Author: admin

  • The Reality of Us

    Really? Is this how we like to spend our evenings (and, for some, much of the day), relishing the humiliation of people on TV? This isn’t Alex Keaton torturing his sister Mallory on Family Ties, although the roots of our fascination with degradation are embedded there also, however couched they may be in apparently innocuous familial exchanges. So-called Reality TV has finally dragged us into the depths of our basest selves to giggle at the shenanigans of couples and families embroiled in a death dance around the kitchen table!

    Did it start with Survivor as we watched participants form and renegotiate partnerships and alliances to ensure their survival at the expense of the “others,” until they became “the others?” Or the auditions of countless hapless performers laying bare their misguided souls to win a chance at American Idol to be further demeaned by the unctuous Simon Cowell, whose only talent lay in offering sarcastic soundbites that passed for artistic evaluations? All we really tuned in to see was his predatory feasting on luckless youngsters with stars in their eyes! Which in some ways was easier to stomach than the gush of non-sequiturs pouring out of the stoned eyes of Paula Abdul! This is what passes for entertainment these days! Then there are the Real Housewives who parade their ludicrous lives and Botox-treated features across our screens every week. Small wonder that so many of those marriages ended in divorce and it was only a matter of time before someone sought ultimate release from shame in suicide! That the participants accept their destruction in front of a national audience just for the opportunity of appearing before that audience is a sick commentary on our abject need for attention!

    I suppose humor has always fed on humiliation of some sort or another. The French philosopher Henri Bergson suggested that something mechanical encrusted upon the living is the source of that which we find ridiculous and risible. In other words, unless something awkward or artificial interrupts the fluidity of human living it tends not to be funny. Someone always has to be “IT.” But it’s a far cry from sitcom one-liners centered on ludicrous “everyday” situations to having cameras follow effete housewives and an assortment of humanity’s odds and ends! Television has reversed the mirror and is finally parodying itself, making TV into “Real Life,” and finding, as always, an eager audience in our prurient tendencies!

    Of course, this is hardly new. Talk Shows have been around for a long time; The Jerry Springer Show ripped off the thin veneer of make-believe, forcing us not so much to suspend our disbelief as to gasp in disbelief!! Then Survivor and M-TV’s Real Life, both spawned in 1992, elevated dysfunctional reality into entertainment, paving the way for “simplistic” concepts to replace good writing. But it does appear that we have turned a corner and now spend Prime Time delighting in the mortification of fellow human beings through the judging panels on Idol or Dancing with the Stars or innumerable cooking, fashion, and comedy shows!

    Perhaps there’s another perspective here. What if all of this is just a coming to terms with who we really are? What if we are finally stripping off the masks of polite tolerance and political correctness to reveal our true character? That we cannot really stomach the good fortune of neighbors and, in this fame-obsessed culture, anyone who dares to or tries to become a celebrity must needs be ripped to shreds! Were it not at least a bit true, The National Enquirer would have closed after the first issue and paparazzi wouldn’t be a familiar term! Let’s face it, deep in our bones is a reservoir of jealousy that seeps occasionally to the surface—until now! Now it gushes up and spills over, for we don’t have to be civil anymore in this media-driven age of blogs and “investigative reporting” (just an excuse to dig up dirt), where opinions can be freely displayed with no sense of responsibility and everyone’s life is an open book from which we can tear pages!

    As we cower in our disenchanted corners, filled with the angst of the 21st century, disenfranchised by the systems and policies that purported to help us, we are no longer going to pretend to be happy at the successes of the Joneses! Not only that, but we will exult in their failures! This is the age of Schadenfreude, that German word that so aptly describes the tenor of the times—delighting in the misery of others! As Schopenhauer put it: “To feel envy is human, to savor Schadenfreude is devilish.” Widening gaps between rich and poor, disillusionment in a fading American dream, tense relations between nations and races, religious and communal discord, poverty amid unbelievable wealth, athletes on steroids, terrorism around every corner, suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, global warming, and economic crises have all contributed to the cynicism of the times—and now we have outlets through which to air the thoughts that used to be private musings in our heads. Now we can respond with vitriol and unmitigated anger to a hundred blogs with no fear of repercussion. There are no monitors, no filters, and no policemen unless we make a “bomb” joke in an airport! Everyone from the miserable off-key singer auditioning on Idol to the President or Pope is fair game! We have stripped away veneers of civility built over decades and are transmogrifying social playgrounds into jungles! We are receding into our origins, trapped in an entropic spiral towards impotence. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But we deny the patterns at our peril!

    Let’s not kid ourselves! This is the truth of Us. Reality Shows feed an insatiable hunger. Television is filled with people shouting at one another. Where is the art of conversation, except on commercial-free PBS (hmm…)? When Donald Trump, a real estate conman, can have a successful TV show that’s basically about firing people, when he announces a run for the Presidency and not everybody bursts into derisive laughter, when CNN seeks his opinion on global financial markets, it’s time to roll up the floor and head for the desert to sit at the feet of a tireless sphinx!

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    –Yeats.

  • Happy Birthday, Mother India

    Today India celebrates 64 years of Independence from British rule.  I left the subcontinent 27 years ago—hard to believe that I’ve been away for almost half of free India.  This past weekend I met a friend from Bombay (Mumbai now) whom I hadn’t seen in 28 years.  We had started together as rookies in an advertising agency and so spent several hours reminiscing about old times and old friends.  She said she could see herself going back permanently but I demurred.  My life is here now, with my children, and my entire family—my mother and 5 siblings—in Illinois and Ontario!

    And yet I still feel some withdrawals, some feelings of guilt and nostalgia.  There are times I miss the heat and press of my overcrowded Bombay, the vibrancy, chaos, and craziness—hanging on for dear life outside a suburban train in the monsoon on my way to school, knapsack on my back and the rain playing havoc on my unprotected body (it’s a wonder I’m alive); eating roadside snacks on street corners—skewered lamb, spicy chickpeas, masala veggies, and foods with names so exotic it would need a page to describe them (sweet, sour, and pungent at the same time); buying black market tickets to see the latest Hollywood movie the day it opened (now I wait for the DVD); closing bars all over the city, then missing the last train home and having to take a cab I could ill afford; making out in—oh, wait, my mother and kids read this!!

