_________ _______ ______ /___ ___\ / __ \ / ____\ / / / /__\ / / / / / / __ / / __\ / / / / \ / / / /__/ /__/ /__/ /__/ THE ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN A JOURNAL OF CULTURE ON THE EDGE... TEXT ONLY - ISSUE #9 The Annihilation Fountain & TAF Copyright c 1997-99 Neil MacKay ISSN 1480-9206 http://www.capnasty.org/taf/ the_annihilation_fountain@iname.com CONTENTS: --------- *SIDEKICK'S PHILOSOPHY: ON BEAUTY, COPROPHILIA, AND THE MIND-DEPENDENCE OF THE COUAC *THE INSTITUTION OF MOTHERHOOD *DESTROY ALL STEPHENKINGS *LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS *YES, WILLIAM, YOU CAN BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT *CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE *********************************************************************** SIDEKICK'S PHILOSOPHY: ON BEAUTY, COPROPHILIA, AND THE MIND-DEPENDENCE OF THE COUAC by Paul Laurendeau *********************************************************************** I: So you approve of this style of music? HE: Of course. I: And you find beauty in these modern tunes? HE: Do I find beauty? Good Lord, you bet I do! How well it is suited to the words! what realism! what expressiveness! I: Every imitative art has its model in nature. What is the musician's model when he writes a tune? HE: Why not go back to the beginning? What is a tune? -Denis DIDEROT, Rameau's Nephew, Penguin Classics, p. 97. The year is 1958. The place is right in the middle of the reeds section of Edward Kennedy ELLINGTON's Big Band, on some stage, in some ballroom or concert venue, somewhere in America or Europe. The protagonists are the tenor saxophonist Paul GONSALVES and the clarinetist and alto saxophonist Russell PROCOPE. By the end of the fifties, ELLINGTON's orchestra is in its "revival" phase. The seminal features of its creativity fizzled away in the mid-forties with the gradual departure of its most talented musical elements. But the mythical Newport Jazz Festival of 1956 has set the Duke's men, whoever they currently are, back on track. And all in all, the Duke ELLINGTON Orchestra will perpetuate itself for at least another quarter of century, playing everywhere in the Western World and Asia. Central figures of that "revival" phase, newcomers of the comeback era, if one may say, Paul GONSALVES is the guy who replaced Ben WEBSTER (Ah! Ben WEBSTER, of course!), and Russell PROCOPE is the guy who joined the band four years after the departure of Barney BIGARD (the great Barney BIGARD, yes, yes. I see!). That is what they are. So should it be and so be it. They play their parts in the gigs and they hold themselves together. Steady and firm. They beautifully shadow-horn for a maestro who brilliantly shadow-directs. GONSALVES is an elegant 38 year old, polite, well dressed, sensitive, and friendly gentleman. His boss will write of him years later: "In fact, his purity of mind suggests to me that he would have made a good priest". PROCOPE, 50 years old, more relaxed, more casual, more former-hobo-always-with-his-hat-on-even- indoor, is the old self-taught wolf who howled everywhere during the Jazz Years: Chick WEBB's Orchestra, Fletcher HENDERSON's Orchestra, John KIRBY's Orchestra, name it. Both of them work very well and "can be relied upon", as one says in the jargon of semi-improvised musical performance. They are no Charlie PARKER or Sidney BECHET but hey, they are no losers either. A subtle cluster of long-term has-beens and perpetual wannabes: they are sidekicks. And, nobody knew that until now, but, they always sit together to shine their instruments long before the gig begins... the ideal conditions for a philosophical dialogue. Russell PROCOPE: Give me the white flag, cat. It's rag-time... Paul GONSALVES (handing the rag he was shining his instrument with): Tonight, we are going to give them Beauty, man. PROCOPE: Without even knowing what Beauty is. Yeah, (imitating Ellington). A-Flat! A-Flat! GONSALVES: What do you mean not knowing what Beauty is. Are you all right, my friend? PROCOPE: I'm perfectly fine. But you, my cutie one, just dare to tell me, in your own words, what Beauty is. GONSALVES: I can't define exactly what it actually is, but I know for sure that it objectively exists. I can feel it when it's there. PROCOPE: Like a cigar on your lips or a turd in your ass when it's getting urgent, I suppose. The notion is as thick and tangible as that to you, I'm sure. I can see it on your face. GONSALVES: All you see on my face for the moment is my absolute annoyance when you indulge in that type of vulgar language. It is... it is... PROCOPE: Ugly? GONSALVES: Precisely. PROCOPE: I find it beautiful, personally. GONSALVES: What? What are you talking about? What do you find beautiful, Russell? The word turd or the object itself. PROCOPE: (meditates a moment, staring at his instrument): The object, I suppose. GONSALVES: What a silly idea! You are a disgusting tramp. PROCOPE: Oh Paul, don't be so stiff, buddy. