we enjoyed a series of winter visits to the crescent city. He was a splendid enthusiastic guide as well as a great character, with a touch of Falstaff about him: charm, flaws, girth.

    For me, it was a late-onset friendship, but Lynn had known Max from the 60s, from her Baltimore days, when Max was a doctoral student in biology at Hopkins. The two of them reconnected five years ago when Max invited Lynn (and me) to stay for a month in an apartment in his rental house in the Garden District. How could we decline such an offer? His house, alas, turned out to be virtually uninhabitable, with holes in the walls and floors that let in the light, the wind and rain, and the critters. There was a pungent smell of decay and a tilted bathroom that seemed about to plunge deep into the earth. Lynn was not fazed: "I lived in Africa."  Max was only mildly apologetic. We made do.

    In subsequent trips to New Orleans we took the precaution of renting a BNB.

    But we often visited Max at his place in an apartment house on St. Charles. Max owned two adjacent apartments. He connected them by busting through the wallboard with a sledge hammer. Two kitchens, therefore, both, shall we say, far from immaculate.

    A serious and knowledgeable cinephile, Max sponsored a monthly film series in his home. His screen had to be angled sharply to find a place amidst the clutter, distributed among which was an exquisite collection of contemporary American pottery. (Max was a widower; his sometime ladyfriend was a very accomplished potter). 

    Max squired us about town, introducing us to both famous and out-of-the-way restaurants. He was quite a sight, squeezing his 5' 4" and 300 pound frame into a small sports car. He loved Adolfo's, right across the street from Snug, because the food was excellent and the portions were enormous.

    As much as he loved his dinner, he also loved the south Louisiana vegetation; a walk with Max was a learned lecture on the local plant life.

    Would we have discovered either Angelo Brocato's or the Creole Creamery without his guidance? 

    I don't know what eventually killed him last August.  It could have been any one of his many ailments; he was not healthy and was often in pain. We'll miss him.

    Max and I shared a birthday; he was exactly one year older than I. So his death is another memento mori. As if I needed another reminder.

  • In Praise of Hands

    A few weeks ago, I found myself absentmindedly working in the perennial garden. I had wandered nearby and noted some weeds that needed emergency extirpation. I had therefore arrived without my usual trine of implements — the dandelion puller, the hand shovel, and the Felco #2. Too lazy to fetch them, I began to tend to the plants toollessly and at the same time to muse upon effectiveness of hands alone. (Weeding often leads to musing, as every weeder knows.)  Is it not the case that the best tool of all is the human hand?  Because my garden soil is so friable, I was able to dig into the earth with my unaided index finger, grasp the roots of weeds and pull them. I wondered how the hand had come to so sensitive to small changes in soil temperature or soil moisture. Sensitive also, to the texture of things, so that I could identify the roots of witch grass, and remove them, while leaving untouched the very similar but different roots of the day lilies. For no good reason, my wayward mind wandered to the Houyhnhnms whom Gulliver outrageously claimed could grasp a needle between fetlock and pastern in order to sew garments. Amusing but impossible. The hooves of horses are wonderfully evolved for galloping but not for tatting or crocheting. Besides, why would a horse want to darn a sock? 

    Our hands are superior implements  There's not another animal on the planet that can tie its own shoelaces. 

    I've just read a fascinating book by paleontologist Madelaine Bohme called Ancient Bones. Bohme is concerned to argue that the "out of Africa" hypothesis needs modification. I am not knowledgeable enough to accept or deny her thesis, but I much appreciate her effort to bring me up to date about the evolution of our species, which is much more complicated — infinitely more complicated — than the story we were told just a generation ago.

    Bohme includes a couple of speculative pages about the evolution of the hand. First came bipedalism, freeing the hands for a variety of new tasks. Bohme thinks that the development of stone tools and the development of hands went, so to speak, hand in hand. The need to hold the tool meant that the hand evolved to hold it properly — with an opposable thumb of course. More sensitive fingers conferred an evolutionary advantage. More information from the fingers caused the somatosensory cortex, which controls the hands, to enlarge and process more sensations.

    So now we can play the piano, thread a needle, throw a ball, type a letter, weed a garden, and perform a thousand other tasks that even chimpanzees, who apparently do not have great sensory input from their fingers, cannot do.