    When I left I sometimes felt I had to apologize for India—for the poverty and stench, the corruption and crowds; for the unfulfilled Gandhian dream, the communal unrest and political turmoil.  Over the years, however, a new perspective emerged, and not because India has enjoyed a recent period of 9 percent growth (that’s unimportant to me, because so many people there still live in poverty and only a tiny percentage goes to university—or even high school)!  Besides, economic growth, as we now know, is a fleeting thing if the infrastructure of a sound education and health system is not in place.

    No, over the years I watched India slowly turn its liabilities into strengths.  Population explosions led to a burgeoning middle class and a service industry filled with street smart entrepreneurs and a labor force so vast it created work and profit for itself.  I lived on a quiet, tree-lined side lane not five miles from the slum featured in Slumdog Millionaire—there, little kids (like the enterprising boys in the movie) scavenged the city for empty bottles which they cleaned, bottle tops which they hammered into sheets of metal, and anything else they could glean from a large, wasteful metropolis to turn a profit and find food and fun!  These are tiny examples of a country on the move.  Huge workforces became havens for anything that needed outsourcing.

    Perhaps that’s what led to the economic growth—Indian IT influences on Google, IBM, and Microsoft, micro financing that began in a hundred villages and spread by example across the globe, and, perish the thought (because I’m an unabashed cultural snob), the popularity of Bollywood movies not only among the diaspora of far-flung Indians but everywhere people longed for colorful dances and songs to escape their drab lives of quiet desperation!

    But my perspective changed largely because I changed—I became more accepting of things as they are, more willing to celebrate life as it is rather that force my narrow notions of how things should be upon lifestyles different from mine; I became an actor instead of a critic, and that has made all the difference. I know now that I did not leave India behind, but carried her in me.

    It is hard to describe India to my friends, impossible to capture in words the diversity of life and the apparent pandemonium that actually masks a strange kind of order, a sort of melodic madness filled with peculiar sounds and smells, yet seems organized along a strangely familiar urban system.  For almost anything I can say about India the opposite is also true.  It’s a magnificent, frustrating, depressing, uplifting thing of beauty, full of unimaginable wealth and poverty, replete with paradoxes and contradictions, marching through the centuries to a set of tunes born in ancient cultures, bred upon aged mountains, and nourished by holy rivers.

    So, today I can say with pride and a sense of belonging: Janamdin kii Badhaai, Bharat Mata–Happy Birthday, Mother India!

  • From Bombay to Bahrain to Bloomington

    When I lived in Bahrain, oh, those many years ago, every Friday morning they would head out to the beach, but I was never invited. Thursday nights we roistered late, eating grilled Thai satays and all manner of Asian dishes washed down with exotic beverages. On Friday evenings we met again, they with newly-acquired tans and I armed for a game of trivial pursuit and a small drink to wind down the weekend…

    The political hurly-burly of post 9/11 America spawned a growing animosity against the Arab world, even the Muslim world (the two can be mutually exclusive, although it’s virtually impossible to see the difference for the caterwauling), reaching its apogee in Donald Trump’s appeal to the xenophobic fears lurking in our national psyche. It prompted me to look back on my sojourn in the Middle East. Did 9/11 create its own bogeyman or was the resentment brewing long before that? Shared blame abounds in the morass of political shenanigans and my reluctance to venture into that crossfire of accusations might have caused me to miss clues as I went about my daily business in Bahrain; clues in the street among such common folk as I that could have pointed to a breakdown in relations on such a grand scale, if 9/11 was merely a symptom of a disorder in Arab-American relations that had festered over time. Can I actually remember what life in Bahrain was really like those thirty years ago? If psychological science is right that every memory alters the original occurrence (thus negating the existence of eidetic memories), is it possible to reminisce about what seems now to have been a more innocent time without a romantic filter to distinguish it from the cultural events of today?

    My ingenuous recollection is that even as late as the mid-eighties, so-called Westerners, specifically Yanks and Euros, strolled the deserts of Arabia with the popularity of minor celebrities. If there’s a modicum of truth there, how did we get here? Were Arabs and Americans/Europeans solely to blame for their souring relations? Where did we migrant workers from every corner of Asia fit into this equation? Did we transmute into some sort of catalysts in the dynamics between these opposing cultures? We couldn’t have been innocent bystanders; after all, we were there, millions of us, integrating and ingratiating ourselves into an evolving international community. Perhaps not woven from the thickest skeins, but still colorful strands in the fabric of a global society. By virtue of our presence we had a role to play. Or did we manage, as is our peculiarly non-partisan Asian wont, to cluster in our own corners, creating a world apart a world away from home?

    Compared to the other Gulf States, Bahrain appeared to be a quiet island (which is why the uprising of 2011 first surprised me until I realized that the Arab revolution had roused a simmering Shia discontent), despite the myriad nations represented there—a cosmopolitan workforce driving the off-shore banking institutions that flourished after the “fall” of Beirut; to staff Gulf-Air, the national airline shared between two other States; and to operate the shops in the souk. Quiet is a relative term, especially when applied to an oil State in the Persian Gulf, for Bahrain in the early eighties had transformed itself into the entrepot of the Middle East, siphoning goods and services throughout the area. Perhaps it has more to do with a perception of character than a description of life on the street, Bahrainis being less wealthy and consequently less aggressive than their neighbors. Although Middle-Eastern oil was discovered first in Bahrain in the thirties, the rest of the region was blessed with greater deposits and embarked on ambitious expansion and construction projects—Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, and, of course, Saudi Arabia. Surrounded by a gush of oil and dinars, Bahrain quietly (there’s that word again) focused its attention on trade, banking, and the monetary profits and goodwill to be accrued from refining Saudi oil. Oh, and it also became home to a little airbase for the U.S., which sought to consolidate its position in this oil-rich region. By the eighties plans were afoot to attach Bahrain to Saudi Arabia with the King Fahd Causeway, a project that filled Bahrainis with trepidation as they anticipated a massive influx of their cruder, repressed neighbors seeking all the pleasures denied them in the “holy land.” Of course, they also knew that Saudi money would pour into their comparatively poorer country. Three decades later all their fears and hopes have been realized!