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with finding a turd beautiful or attractive. There are precedents, you know. The renowned prophet EZEKIEL even ate some turds at a certain moment of his career. A Bible reader like you should be aware of such trivialities. GONSALVES: The prophet EZEKIEL was ordered to "eat some", as you say, by God himself. It creates some obligations to comply, you should admit. PROCOPE: Well, I don't know. ABRAHAM was ordered to kill his son by the same God of his, and we can feel his reluctance to do it on every single line of that fragment of your sacred text. Even the God eventually changed his supreme mind on the matter. But EZEKIEL? No my friend, they don't tell us everything in that dammed story. I think the guy was a shit-lover. GONSALVES: Shit-lover! God changed his mind in his case too, you should know. The human turds to be eaten by the prophet were eventually replaced by ox turds. PROCOPE: Oh, is that so? I see that you are well informed on the matter! Correction acknowledged. I can understand the importance of such a decision shift. Specially for a shit-lover. GONSALVES: A coprophiliac, if you don't mind. I find that nicer to my ears. Coprophiliacs exist... and you are one of them, obviously, to force me to entertain that type of conversation when the gig is about to start. (To the back seat of the reeds section). Guess what! Russell is considering creating the Fan-Club of EZEKIEL! UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: Fine, fine. Count me in! PROCOPE: Paul, the question is more important than it may seem at first sight. Think about it impartially. Consider the essence of things and tell me. Is there such a difference between a turd and, say, a piece of clay? GONSALVES: (obviously meditating the question): There are major similarities in color and texture. Both are shapeless and malleable. But there is a crucial element that makes the distinction totally and blatantly unambiguous. PROCOPE: And what is that? GONSALVES: The smell, my friend. Clay is odorless, whereas... well, you know what I mean. PROCOPE: OK. You have a point here. However... (he pauses) GONSALVES: What? However what? Say it! PROCOPE: I don't know. I hesitate. I'm reluctant to address such a delicate issue with a distinguished gentleman like you... GONSALVES: A distinguished gentleman who plays in a world-renowned classy orchestra, namely the same orchestra you are playing in yourself. So, please, cut the shit... PROCOPE: It is the word! GONSALVES: And say what you have to say. PROCOPE: OK, it's a question. GONSALVES: Fine. PROCOPE: A question that requires an absolutely sincere answer. GONSALVES: Absolutely sincere. PROCOPE: Absolutely sincere? GONSALVES: You have my word, cat. On my mother's head. PROCOPE: Paul, tell me... No wait a minute. I'll make it simpler. I will formulate it in the form of an aphorism followed by the question. It will be easier. GONSALVES: Whatever, my friend. PROCOPE: The aphorism is: I love, I absolutely adore the odor of my own farts and hate, detest those of any other human being I ever met. GONSALVES: Oh! PROCOPE: And the question is: Paul, aren't you in the exact same situation? (There is a pause. They both stare at each other for a short while and start to laugh) GONSALVES: (laughing): I must admit (laughing) that you, sonofabitch (still laughing) got a point here. (Cooling down) Oh boy, what a night! PROCOPE: So I take this as a yes. GONSALVES: (still smiling): I'm afraid so, yes. PROCOPE: So we are back to our starting point, cat. What is Beauty exactly? My fart for me, yours for you. We got a problem... GONSALVES: One minute. I like the smell of my farts but not the one of my turds. There is a crucial distinction here. UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: Hey, Paul! Is this another of your philosophical dialogues with Russell? Smells strange this time! PROCOPE: Are you so sure that you don't enjoy the smell of every single thing generated by these superb guts and asshole of yours. GONSALVES: (annoyed): What is that discussion anyway? Leave me alone, you perverse coprophiliac. PROCOPE: This is no coprophilia, brother. It's a purely esthetic matter You claim that Beauty is stable, that it objectively exists. I answer that the Beauty of the sniff is in the nostril of the sniffer. GONSALVES: There is one more element to be added to that reasoning of yours over that sordid example, I must say. PROCOPE: And what is that? GONSALVES: We enjoy sniffing exclusively what is generated from the inner foundations of our intimate little self. In a word, we love what we are. PROCOPE: Excellent subsidiary observation. However you must not generalize that subjectivist dimension excessively. For example, I usually prefer your choruses to mine. GONSALVES: Oh Russell, you... PROCOPE: No, come on. Let's not digress on that old argument again. I played in enough orchestras for more than thirty years to be able to recognize a good