    Bohme does not discuss the role of hands in human communication, either everyday or erotic.  A topic for another book, perhaps.

  • Trophy Homes

    Among my circle of friends, it is a shameful thing to be called "house proud." It's a term to be avoided, even shunned. It's competitive and flaunts the wrong values. Conspicuous consumption. Vanity. "I own a bigger house than you, and therefore I'm a better person than you."  "House pride" is a very badddd feeling of the human heart. So therefore I was astonished when I opened a new edition of Luxury Home Magazine (which should be called Conspicuous Consumption Quarterly) to discover that in this publication shameless vanity is now not implied, hinted at, or disguised, but flaunted. The magazine's reiterated theme: "Make your friends envy your trophy home." It says so in so many words!  Gasp!

    And indeed, from the pictures and descriptions of these homes, it's clear that the advertised trophies are not designed o live in, but rather to let their owners wow their friends and demonstrate how wealthy (and wasteful) they can be.

    Does anyone actually require a 15,000 square feet house with three kitchens, even if one of them is outdoors. "Main kitchen boasts two islands, multiple refrigerators, freezers and sinks." And a wine cooler (in addition to the wine cellar). "Five beds, eight baths, seven fireplaces?" "Massive vaulted ceilings with a towering three sided stone chimney?" Also, a "luxurious soaking tub, double-headed shower, and makeup vanity?" Two "indoor-outdoor pools?" An elevator from the basement to the widow's walk?  "Large tiered media room." Game room. Basketball court. A putting green. Five oversized garages with 20 foot windows? 

    Also, "breathability," whatever that is.

    I'm embarrassed that I'm on the Luxury Homes' mailing list and I'm embarrassed, once again, to be a member of the species homo sapiens.

    My advice to readers whose mouths water when they yearn for a trophy home: "enough is as good as a feast."

  • What’s On My Mind

    Disease, dying and death, I'm afraid. During the last month or so, the cohort of friends with whom I've gone through life has been suffering major losses. BD, a friend of more than forty years standing, has just breathed his last. AM, whom I know from the PS 217 schoolyard, is suffering from cancer of the esophagus, now described as terminal. M has ALS and can no longer move or speak. LW suffered a bad stroke some while ago and is now in "assisted living." JP has gone from robust to frail in a few months and has been moved to a "memory care" unit. And others.

    I've taken to reading the obits. Every week the name of a former colleague or a friend of a friend shows up. Inevitable, you say. But distressing nevertheless.

    I'm healthy, but I'm old, long past my expiration date. I know that one of these days it will be my turn with the doctors and the hospitals. Too bad, because after some difficult years, I'm enjoying life to the full once again.

    My grandmother, then in her upper 80s, said to youthful me, "I don't like being old. But what are my choices?"

  • Baseball Vocabulary

    I grew up in a baseball-saturated world. The radio voices of Red Barber and Connie Desmond were the water in which I and my family and my neighbors swum. It was therefore natural that I early absorbed the vocabulary of baseball and that many words carried baseball meaning to me long before I recognized their alternative and larger existence.

    For example, as a boy, I encountered the word "mound." It signified, and signified only, a pitcher's mound — the ten inches of sand and clay from which a pitcher throws a ball. I had no idea that mounds could exist in nature or indeed, could exist anywhere outside of a stadium, there being no mounds on Coney Island Avenue, or, at least, none that I recognized as such.

    And then there was the word "pitcher." If someone had said to me, in the 1940s, that "little pitchers had big ears," I might have thought of Preacher Roe, but I would have had no idea that there was such an object as a pitcher for water or other liquid. A pitcher was not jug, ewer, or crock — it was a man standing on a rubber fooling a batter with a slow curve.

    Standing on a "rubber?" Yet another word that had a specific baseball meaning, years before it became an eraser or a galosh or a condom.

    Similarly, a "streak" was not a gash of color until many years after it was a winning streak or a losing streak or batting streak. A "dugout" was not a canoe, not in my corner of the universe.  Nor was a "rally" a political meeting or protest. A rally would never have led to a "strike" — a word which I knew only as one of the allotted three. "Battery?" A team of pitcher and catcher, not something of military or electrical storage interest.

    And then there were the plethora, the fountain of lovely words peculiar to baseball, like "shortstop" and "blooper." 