    When I arrived in Bahrain in the mid-eighties I took with me, I must admit, a certain prejudice against Arabs, for my only experiences were of those who had descended on Bombay in search of nightclubs, women, and Indian cuisine. That they seemed arrogant might have been more a reflection of my lower middle-class state of penury than of anything else, although anyone who lived in expensive hotels with the express purpose of having no real purpose other than to spend money was arrogant to me. How naïve I was in the ways of the world! They bought anything they wanted, everything I couldn’t have—arts and crafts from specialty stores, fabulous night lives, jewelry, and leather goods; and they always had beautiful women in tow. And I was jealous of all of it—the money, the women, and the luxurious lifestyles. More money than brains, was my generalization about all Arabs! I viewed them the way Brits saw American GIs during the War—overpaid, overfed, oversexed, and over here!

    It was with some foreboding, therefore, that I landed at Bahrain airport that October day in 1984, carrying in my resume several years in the theatre and short careers in advertising, banking, and teaching, and holding in my hand a visa that stated I was a goldsmith! How I came by that visa is a tale in itself. The short, stress-deleted version is this: after my wife left for Bahrain as a stewardess with Gulf-Air, I tossed about Bombay listlessly, working for an advertising agency but desperate to join her through a job anywhere in the emirate. Finally, when most of my attempts had foundered, she met an Indian Businessman (we never really discovered what business) who sold her a visa which he had acquired from an Indian goldsmith whose shop was owned by a local Bahraini who had worked in the Labor Department and therefore had contacts to procure visas. So—I was suddenly a goldsmith! If they wanted me to pretend as I went through Immigration, I’d give them the best impression of an alchemist. After all, I was a good actor, and the visa was only my entry into the State; beyond that, I was on my own and at the mercy of the Businessman who extracted more money from us before surrendering all my papers!

    My story was not much different from millions of other Indians thronging the Persian Gulf; indeed we congregated from all over the eastern hemisphere, with hope in our hearts and bluff at our fingertips, ready to work anywhere, for almost any job paid us more than we could have earned at home. And it was tax-free. At one point there were more than fifty countries represented in Bahrain—blue and white-collared workers from major cities and remote Asian villages, so-called specialists from every part of Europe and America, and traders from any manufacturing hub around the globe. Surely, with my education and experience I could find a job in this desert waterhole. After all, my years in the theatre and my education in the English system had endowed me with a lilting voice, clipped syllables, and the attitude of an intellectual. I was shocked out of my naiveté to discover that the contents of my career portmanteau mattered little; what I lacked was a white skin. This was my first foray into the international arena and I soon realized what I had suspected in India—the lighter your skin, the better your chances.

    Caucasians, particularly Brits and Yanks, had an automatic ticket to virtually any place or job in the Middle-East. The beach I referred to at the beginning of this piece was the Emir’s private beach and only white-skinned people were allowed there—even the local Bahrainis were barred entry! So my circle of friends (which included a Dutch woman and her son, an Englishman, and an American), fraternized with me everyday except Friday morning (the weekend), when they quietly strolled into the sun and sand of the Emir’s private “public” haven. I remember their mild embarrassment the first time they told me I couldn’t join them, but then they fell into a comfortable routine. I was always a little put out by it and compensated by gleefully destroying them at Trivial Pursuit!

    Should they have stayed away from the beach in solidarity with me? Would I have done so had the situation been reversed? I wish I could aver in agreement, but the truth is that I have in my life been to several places denied to my less-privileged friends. The way of the world is such that almost everyone has less-privileged friends; and the privileges of race are in effect often not much different from the privileges of class and wealth!

    What surprised me was how pronounced the distinctions appeared to be. After all, I was from India and we wrote the book on social divisions. Perhaps they appear less egregious when you grow up with them, when they play themselves out across your childhood, hoping you won’t notice, skulking in your consciousness to accuse you later of having permitted them to flourish through silent acquiescence. But in the Middle East it seemed as if we were all pilgrims with the same purpose, except that some were more privileged than others. I met a self-styled automotive engineer from Manchester whose experience, I gathered after a few draughts of ale, had been a year spent in his father’s backyard garage. There were free-lance writers who penned articles for in-house magazines and whose qualifications were that they were from Britain and, therefore, apparent proprietors of the language; ad-men and women who had never worked in an advertising agency, salesmen with not much more than a good smile, secretaries with great smiles; managers of large hotels from the wayside inns of the European countryside, and bankers, bankers, and more bankers, who seemed to be the only ones with bona fide qualifications, for they were employed in the branch offices of multinational investment and financial corporations.

    We met only a few Americans, for most of them lived in gated communities in the posh suburbs. In memory, Bahrain now seems rather like a border town in a Star Wars movie, full of a strange conglomeration of people with much to sell and buy. I was quickly reminded in this “third-world country” that despite my master’s degree and nice voice I was still a denizen from a “third world country.” This was before the cyberspace explosion, in the pre-outsourcing age, when the only good Indian was a scientist or doctor! Indian merchants and shopkeepers had made their presence felt in the malls and souks across the Middle East, but I was looking for a job in advertising where all campaigns were created overseas and thumbnail versions sent to the Middle East, which was seen as a rich outpost to be exploited as inexpensively as possible. No attempt was made to study the buying habits of Bahrainis or the other thousand expatriates living there. It was deemed sufficient to place a simple press advertisement informing the consumer of the sale price. The implication was that they/we had money to burn; no need to court “their” sensibilities, if indeed they had any! All that changed later into much more professional models, but at the time advertising business depended on handshakes, roughly-hewn campaign sketches, and relationships built over time.