musician when I see or hear one. I'm OK. I play my part. But I'm also Johnny HODGES' sidekick on the alto line-up, so gimme just a five minute break. Whereas you, man, there is something very hip and unique to your sound. GONSALVES: That is very nice of you to say. Since you require it, I will stick to our initial discussion. You seem here, my dear Mister PROCOPE, to admit some objective existence to Beauty. My choruses, differently from my farts I presume... PROCOPE: (laughs) GONSALVES: ... make you experience stable esthetical sensations. PROCOPE: Yes Paul. But the problem remains the same. Myself, and the Duke also, we love your playing, and we consider that you are one of the stars of our reeds section. But John BIRKS did not, You were not esthetic to him. GONSALVES: John BIRKS! PROCOPE: Yes, John BIRKS! Dizzy GILLESPIE! GONSALVES: But Russell! Please don't quote me in public on this. But... but... What the Diz does is not music. It is ugly, man! That 's why I quit his band and joined the Duke. It is him who was not esthetic to me... PROCOPE: Well... GONSALVES: Look, no. Don't say well... We can agree on this at least ARMSTRONG called his stuff Chinese music and he was damn right. This bebop thing is just a bundle of... of... of couac. PROCOPE: Of what? GONSALVES: Of couac! I learned that word when we were in Paris last month. Remember? Two phonies from the Hot Club of France came to see me after the gig. They were hyper, man. Two psychos. The first one said: "You made a terrible couac in the second chorus of Perdido". PROCOPE: A terrible what? GONSALVES: A couac, man. That's the way they call a false note over there. PROCOPE: A couac! GONSALVES: Right. And I didn't have time to whisper a word before the second phony jumps in, with an accent thicker than the first: "It was not a couac, my poor friend. It was a very exploratory blue note, but it was in complete conformity with the pace and the tonality of the chorus". PROCOPE: "exploratory blue note"... GONSALVES: As I tell you. The couac-guy objected; "I'm a forty years aficionado, Mister. I know my Perdido by heart. Top to bottom. It was a blatant couac". The exploratory-blue-note-guy answered back: "If that note was a couac, the complete works of Ben WEBSTER are an integral cacophony, little man. You are missing the whole point." PROCOPE: The ghost of WEBSTER again, hey... GONSALVES: Mister Sax, himself. Yep. Story of my life. I'm a sidekick too, you know... PROCOPE: And who finally won the argument? GONSALVES: No one as far as I can say. The bouncer had to kick them out of the wing. They were starting a fight. They really meant business around that couac issue, let me just tell you that. Anyway, all that to say that GILLESPIE's music is couac to me. I cant stand it. The cat is simply not in tune. Period. And he willingly refuses to ever be. What do you think of his work yourself? Sincerely. Off-record. PROCOPE: I don't know, man. There have been so many shifty changes over all these years in the way music is played. When I was a child, by the end of Wold War One, to play hot was often the same thing as to play out of tune. The fanfare leaders were constantly begging their boys: don't play hot! Stay in tune! You will put me in trouble. This is a very demanding audience. Mind you, a bunch of hilbillies chewing tobacco on wooden benches. What did they know about the new music? About staying in tune, my violin teacher used to say... GONSALVES: Russell, don't change the subject. Answer straight to me. Mister out-of-tune GILLESPIE. Your judgement. PROCOPE: As I say, I don't know, man. I really don't. Maybe these bopers are opening new horizons of Beauty. Who knows? GONSALVES: Who knows! You gotta be talking abstractly here, cat. You don't say that as a musician. It's not possible! PROCOPE: I admit that I'm speaking abstractly, yes. It's an excellent way to formulate it, Paul. Look. Forget about the Dizzy-Man for a minute. Our problem here is fundamental and straightforward, if not simple. A reality is either in the world or in our mind. GONSALVES: Or both. PROCOPE: Well, both. Let's say: in our mind alone, or in the world alone. Or in the world and reflected in our mind. GONSALVES: I see that. In my mind alone: the superb hip chick I dreamed about the other day. She was just perfect. Nice, beautiful, everything. But I don't know her. She corresponds to no actually existing person. If I ever meet her, I'll marry her right there. But I'm afraid she exists only in my dreaming imagination. UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: You better believe it! PROCOPE: Excellent example. Keep on. GONSALVES: In the world and reflected in my mind: say, my saxophone. I see it. I feel it with my fingers and lips. I hear the sound of it. But if I put it in its case, and the case in the closet,, my then silenced saxophone continues to exist independently from my knowledge of it and the memory of it I still carry in my mind. I can even forget