    Inning was exclusively a baseballism. Not so "outing" which was in my childhood a pitcher's stint on the mound, and which only later became a picnic (or, even later, an involuntary revelation of someone's sexual inclinations). 

    October 24:  How could I fail to include "pennant." When did I learn that a pennant was a kind of triangular flag?  Not in the 1940s (or even 50s).

  • Best Garden Advice

    I read a story in an "art of gardening" book many years ago that I will repeat here. A famous Japanese gardener, a "national treasure," was asked, "What's the secret of making a garden as beautiful as yours?" He didn't answer in words but lifted his arms and made a shearing or lopping motion. 

    Many years ago, I asked Roy Huse, who had a most wonderful vegetable garden at the foot of South Road how he did it.  He said, and I quote verbatim, "you really got to put the shit to it."

    And from my father: "it's all about preparing the bed before you plant."

    So, don't skimp on getting the bed ready, add plenty of manure, and be ruthless about cutting things out.

    And o yes, you'll need sun and water.

  • Sore Loser

    I learned what was wrong and bad in the P S 217 schoolyard. At our corner of the world, where Coney Island Avenue crossed Newkirk, the guy at the bottom of the moral barrel was the "sore loser." He was the guy who, when he missed an easy layup, always claimed, against the evidence, that he had been fouled. And when he lost a game, he picked up his basketball and took it home — in order to prevent the rest of us from continuing to play. He was always whining, always complaining, always wronged. An unpleasant member of the community, disliked by most, hated by some, loathed by a few. A disruptive presence, only tolerated because he was rich enough to own the basketball or the baseball bat. 

    No question but that the greatest sore loser in the history of the planet is our former president. What a pathetic whiner! He lost fair and square but he can't admit it, so instead he claims a nonexistent foul, or a series of fouls. He's out to change the rules to give himself the advantage. And he's willing to mess up the entire game if he doesn't get his way. 

    He wouldn't have gotten the least smidgeon of respect in 217 schoolyard. 

    What's wrong with the people who still support him? What are they thinking? How come they can't recognize him for what he is? 

    Sore Loser.

  • Cishet

    We watched a Netflix series called Feel Good. I suppose that the series title must be taken ironically, because throughout the first two seasons, not one character seemed to feel even slightly positive or healthy. Just about everyone was miserable — their unhappiness usually linked to romantic or more specifically sexual dissatisfaction. The program introduced many more eccentric varieties of coupling and frustration than I, a vanilla heterosexual, would have imagined. The main character, Mae Martin, played by Mae Martin, is a boyish lesbian; her on-again, off again affair with a womanly young lady is the focus of the story. Lots of obstacles both personal and social stand between the two women and the achievement of genuine happiness. Let's hope that they can figure it all out and find love at long last — or at least by the end of Season 3. 

    There was one scene that I found to be particularly curious and troublesome. A group of teachers assemble for a meeting, but before taking up business, every one of the participants reveals or defines his or her own sexuality. One young woman, surely the least glamorous of the set, refers to herself as "cishet." I didn't catch the word as spoken but fortunately we had the subtitles engaged and I was able to read the word, although in reading I pronounced it to myself as if the sh were a digraph for the lingual palatal fricative as in shut or shun. But I investigated the new word "cishet" — and sure enough it exists and has become a feature of our contemporary culture. It's "cis" as opposed to "trans" which means not "across" but "this side" — as the Romans referred to Gaul as either cisalpine and transalpine. In this coinage, "cis" refer to a person who accepts the gender designation assigned at birth by the appearance of one's genitals. "Het" is simply a truncation of heterosexual." "Cishet" therefore means someone who is unambiguously either male or female and is attracted to persons of the opposite sex.

    Wow, that's me. After all these years of just thinking I was an ordinary guy, I now discover that I have a designation. I have a community, at tribe, perhaps even an interest group. Hey, I belong,

    But I think that it's mighty odd and even oppressive that members of a school community, or any community, would feel that it is necessary or advisable to announce their gender classification before getting down to the business of the day. Shouldn't such information be allowed to remain private. If I want to be cishet, it's nobody's business but my own. But perhaps such formal revelations don't happen in real life — only in satirical TV series. I sure hope so. 