    In the two years I lived there I met a few Bahrainis, particularly the men (rarely a woman) who worked for Gulf Air, but I never socialized with them. It would be easy to say they kept to themselves and viewed us as foreigners to be tolerated and then ignored. The fact is that we saw the Middle East as a transient oasis on the way to somewhere else; a place in which to make money and then move on to the real business of living and settling down. I didn’t know where I was going, just that I was going. This was a common attitude among us, that there was money to be made from the oilfields and we were going to get ours. It was colonization in a minor key.

    No wonder, then, that the Bahrainis left us alone. They knew why we were there; they knew we had scurried from the flats and tenements of Southwest Asia to exploit their land for work and opportunity and, if truth be told, in those days they were glad for our presence.

    In the late seventies and early eighties local Bahrainis had not recognized the new garb of their state as an international commercial center needing to shed its old attitudes and ways. Bahraini businessmen were exhorted by their Labor Department not to depend so much on a foreign workforce, but the locals were loath to alter their working hours to a full day when much of the Middle East had been used to a half day workload, particularly in the scorching summer months. In fact, during the really hot months the day was divided into a morning and evening session, separated by a Spanish-style siesta. I often heard my boss complain about his inability to comply with Labor regulations because he couldn’t always find qualified Bahrainis willing to work long hours.

    This became another bone of contention. Asian immigrants work endlessly, perhaps in an effort to make ourselves indispensable, for there is no going back. Such desperate, single-minded diligence is hard to compete against, for it precludes any meaningful social life. Such work ethics breed resentment from those who prefer a more relaxed lifestyle, in much the same way Asian communities in Britain felt the antipathy of their white neighbors as they gradually began controlling that economy.  Undeterred, we scratched and clawed and built our little nest eggs, then left for Canada and Australia and the United States, and in our wake was an interminable stream of our countrymen eager to fill the vacant spots.

    Does it matter that I look back with some shame at not having attempted to understand the local culture better? I remember my quasi-intellectual eloquence, quick to criticize my English friends over a glass of beer for perpetrating their “colonial propensities” all over the world. European colonists of the past went looking for spices, gold, oil, and other minerals; we descended on the Middle East in search of the jobs to be had in an oil nation. Both of us could rationalize our actions by pointing to our social and commercial contributions (the same argument British colonialism used in India), but in retrospect I can’t shake the feeling that I was there for one reason only—to make a quick buck and get out of Dodge!

    Can I console myself with the thought that every expatriate in the Middle East had the same approach? Even the Saudis saw Bahrain as a playground to indulge their forbidden whims. Is it a viable excuse that citizenship was not available to foreigners, thus encouraging short-term residencies and the cavalier attitudes that spring from a lack of emotional investment in a city/state? I can’t really decide now if Arab societies, at least in Bahrain at that time (it’s much different now with plenty of Indian investment in the Arab economies), seemed closed to us because we were seen as just the hired help or because we did not care enough to understand the culture beyond the business district. American military families around the globe find themselves in similar predicaments—it is convenient to create a world–within-the-barracks and to venture forth only for a change of pace or in search of some new entertainment. I have already admitted to my prejudices and I’m sure they worked against my integration into the local culture, whether I realized it at the time or not.

    Should we wonder at the resentment of Arabs towards such a blatant profiteering of their homelands? From the least politically influential group of Asian workers to the super-powers jockeying for control of Middle Eastern oil, everyone saw the Gulf States as the avenue to some version of economic stability. It is easy to criticize governments for failed foreign policies in the Middle East, for propping up one dictator as a bulwark against the rise of another; for preferring Israel over the Arabs even as they reached for Arabian oil. The sordid truth is that all of us are to blame. We forced a closed society to close even more, to feel exploited for their natural resources and misunderstood for their traditions. We went there with our preconceived notions of culture and lifestyle and democracy, with our prejudices of race and religion, with our highly critical attitudes towards foreign traditions, even ones as ancient and established as those in the Middle East; and, with little or no effort to understand and accept beliefs and practices different from ours, plundered them and left.

     

     

     

  • pDaddy’s Run for Lorraine

    Until you see a Marathon up close you can never really capture the full impact of this granddaddy of all running events.  The Start of the race is like a jamboree—runners stretching and warming up, endless lines of people before endless lines of portable toilets, anxious faces on twitchy bodies, some fully clothed, some barely, 33,000 of them (from the 45,000 who signed up) all set to test their physical and mental endurance limits.

    You can tell the novices by their restlessness, their inability to keep still, their outward shows of nonchalance betrayed by fretful brows and restive eyes looking far into the distance, willing their imaginations to capture the entire length of what they are about to traverse as if by wrapping their minds around the course they can somehow conquer it before taking even the first step.  They’ve trained for weeks, months, years, they’ve run shorter distances (5k, 10k, even 20 miles) to test the possibilities, yet as they go towards the start their minds are imbued with only one certainty— that in the last 5 miles they will enter a personal hell from which, if they emerge, it will somehow have been worth everything they’ve put their bodies through in the last few months.  But even this is an inchoate thought for how can one’s imagination fully capture, in any useful way, something one has never actually experienced?   The seasoned marathoners stand aside, enclosed in a calm bubble, waiting, waiting, waiting…

    I walked with Patrick towards the start of the race.  Suddenly, someone tapped me on my shoulder and said, “weren’t you at so-and-so’s wedding last weekend in Boston?”  What are the odds of running into someone I didn’t know, someone who didn’t really know me but recognized me from a chance weekend a week earlier in another city, here at the start of the Chicago Marathon?  There’s an omen somewhere in that strange meeting, some fateful conjuration from the ingredients of two strangers recognizing each other amid the mass of 50,000 people.  What did it mean, if anything?  Nothing, probably, yet why did I suddenly feel a tiny sense of elation born of the wonder that such a thing could happen?  In the flashing euphoria of the moment I realized that I was just as apprehensive as Patrick, worried for my friend, for what he was about to embark upon, and this strange meeting relieved the tension quite palpably.