where it is and it is still there. PROCOPE: Very good. GONSALVES: In the world alone but in no mind: say, the hidden face of the moon, or the center of the earth. They exist, they are there, but nobody has ever had a look at them. PROCOPE: Bingo! GONSALVES: Right on! (They slap each other's hand). PROCOPE: Now, where is Beauty? GONSALVES: Where is Beauty? PROCOPE: Yes, Paul. Where is that Beauty with a capital B, we are supposed to give them tonight. Look at them (He discretely shows with the mouthpiece of his saxophone the audience which is now slowly entering the room). They're all here for "it". GONSALVES: (staring at the room): They're some beautiful cats, man! PROCOPE: You really find them people beautiful, Paul. You say it constantly. GONSALVES: Yes, actually I do find them people beautiful, as you say so inelegantly.... PROCOPE: So that Beauty you are so apt at noticing, that you see even when it is not completely there, where is it? In the world? In our mind? Their minds? The world and the minds at the same time? Where? GONSALVES: OK OK. I see the problem you raise here. Hold on. This is kind of tricky. Let's proceed by elimination. First, in the world alone: no. Because in order to be beautiful, it has to be perceived. Second, in the mind... PROCOPE: Wow, wow! You open a book and you see a beautiful photograph of, say, the countryside. The sun shines. The little birds sing. There is a lake. All the shebang. It moves you to tears. GONSALVES: I see it. PROCOPE: You close the book. The picture is not beautiful anymore in the closed book? GONSALVES: (hitting lightly his forehead with the mouthpiece of his instrument): Oh, that is tough man! A hard decision to make! Let toss that one aside for a minute. What about: in the mind alone? PROCOPE: This is my option. I want you to know it already. GONSALVES: That is your option? PROCOPE: Oh yes (closing his eyes and touching his forehead). How did he put that again? Let me quote it for you. I will premise that I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or deformed, ordered or confused. GONSALVES: No way, man! Who said that? BEETHOVEN when he did not want to clean his room? PROCOPE: The Dutch philosopher Benedict de SPINOZA. GONSALVES: Whooahh! PROCOPE: In a letter written around 1665 to a cat by the name of Henry OLDENBURG. One more? GONSALVES: Sure! PROCOPE: Listen to this (he lifts his head and closes his eyes). Just a second... Beauty, my dear Sir, is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, or if our constitution were different, what now appears beautiful to us would seem misshapen, and what we now think misshapen we should regard as beautiful. The most beautiful hand seen through the microscope will appear horrible. Some things are beautiful at a distance but ugly near... I'm losing the rest. That is from a letter to Hugo BOXEL written in 1674. GONSALVES: Gee man. How can you quote all that stuff by heart. You are a brain, man. PROCOPE: I can't take credit. It's the photographic memory of the mediocre songster, my friend. To quote and to understand are two very different things. In philosophy as in music. Let me tell you that GONSALVES: Hmmm... There are times I would just love to have your photographic memory! PROCOPE: Don't wish too hard for it. It would alter your improvisation capacities, my Paul. The worse musicians are the ones with a goddamn photographic memory. They are senseless songsters with an old bag of tricks. They... GONSALVES: (holding one hand to interrupt him): Ho! Never mind! Cut it out! Enough about the whining songster, OK. So in the views of Milords SPINOZA & PROCOPE, Beauty is only in our imagination. (Monkeying PROCOPE) It is an effect in him who beholds it. Frankly you surprise me this time. PROCOPE: How come? It's nothing more than the fart effect, brother. The pleasure coming from smelling my own fart is my own personal subjective emotion. No other living soul shares it. GONSALVES: What about you liking my music more than yours. PROCOPE: No, Paul. I like your performance more than mine. But we are playing, you and me, the same antiquated music. We are in the same band, rolling the same gig forever. We are together, strapped in the same esthetical faded ribbon, as opposed to, say, GILLESPIE, or RACHMANINOV, or that new wig-wagging Elvis PRIESTLEY guy. We, PROCOPE and GONSALVES, modest and laid-back Ellintonian saxophonists, manufacture the same music. You simply perform it better than I do. GONSALVES: We are two ass-holes generating collectively the same team-worked fart. Is that what you are telling me? PROCOPE: You said it this time. (Louder) And we all proudly stand up together when the time comes to blow it out. Hey, boys! UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: By all means, Russell, cat, boy! GONSALVES: No, but wait. How can Beauty be in the mind alone if what triggers it is always in the world. The sound of the reeds section, the colors and shapes of the photographs