    Not so for Mae Martin, the first paragraph of whose biography reads "Mae Martin is a Canadian-born comedian, actor, and writer based in England. They wrote and starred in the Netflix comedy series Feel Good." So it appears that "she" is a "they" which in current modish jargon doesn't mean that she's plural but signifies that she feels inadequately represented by the simple and specific feminine pronoun. I can understand her motive, but frankly "they" confuses me and sticks in my ear. I appreciate its value as a statement of resistance to the "hetoro-normative" — but by golly "they" sure throws a spanner into the grammatico-normative works. It would be good if English had a set of singular pronouns that are as gender indistinct as "they," but it doesn't, and to hijack the plural "they" and turn it into a singular is an awkward and I hope ephemeral innovation.  

    Sometimes I receive communications from people who are much more up to date than dear old dad — letters that are signed in the traditional way but to which is subjoined, "My pronouns — "he his," or "she her hers" (or "they them their"). This habit, I suppose, clears the air and perhaps forestalls some embarrassing or awkward moments, but again, seems unnecessarily revelatory. It's limiting and partial. It seems to me to declare that such guys and gals were acting in the parochial interest of their own tribe or constituency — much as if everyone appended to his or her name his own religion or nationality. I'm not happy with this innovation. Although it might seem progressive, it is in my opinion ultimately dangerously reactionary.

    Therefore I am not so current that I would include my pronouns on any letters that I write. But I would like to append my adjectives,

    Yours very sincerely,

    Vivian de St. Vrain

    (My adjectives:  "wise, upstanding, formerly debonair.")

  • Revelatory Dream?

    I entered a gloomy, dark, building, perhaps a derelict church. An older woman was sitting there, not exactly in a pew but in a large wooden chair. She said to me, "We help dying people."  Was she a nun or a sister of some sort?  I said, "Like hospice."  She was adamant. "No, not at all like hospice." I said, "Can you help me?" When I said those words I realized that I had frightened her. "Do you plan to murder me?"  I assured her that I was not a murderer. To make her more comfortable, I said, "Why don't we go outside where you will feel safer."  But just as we opened the heavy wooden door, a heavy, threatening man appeared.  I killed him without a weapon, with my bare hands. So I was a murderer after all. The woman whom I was trying to protect, said, "Now I know you're planning to murder me."  I objected: "I'll prove to you I'm not a habitual murderer. Go directly to your car and get in it and drive away. She did so (it was a blue Ford Focus). That's when the dream ended.

    In real life, I'm a peaceful person. In my dream world, I'm occasionally (not often, but often enough) a killer. Why?  Is it some deeply suppressed inner anger that works its way to the surface during the night?  Or I am simply a member of a species (homo sapiens) that has a millennium-long habit of violence?

    Or perhaps the dreams are meaningless? Just the flotsam of badly-wired synapses? If so, I wish they'd give it a rest.

  • Trees Old and New

    When we arrived here 54 years ago, the land was heavily forested but with a limited pallet of northern conifers and deciduous trees. In the first category were pines both red and white, three kinds of spruce, balsam fir, larch and hemlock. Among the hardwoods were sugar maples and red maples, ash, beech, red oak, black cherry, white, yellow and gray birch, quaking and big tooth aspen, and alas butternut and elms, which have both now succumbed to plagues. Common in the area but absent from our particular property were red cedar, cottonwood, basswood, walnut, and black locust. In the 70s of the last millennium, I planted cedars and cottonwoods;  they are now mature and replicating themselves. The walnut that I planted fifteen years ago is now 25 feet tall and very handsome. I have only one basswood, which I found as a seedling and transplanted to to a prominent place;  I've been waiting all these years for its descendants. The black locusts that I grew from seeds harvested in Colorado are now starting to make an impression on the landscape. I've also added some trees that might be able to survive our warmer winters: a hickory (growing very nicely), a swamp white oak, a bur oak (and its lone offspring) and a sycamore (which has survived two winters).  I've also experimented and failed with some trees that grow just a bit south of us: catalpa, horse chestnut, "Crimson King" maple, little-leaved linden, and ginkgo. Perhaps I'll try again now that the weatherh as warmed. One of my neighbors has successfully reared a metasequoia; it's tempting to try but I think on the whole I'd rather stay with north American trees. On the other hand, we'll need some new trees to take the place of the ash, which are soon to be decimated. 