    He was running for Lorraine, my wife who had died of cancer five months before to the day; he was running in her name and to raise money for cancer research through Lungevity; he was running to cast our collective grief into the crucible of his performance to transmute it into something meaningful and lasting; most of all, he was running because there is a poetic side to this endeavor—distance running is a mental and emotional investment as much as a physical effort, with its long silences, opportunities for soul searching, and the way in which it allows him to celebrate his place in the universe; it is a simple, clarifying act of authentication through which he can say, in the words of the original Marathoner, Pheidippides, “Rejoice, we conquer!”

    As I watched Patrick leave for the start of the race I felt a tear at what he was doing for himself and Lorraine and me.  Shouldn’t I have been doing this?  Was it wrong to feel so proud even though I was doing nothing?  I felt so proud!  Anything else would be selfish, an insult to Lorraine and Patrick, a repudiation of this essential truth that Lorraine’s death and his running are not isolated, individual acts but communal events in which we all participate with equal measures of grief and joy.

    On State Street we caught the runners tearing down.  The lead pack with its professionals whizzed past.  It’s one thing to see them on TV, quite another in person: I couldn’t believe how fast they were running.  Surely they knew they had 26 miles to go?!  Then came the hordes, wave after colorful wave running down that Great Street joyfully acknowledging the crowd.  Surely they did not know they had 26 miles to go!!!  35,000 people in a stadium is something we take for granted; it’s even small compared to some and we never notice them unless, of course, the home team homers to win in the bottom of the ninth.  But when they pass by you on a street it’s indescribable, so I won’t even try.

    The Chicago Marathon is a beautiful example of City as Text.  You follow the runners with updates on your iPhone, keeping a map handy, especially if you’re an out-of-towner, as you chase after them on the El, trying to catch up at various points on the route.  A word to the wise: buy a day pass on the El, because it’s now completely automated and if you don’t have plenty of loose change you’ll be ready to wage war by the end of the day; as much as it can be a superbly convenient way to traverse the city it is also now quite user-unfriendly; opening it free for the day will reap sheaves of goodwill but of course that makes too much sense!

    A little past the halfway point at Malcolm X College we took up the watch again, waiting for the pack to emerge.  The lead runners motored past, unreal in their apparent disregard for the enormity of this race (don’t they know it’s 26 miles?).  We strung out along the sidewalk, waiting for Patrick, scouring each face as it floated by, wondering how he was handling this unseasonable heat as the mercury climbed into the 80’s—Lorraine wasn’t making this any easier; surprising, because not once had she ever been a burden; ah, perhaps it was my presence there!  Oh, Patrick, you’re going to have to earn this one…

    After a while I began to focus on the other runners, reasoning that Pat would turn up eventually.  I had some power gels and jelly beans to slip into his hands as he cruised past.  I played the scenario in my mind several times—I would see him coming, gauge his speed, run alongside, and hand over the materials smoothly like two dancers in perfect unison.  Good heavens, there was the chap who had recognized me from the wedding; our eyes met, he waved and wafted on…what were the odds?  There has to be an omen there…

    Then I started staring into the eyes of the runners—they were hurting badly after almost 15 miles, their faces strained behind rivers of sweat.  They looked like they wanted to stop but still they continued and at that moment I understood the magnitude of what I was witnessing—thousands and thousands of people running for all kinds of reasons; some, like Patrick, for the memory of dead loved ones, some for Causes, others just to test personal boundaries, some in costumed groups, some alone, pushing, pushing past the pain—how could they do this?—faltering in the heat…

    Still they came, with svelte, superbly conditioned bodies or badly out of shape, the thin, short, fat, tall specimens from everywhere plowing through the haze, every step an agonizing reminder of their frailty.  Instinctively I began high-fiving them as they swam past, shouting words of encouragement, willing them to continue.  One runner paused and I said, “C’mon, man, you can do it!”  He looked at me, smiled wanly at my naiveté and ignorance of his pain, then trundled on.  Easy for me to say!   And then, as I watched them labor past us, it finally hit me that although at this moment I was on the sideline watching humanity running for its life, I was very much a part of this magnificent community.  Every time a runner slapped my hand as she passed me, every look of gratitude in his eyes at my encouraging words invited me to join the cause, every cause.

    Suddenly all of them—the motley multitudes costumed in every conceivable color and from every walk of life and ethnicity—became my friends and, to me, they were all running for Lorraine.  The metaphor was complete.  Now the tears were flowing freely and—wouldn’t you know it?—Patrick materialized in front of me, high-fiving all of us, hugging his wife, children, my grown-up children—Lorraine’s babies—drenched in sweat and effort.  I ran alongside, muttering something about Lorraine watching over him, heard his wrenching reply, “I need it, man,” stuck my hands in my pocket and handed over the gels and beans only to see him give me back—a pen?!  In my haste I had pulled out a pen with the gels.  Nice going, Kim!  Really smooth!  What do you want, his autograph?  Oh, well, life rarely goes as planned and we were in the thick of it…

    From there to Chinatown and another encounter with him.  Five miles left, the worst was yet to come and the last 200 yards—in the unkindest cut of all—uphill!  But he did it—for himself, for Lorraine, for all of us, a magnificent figure amid a host of magnificent figures.  By the time he finished the lead runners had long since gone, their prize money collected and on their way to the next one.  Somehow they were out of place here in the Marathon of the Midwest where running seemed an extension of life and competition for money an anomaly.  This was almost a pure experience, hearkening back to a more innocent time when Amateurs ruled the world, when people did it for love.

    The faces at the finish betrayed every known emotion.  For our group it was more than we could have expected—Patrick was our leader, he had taken us beyond the fringe, across the border to a place only few experience, a place where, for a brief moment, we sojourned with Lorraine.   Lorraine did not need it to authenticate her life—she did that on her own.  But this act of courage and generosity imbued our lives and her memory with grandeur—for one moment that will last forever we were part of something greater than all of us.

  • City Notes

    Family Portrait
    Eight-year-old Ann-Marie drinks her milk.
    The edge of morning slices through a slat
    At the glasses asleep in pools of sweat.

    Picking her way through stubble fields
    Of a riotous night her day breaks
    Into shards of sharp memories strewn
    Cut, bruised, and sleeping about the flat
    With mum and reveling strangers and dad.

    She steps routinely over crackheads on the stairs . . .
    Outside the jagged rain rips the tired day.

    Huddled in the doorway she watches
    Her paper boat drown in the gutter.

    A Jog in the Park
    The blood-eyes blank in the ski-mask slits,
    A fistful of hair beneath her.
    The knife on top, its tip at her tits,
    Stilled even the faintest shudder.

    Beyond the hedged-in grassy glade,
    The birds oblivious winging,
    Still on her ears her ipod played,
    Her favorite song kept singing.

    His smell osmosed into her soul,
    Her silence rent the night!
    Her God stayed hidden like a mole,
    His God laughed at his might!

    Can I Play Too?
    Eagerly he stumps toward the jungle gym.
    The smile freezes. Hurt recognizes in the giggles
    Piercing familiar derisive notes, peering fingers,
    Lips curling into oohs and ahs.

    Shrinking from the bars into the yard
    Of his solitude he contemplates
    His shrunken half-made-up body
    For the umpteenth time wondering.

    Fishing
    Men with bored poles by the mucky canal
    Search the sludge flotsamming past the banks
    Packed with homebound crowds gathered
    For a look, a laugh, and a suppertime tale.

    Somewhere in the city a woman routinely
    Sets the table with her children and waits…
    For a grapnel to grasp her jetsamming husband
    As the satisfied crowd disperses excitedly.

    The Waiter’s Sub-text
    I’ll be your waiter           (hurry up, please
    Take your time               I’ve other folks waiting
    To decide what to eat     this evening.
    The fish is great              our special sauce
    Its spicy tang                  sticks in your throat,
    Is famous                       asshole!)

    Taxi!
    Keeping the curb with pacing passersby
    They prowl their bodies rough with use
    And smudged paint bored with dull anticipation.
    The desultory meandering ceases.
    A client slides in with practiced rhythm
    Man and machine plunge to it,
    Pistons chug to suck the juice fast,
    End the trip, dump the rider, and return
    With pocketed fare and silent meter
    To stalk and hustle other cabs by the curb.

    Sing a Song of Sixpence
    Sing a song of sixpence,
    A bottle full of rye,
    At hundredandtwenty miles an hour
    Someone’s bound to die.

    Sing a song of sixpence,
    A vial of cocaine,
    Fourandtwenty babies
    Born in twisting pain.

    When the day is over,
    There’s nothing left to sing,
    Except a dirge to senselessness,
    We haven’t learnt a thing.

    @desksDOTcom
    Pursed lips lock voices stilled
    By the dings and clinks of cyberchords,
    The compusymphonic requiem for Gossip
    Played by a hundred-piece orchestra
    Of a thousand fingers conjuring information
    From a netherland of flashing ciphers,
    A superhighway of connecting worlds
    Where screens glare back and cursers blink–
    Gleeful pac-men shooting brain cells
    Dead through furrowed brows.

  • I Traveled to an Ancient Land

    I traveled to an ancient land,
    Where mountains dive into the sea.
    And in the black volcanic sand
    My startled footprints followed me
    Like harrying questions nipping at my heels,
    Springing from the ground to hound
    My rootlessness with furious queries.

    Is this for me? This land of broken promises?
    Not this but that I left behind or the one before
    Or before that as well? Is this for me?
    I ask on the constricted way winding
    Like a periphrastic sentence to Cape Reinga,
    The world’s end where oceans meet and the mighty
    Tasman clashes like a hostile argument against the Pacific
    Proposition of the day before, that calm acceptance
    Of hum-drumming….

    But even in the garden where wild hydrangeas
    Range profusely by Pohutukawa trees,
    A serpentine nine-to-five-ness lurks,
    And huddled masses grunt and scrape
    Their lengthy days into much longer years…

    Only Tane Mahuta and his kauri trees
    Stand silent witness to their buried fathers
    Deep beneath Gum-Diggers Park waiting
    For the angry growl of the Last Tsunami.

  • Cruel April

    This pitiless April morning I threw open my door
    And there in a collapsed heap was an exhausted traveler,
    Her straggly hair like struggling dandelions on her back,
    And limbs splayed out like denuded twigs on a bare tree.
    I looked and saw her still alive and asked her name,
    “Spring,” she whispered, “Midwestern Spring,”
    And died as the merciless rain poured down.

  • Autumn Leaves

    In the nostalgia of fall I marvel at the red and gold of gorgeous death as leaves yield the salad greenness of their youth to the decadence of nature’s inexorable cycle. Is this not the most beautiful quadrant of the year, this “season of mists and mellow fruitfulness” as John Keats called it?  How easily I respond to the beauty of aging flora yet am blind to resplendence elsewhere!

    Do I stare at the granite faces of aging humanity and notice in their wrinkles a lifetime of experience and grandeur?  Or realize that arthritic limbs struggling across my path are ancient feet nearing the mountain top for a view of the promised land?  Can I gaze into the mists of watery eyes and see in their now-blurred vision a legacy of a better tomorrow for me?

    Image, we are fond of saying, is everything and the only images I cherish are the shiny faces of youth leaping at me from the glossy covers of the chronicles of our times. I hurry up express elevators in the scrubbed steel and glass monuments of this new millennium, oblivious to the forlorn wisdom of forgotten pyramids and a tireless sphinx keeping vigil amid the buffeting gales of the sands of time.  In the traffic of morning I impatiently sound my horn at hunched figures in slow lanes and wrinkle my nose at the smell of decay wafting my way from the outhouses of homes for the aged.