  • He:  Did you know that they are now playing seven-inning games?

    Me:  Yeah, double-headers.  And that they're starting a runner on second base in extra inning games?

    He:  Good thing Dad didn't know about this. It would have killed him on the spot.

    Me: Yeah, sure would have. DH rule took a couple of years off his life.

  • Red Pines

    This stand of magnificent trees is composed of red pines, pinus resinosa.

    Each tree is between 60 and 65 feet tall and they are all exactly 51 years old. How can I be so sure about height and age? 

    Height is easy to determine using  the Calloway 300 Pro Laser Range Finder. Age?  Here's the history. In 1970, some friend or acquaintance, I can't remember exactly who, acquired a hundred red pine seedlings for a forestry project. . He couldn't make use of all of them and so he gave us ten — each one perhaps 4-6 inches long and the sum of their stems no thicker than a #2 pencil. I didn't know exactly what to do with these treasures, so i planted them in a row in the vegetable garden. Which is where they sat until 1972, when I decided to plant them on the dike of the newly constructed pond, where they remain.

    In doing so i acted in defiance of the local wisdom, which is, never plant a tree on the dike. Why? Because the tree will eventually die, and the "water will follow the roots" and weaken the dam. I judged this reasoning to be faulty. In the first place, red pines, like all conifers, are shallow-rooted. The surface of the dike is fifteen feet above the level of the water in the pond, so when the pine eventually dies, its rootball is will still be above water level. Moreover, red pines are reported to live for centuries (some say four hundred years), and I just can't bring myself to worry about what's going to happen to a dike in the far distant future when, no doubt, the pond will long since have reverted to the thick swamp that it was before we dug it out.

    But why red pines rather than white (pinus strobus) which is generally considered to be the much superior species? Because a), I had these red pine seedlings availablei in the garden, and b) because at that time many of the white pines in our neighborhood were suffering from a insect-borne disease that killed the leader shoot and therefore deformed the tree (leader shoot disease seems to be a thing of the past and now our young white pines are again growing up tall and straight). And red pines as consistently healthy.

    For their first decade, the red pines made scarcely any impression on the landscape. Now they dominate. When I sit in their shade, I am pleased to recall their entire history, which allows me to tell them, proudly, "I knew you when you were just a sprout!" Screen Shot 2021-06-22 at 5.47.32 PM

     

     

     

  • Screen Shot 2021-06-19 at 5.37.12 AM

    It may not be immediately obvious or dramatic, but the large tree in the middle of the picture is a white birch. It towers over the red maple and the beeches that are to its left. White birches do not often attain such size, nor are they long-lived, at least in our part of the world. This particular white birch is old and imposing and thriving and healthy. 

    Yet a few years ago this birch appeared to be at death's door. It sported only a handful of yellow leaves on its thin senescent crown. 

    Inasmuch as it was old tree (in white-birch years) we all assumed that it had come to the end of its natural days. There was a vigorous family debate on whether it should be submitted to the chain saw before it fell over — perhaps dangerously — of its own accord. The consensus was to give it another year. It was a good decision — as can be plainly seen.

    I have no idea what why the birch sprang from its hospital bed. Was it a victim of some nameless illness that it had overcome? Had it been merely listless and depressed? Had its local environment altered?  Perhaps some noxious insect pest had arrived, tried for a kill, failed,  and then decamped. I have no theory –it's a total mystery, as is so much in life. Nevertheless, I'm happy to welcome the birch back into our community. May it have many more happy years.

    Meanwhile, just steps away, was a young vigorous yellow birch. Yellow birches are not as striking or famous as their white-barked cousins, but to my mind they are by far the better tree. They are, at least in our neck of the woods, larger, better shaped, longer-lived, and their wood is superior for either furniture or flooring or fuel. Their bark is a splendid glistening yellow gold. A tree to prize.

    But, alas, not this particular yellow birch. Last summer it was a burgeoning adolescent, adding more than 18 inches of growth a season. This year, I'm sorry to report, dead as a doornail.

    Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at 9.14.47 AMinge 

    Not a single leaf. Not the slightest sign of life. This is an ex tree.