    Perhaps this year, in knee-deep amazement amid the embers of dying maple leaves, I can also celebrate the lives that have struggled through spring and endured the summer’s heat.  Let me remember that true beauty lies as much in the songs of experience as in the melodies of innocence.

    

  • Winter

    Snowflakes on my recoiling cheek,
    Like an unwanted lover’s caresses
    Brushed away abruptly.

    We’ve been together too long
    And I must away in search
    Of warm embraces.

    Your lips and hands blue
    My shivering skin, keep
    My bed cold, chill
    My tropical genes…

    Every time we break up,
    You return to seduce me
    With your lacy whiteness…

    Why do I open my body to you?

  • Shakespeare Uncut

    Among the hundreds of amateur and professional Shakespearean productions every year few, if any, honor the exact text, or even ninety percent of the text.  When was the last time we saw Hamlet (other than Branagh’s film version) performed without cutting—make that hacking—it? With the exception of a few theatre groups committed to “complete text” productions, the practice of cutting Shakespeare has become almost de rigueur, a mandate handed down to us since at least The Restoration, and is now a virtual epidemic in Shakespearean production.

    Ask any MFA directing student if she or he would even dream of leaving the text intact and you would probably be met with a look of horror.  Professional productions are just as bad, but the most egregious offenders are the Shakespeare Festivals all over the country, those Disneyesque pageants purporting to preserve the memory of the Bard yet systematically eroding his texts not merely by slashing the words but also by obfuscating them with a smorgasbord of multilayered effects and outlandish concepts.

    I am aware of the derision awaiting my suggestion that we produce the texts the way they were written.  I’ve heard the arguments: more than forty percent of Shakespeare’s words have fallen into desuetude; we would never find audiences to sit through endless reams of blank verse (citing the success of Festivals as proof positive that the general theatre-going public loves the production re-formatted to fit “their screen and their time slot!”); the same tired approaches to the plays are boring and stultifying; we have to find new ways to make the plays relevant to our time; how can we do the same thing over and over again?…even Shakespeare altered his texts…remember Peter Brook’s Dream…on and on…

    We know that all Shakespeare’s plays were constructed upon borrowed plots, a weak argument often used in favor of reconstructing, or deconstructing, productions (if he could do it, so can I…); which leads us to the next question: if the plots were not his, what then makes a Shakespearean play a Shakespearean play?  Among all the elements of the plays is there an essential quality that raises these works to dizzying artistic heights or does this question lead only to dissensus?  I suppose one could point to several aspects of the works—their penetration of the human psyche, the variety of characters, the sweep of emotions, the truth of the portrayed relationships; and the encapsulation of the sacred/profane, the beautiful/ugly, and the ridiculous/profound in a celebration of our essential humanity.  But the vehicle for all this, most Shakespeare aficionados would agree, is the language of the plays, or to be more precise, Shakespeare’s use of language.  This really is the intrinsic quality that sets his plays apart from the rest of the canon.

    Shakespeare’s deployment of tropes, the rhythm and arc of his verse, the sounds of words echoing through a passage; rhymes, homophones, assonants, alliterations, and a magnificent array of figures of speech tumbling from the lips of the greatest gallery of characters in the history of literature elevate those borrowed plots from the simple contexts of their origins to the realms of dramatic art.  The keyword here is dramatic.  Wherever Shakespeare’s linguistic flights of fancy took him, he never lost sight of the dramatic—read action-oriented—impact of the moment.  A close look at the text reveals his remarkable understanding of action (pre-dating the Stanislavskian definition of the concept).  Whatever other motives he may have had for employing a particular speech or scene (to give actors time to don armor or anything else) he intuitively understood that if it did not further the action it did not belong in the play.

    Obviously, one isn’t talking about simplistic definitions of Action.  Shakespeare was an accomplished raconteur, inventing ways to embellish an old plot to make it a new story.  Repetitions are the stock-in-trade of storytelling and he was unafraid to replay a moment from a slightly different point of view, thus giving us new insights into the moment or revealing a different aspect of a character.  These repetitions are often excised from productions on the pretext that the audience has that information, as if the whole point of a play is to disseminate data.  Beethoven spends the entire first movement of his Fifth Symphony repeating different forms of his opening theme, revealing tiny aspects of it each time and building it into a unified whole so that at the end the initial outburst is invigorated and energized into—well, a symphony.  In Beethoven’s piece we call them variations or motifs, in Shakespeare we cut them!

    We appreciate the gestalt of musical composition, yet would refuse the same courtesy to a play.  Music somehow seems to possess for us a greater sense of a unified whole; remove one part and the rest crumbles.  Such a perspective is missing from our apprehension of drama as we chisel, whittle, skive, and pare text with impunity.  Would we delete appoggiaturas or acciaccaturas from a sonata?!  Would we remove repeated measures, or refuse to reiterate sections when called for by the composer?

    When we sit through a play we don’t always understand everything we see and hear, at least not in intimate detail.  Most of the time we comprehend the sweep of the thing, making note of different individual parts and moments which add to the general experience, rather like listening to a symphony where we focus not on particular notes but on the emotional experience of the music.  It is, after all, a work of art and not a lecture. Yes, we do listen carefully and even minutely, but the experience has to do with feeling the music of the play.  And that music comprises all the moments–the sound of the verse, the figures and tropes, the direct and even obscure references; they’ve all been placed there for a reason, to add to the overall experience, the polyphony of the piece.

    Even minor playwrights weigh each word with care, making innumerable choices about every moment.  Why would we expect Shakespeare to have done otherwise?  Is our collective unconscious so cathected on an image of a frenetic playwright scribbling away with his quill, attentive only to the overall scheme of the work with no concern for the minutiae of every moment, that we forget that playwrights are also craftsmen?  Genius is the product of great industry, of awareness of detail.  Even Mozart, whose manuscripts are reputed to be remarkably free of deletions and scribbles (unlike, say, Beethoven), for all his experimentations, was painstaking in his attention to the demands of Tradition and Form.