    The yellow birch was in a perfect position and was one that I had counted on to live for at least a hundred years, perhaps two hundred.  A tree that should have lasted centuries and been an ornament to the property and a delight to grandchildren and great-grandchildren — under whose spreading boughs picnics and  other rural pleasures would have been enacted far into the future.

    But that's the inconstancy of life on earth. One tree, supposedly a short-lived one, springs to life while another, with a grand future, suddenly and inexplicably succumbs to the fate that awaits us all.

    Mutability, they used to call it. Precarious, I'd say. "All is flux."

    We are grateful that we had the yellow birch for as long as it lasted, and grateful also that the white birch has decided to stick around — perhaps for another couple of decades.

  • Fly Swatters

    For many years, we've had to make do with this inferior fly-swatter:

    Screen Shot 2021-05-30 at 4.20.44 PM

    It's made of molded plastic and extruded metal wire. It's not handsome — a ghastly inappropriate pink-purple color for the flapper and a small gauge white-coated wire for the handle. Is there a name fpr this  styleless style, other than dime-store cheap. Mid-century modern in its least attractive manifestation. Not only unbeautiful, it leaves much to be desired in function. The flapper is inflexible and rigid, which makes it difficult to kill the fly without splattering it. Moreover, the wire handle lacks integrity and offers an uncomfortable grip.

    Now feast your eyes on this newly-acquired fly-swatter. It's a thing of beauty.

    Screen Shot 2021-05-30 at 5.37.20 PM

    Notice the turned hardwood handle (maple, I believe, or possibly birch), perfectly suited to the human hand. The heavy gauge shaft leading to a genuine metal screen flapper. It's a fly-swatter to savor;  a classic. Many a graceful swat in it.

    An anniversary or a birthday in the offing? Nothing says "I love you" more than a fly-swatter of distinction. It's also unsurpassed as a wedding present. If you're in a generous mood, "his" and "hers" fly swatters will get that marriage off to a great start.

  • We visited Beardstown, in southwestern Illinois, because it was the birthplace, in 1845, of one of Lynn's maternal great-grandmothers, Mary St. John DeHaven. Even though it's Lincoln country, we had no idea what to expect, the AAA entry being so scant, but we soon discovered that Beardstown is a place that had its moment of glory sometime in the nineteenth century, but which has allowed history to pass it by. While it's not entirely derelict, it's not even slightly prosperous — nor has it achieved quaintness. The industry of note nowadays is the JBS meat-packing plant out on the Arenzville Road; most of its employees come from south of the border, which is why the only indication that Beardstown might someday be rejuvenated is the dozen or so new downtown taquerias and iglesias.

    Our first stop in Beardstown was a decaying, rather pathetic 200-foot long peeling boardwalk along the sandy Illinois River, a waterway which in the years before the Civil War had been a thriving commercial thoroughfare. There we watched a solitary tug struggle to free a barge that had somehow run itself aground. Perhaps the boardwalk had once welcomed visitors and tourists, but during our stay the only spectator beside ourselves was a very frayed out-of-work fellow who arrived on a beaten-up bicycle, and who seemed entirely out of his depth when we asked if there was a place in Beardstown to purchase a cup of coffee. To me, he seemed addled; I suspected meth or opioids.

    After gazing at the sluggish river for half an hour (remembering Abraham Lincoln's enthusiasm for river transport), we toured the few blocks of the old downtown, in which fewer storefronts were occupied than were vacant. We looked in at an antique store — actually less "antique" than "junque" (unless a flashy bejewelled Elvis Presley doll was a revered artifact of a prior civilization). Lynn purchased an owl-decorated piece of blue porcelain for $5.00. We inquired of the proprietor, Mrs. White, if there were a coffee shop in Beardstown. Patricia White, we soon learned, was a recently retired public school music teacher and a lively lady knowledgeable about all things Beardstownian. I asked her about the intriguing storefront adjacent to hers, which proclaimed itself to be a Grand Opera House. I was skeptical that any sort of grandeur could be found in such dreary town, but I was wrong. Mrs. White generously offered us a tour of the old theater. She warned us that it was in deep disrepair but she said that she and others, led by the local chiropractor, were working diligently towards its restoration. So up a flight of dark stairs we went, and there, lo and behold, was revealed to us the picturesque ruins of what had once been a remarkable structure. Here's a photograph of the remains of its ornate frescoed ceiling and 20-foot-high windows:

    Screen Shot 2021-05-22 at 1.24.00 PM

    The theatre had a well-proportioned stage and had once (before the balcony was pulled down) been able to seat several hundred people. In the littered backstage were the remnants of nineteenth-century traveling shows, including a large painted backdrop of Venetian gondolas, left behind by a company from St. Louis. But the building, though its bones were good, was a wreck: leaks in the roof had caused the ceiling to deteriorate. The auditorium itself had served as a storage area for the overflow merchandise of decades of store owners. It would take a dozen roll-offs and weeks of work just to remove the trash and find the floor. Nevertheless, the Grand Opera House offered us an insight into what Beardstown had been when it was a thriving community. I was so impressed by the theater that I decided to donate my bit to its reconstruction. I had determined on $100 until I noticed that Mrs. White had donned a red white and blue Trump 2020 face mask. And so arose a moral dilemma: I want to support the arts, and I would love to help return the Grand Opera House to its former glory. Opera and music should be beyond politics — but yet I was deeply repelled by Mrs. White's Trumpism. So I split the difference and donated $60 to the cause. A sensible compromise to a vexing problem?? I don't know. But it's what I did. I wanted to ask Mrs. White what Donald Trump's ignorance, bigotry, authoritarian predilections and corrupt, vacant life had to offer to a cheerful retired teacher in a decaying midwestern town, but I saw no reason to provoke a controversy.  

    Afterward, we found some lunch up the street at Sally's Bistro. The bistro did not live up to "bistro" expectations, and could more honestly be called Sally's Diner, but it did make a good BLT and almost-decent coffee. We did not try the "alligator bits" for which it is famous, even though Sally assured us that the bits were much better than the usual alligator tail. (Beardstown has an alligator farm but we didn't tour it.)

    Mrs. White had also told us about the "old cemetery" so on a lark we went off to investigate. We wandered about, not expecting much, until we stumbled upon a gravestone which revealed that the late Henry Foster married the late Mary McKeever DeHaven. Lynn doesn't know precisely who these people are, but there are so many of her family names on the marker — that of her grandfather, George Foster Massey, her uncle, McKeever Massey, her second cousin, Katherine DeHaven Milligan — that they must  be long-departed members of her extended ancestry. Certainly cousins of some degree. Screen Shot 2021-05-22 at 6.08.21 AM

    We googled Henry T. (for True) Foster and found that he was a pillar of the frontier community of Beardstown. He had immigrated from Maine; Mary from Philadelphia. We were gratified by this unexpected find. 

    On the return trip from Beardstown to Jacksonville, we stopped at Griggsville, which, we were astonished to discover, is the "purple martin capitol of the nation" and the location of the world's largest purple martin skyscraper. Skeptical?  Here's the proof:

    Screen Shot 2021-05-24 at 5.01.59 AM
    So altogether a most rewarding day.

  • When I was a boy, I was regularly reprimanded with these words (or some variation of them): "Don't slouch." "You're slouching! "You're slouching again!" "Why are you slouching?" 

    Apparently I was a natural sloucher.  

    It was a difficult criticism to absorb or to counter. I wasn't entirely sure what the word "slouch" meant but I sure knew that it wasn't anything good. In my mother's eyes, I believe, "slouching" was not only a physical but a moral lapse. But to be accused of something of which my body, not me in my own person as I knew myself, was guilty — well, that was surely puzzling.

    To slouch is to "sit or stand in a casual, lazy, drooping, or improper posture." "Lazy?" — I was definitely lazy. "Improper? — I'm not so sure. Nor do I know why being repeatedly accused of "slouching" was going to turn me into an upright proper person.

    The most famous sloucher in literature is the villainous Orlick in Great Expectations, who was "always slouching. He never even seemed to come to his work on purpose, but would slouch in as if by mere accident…  and when he went …away at night, he would slouch out…. He lodged at a sluice-keeper's out on the marshes, and on working-days would come slouching from his hermitage." Slouching is unquestionably a marker of evil for Dickens. Was it so for my mom?

    Then there's Yeat's "rough beast… slouching toward Bethlehem to be born." A second coming of sorts, and not at all a good one.

    So there you have three slouchers: the "rough beast," Orlick, and me.

RECENT POSTS


ARCHIVE