    The evidence of Shakespeare’s texts with their careful concentration on the vagaries of iambic pentameter (often honored by himself more in the breach than the observance, to avoid the pitfall of rendering the passages metronomically mechanical), their abrupt shifts of verse forms from rhyming couplets to sonnets to unrhymed lines (each moment ringing in a dramatic change in the scene); their shared lines, their paused lines, and a plethora of other variations would suggest a master craftsman at work on a master plan.  In such a scheme every syllable is accounted for and every word significant.  Shakespeare reveled in language, for in his time it was in its nascency (at least in relation to Middle English), evolving to keep pace with a constantly varying world.  In that sense, at least, very little has changed, for language today is also borrowing and mutating to define its shifting contexts. But there may be a sense that we have devalued language, at least in its traditional definition, in our search for different ways to communicate.  Perhaps the angst of the modern age, characterized by stark precision, directness, and “computer-speak,” recoils from anything that smacks of ornamentation or heightened language.

    At this point let us draw a distinction between scholarship and production, although ultimately we must apply similar criteria to evaluate them.  Scholars and teachers will continue to dissect Shakespeare’s plays in the light of different philosophies; so we may have Marxist, Feminist, Postmodern, post-Postmodern, and a variety of other interpretations.  We may assume that all these approaches have their place and purpose within the pale of Shakespearean studies.  Or we may encounter the extrapolation of particular moments, scenes, or relationships from the text to be examined within certain historical, political, or sociological contexts that frame an entire gamut of perspectives.  In such cases, the perspective itself becomes the centerpiece of the discussion and its relative scene or relationship is perforce given an emphasis far greater than its value in the original text.  This is the nature of theorization—whether it is literary, historical, sociological or any other—that by definition it is an external application upon its subject.  For such theories and, in the case of productions, concepts to rise to the level of true interpretation, however, they must be validated by every aspect of the play rather than by certain selected portions, or at least not negated by the text itself.

    This is probably why productions that attempt to focus attention on a theoretical interpretation are almost always filled with deletions—whatever section of the text doesn’t conform to the “genius” of the directorial concept is summarily removed!  In some ways, although I am still troubled by it, I have more respect for such actions where a director is sincerely, if misguidedly, engaged in conceptual pursuits than for what has, alas, become customary, i.e., the practice of cutting the text merely because of a lack of training to interpret it or a lack of intelligence to comprehend it or the ludicrous claim that audiences will not appreciate or understand it!

    The advertising guru David Ogilvy once famously exhorted his copywriters not to underestimate the intelligence of their target group, saying, “The consumer is not a fool; he’s your wife!”  Holding to such a dictum—its implied sexism notwithstanding— with respect to our audiences would at least remind us that they choose to enter our theatres with some knowledge of the intellectual content of the plays they are about to witness.  It is we who should rise to the level of the text and demand that the audience follows suit rather than reduce the complexity of the play to the lowest common denominator of comprehension.  People will meet those expectations if the production is backed by homework and proper training.

    It’s one thing to talk about intelligent and sensitive cutting, but when so much of the editing is done before rehearsals even begin, it makes me wonder if enough thought has been given to the text.  Most of us would agree that the more complex moments in a play are discovered in rehearsal or in performance by actors attempting to communicate with one another.  If they take time to understand the text, they will find ways to communicate everything to the audience, as long as they realize the first thing about acting, which is that you’re trying to communicate with the other characters and only indirectly to the audience.  Perhaps in worrying so much about audiences we tend to underestimate and even denigrate them.

    Most contemporary productions set the plays in a “non-Elizabethan” context, whatever that means, as if the “setting” of the play is crucial to our understanding of it.  What this fails to realize is that many of Shakespeare’s locales were metaphors.  He didn’t know Italy except by report, or Vienna, or Denmark, or Bohemia, or many of the countries he used.  Half of Othello is set in Cyprus, which rendered Stanislavsky’s famous visit to Italy somewhat of an exercise in futility.  Cyprus, in that play, isn’t really Cyprus the nation; it is merely a rough outpost, a Dionysian locale distinctive from the Apollonian Venice, perfect for the overflow of emotions and the commitment of murder.  The same is true of Portia’s fantastical Belmont or the juxtaposition of Sicilia and Bohemia in The Winter’s Tale. It doesn’t matter where he “set” his plays; most of the references were English.  In fact, many of the disparities (in Measure for Measure, for instance, the setting is Vienna, yet many of the names are Italian) may have been deliberate artistic devices to blur the sense of time and space and set the plays in a kind of Neverland, where all plays really take place, and where he could focus on the interplay of emotions and relationships without regard to specificities of geography or customs.

    When we “re-set” Shakespeare’s plays in specific locations, with careful attention to historical detail, we run the risk of making extraneous statements about the play and, more often than not, such productions tend to draw attention to the artifice of their settings and away from the universal heart of the action.  In a way, I am suggesting that the plays work better when their sets and costumes are geographically “generalized,” rather than specific, as long as we bear in mind that costumes denote contrasts (Romeo & Juliet), cultural distinctions (Antony & Cleopatra), class divisions, etc. These are important to the action of the play and should be delineated.  Modern costumes—slacks, jackets, skirts, etc.—as long as they don’t draw attention to themselves or to a specific time period (“modern” is a vague enough term for our purposes) are as acceptable and workable as tights and doublets (but we do need to find a viable solution for Malvolio’s yellow stockings and cross-garters).

    So it isn’t a question of the text being inviolable in a prescriptive sort of way, but of it being necessary towards the complete experience.  I am not suggesting that texts are sacrosanct, but I am asking if enough effort is spent trying to enter into the “style” of the piece, the world of the play.  Branagh’s film of Hamlet, performed with an uncut text, certainly seemed clear (whether or not one can quibble with the individual performances or with his chosen version of the folio text) to the general film-going audience.  And he did this with the longest play in the canon!