you were talking about. PROCOPE: Well, in the mind alone is a very shitty formulation. GONSALVES: I can see that. It is quite immoral, in a way. It makes our mind look like some travel satchel or something. PROCOPE: Precisely. To argue my point I would rather say that Beauty is mind-dependent. GONSALVES: Mind-dependent. Just that... PROCOPE: Yes, cat, just that. For Beauty to be experienced you need minds, possibly strictly human minds, to interact with whatever these minds will judge beautiful. GONSALVES: Hmm. I'm afraid there is a couac in your reasoning, big brother. PROCOPE: Alright. What is it? GONSALVES: My couac in the second chorus of Perdido in Paris. PROCOPE: What about it? GONSALVES: Well, it was obviously grasped by minds. But the mind of Parisian Phony Number One called it a couac, whereas the mind of Parisian Phony Number Two called it "exploratory". PROCOPE: Then? GONSALVES: Then your mind-dependence story falls apart if it gets scrambled like that and looses all consistency, even between two very careful fans who, after all, share identical musical tastes and heard the exact same chorus. PROCOPE: Why so? Let suppose that Number One called it a couac because he found it ugly and Number Two called it "exploratory" because he found it superbly beautiful. GONSALVES: That is exactly my point. PROCOPE: Well that is not an obvious point at all. If a couac is a false note. It could be argued that it is the manifestation of some sound disorder external to any esthetic judgement. The same way, for example, a false ball is a ball moving outside of the diamond, as we can all see, independently from any inter-subjective interpretative debate, in an objective disordered way. But I premise that that idea of disorder is something we imagine strictly because we did not grasp yet the more fundamental order of things. GONSALVES: SPINOZA, hey! PROCOPE: Precisely. GONSALVES: But you got a big problem here, man. PROCOPE: What's that? GONSALVES: It's a foul ball man. PROCOPE: What is a foul ball? GONSALVES: What you call a false ball, it's a foul ball. PROCOPE: What are you talking about? My violin teacher used to call that a false ball. UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: False! Foul-play, fool man! GONSALVES: Well he was a violin teacher, obviously! Maybe SPINOZA would not accept to say that he deformed a word , or confused two words, but I think that's what he did! And you with him. PROCOPE: Its a foul ball? You sure? I've always called that a false ball... since my childhood. False ball, Paul. Its... its nicer than foul ball... GONSALVES: Perhaps it is nicer to you, friend. But, personally when I hear that type of English I call it broken, not nice. Obviously, as I said earlier, we love what we are and if we are wrong, we love wrong! Now this being said, I am about to commit my major act of generosity of the day, man. I will, for a very brief moment of my so short existence, imagine that a foul ball is called a false ball, in order to permit to my excellent friend Russell, who claims that he can explain to me the most subtle esthetic distinguos conceivable when he does not even speak his mother tongue properly, to casually end up his brilliant piece of reasoning, how is that? PROCOPE: (relieved) Paul, you are a prince. Your magnanimous generosity is proverbial. GONSALVES: So, what about that... false ball? PROCOPE: (still puzzled): Well... Where was I now? GONSALVES: The idea of disorder is supposed to be a product of our imagination. You premise that that idea of disorder is something we imagine strictly because we did not grasp yet the more fundamental order of things. Its my turn to quote a genius, genius... PROCOPE: Yes, yes... GONSALVES: Then, what about the false ball? Aren't you contradicting your good pal SPINOZA here? Since everybody in the stadium saw the so-called false ball fly aside, we don't imagine its movement! You and your violin teacher call it false for a reason. The rest of humanity call it foul probably for quite the same reason: it's not straight, it's not satisfactory. PROCOPE: Well, maybe we should all rename it! Let us simply call it a curved ball, a deviant ball or whatever descriptive name like that. You withdraw the notions of falsity or foulness from it, you describe its movement more accurately, you see more clearly its status in the broader order of the game, and SPINOZA is still right to say that to call it foul or false is a judgemental trick of our imagination. GONSALVES: Hmm... Debatable... But let suppose I grant it. The idea of foul in foul ball is obviously of a judgemental nature. If, in my proverbial magnanimous generosity as you say, I admit some intellectual accuracy to the connection between the two words made by your violin teacher and yourself, I'm forced to open myself to the possibility that the idea of false could be... a false idea. Fine. Back to the couac versus "exploratory blue note" argument now? PROCOPE: Well, to address it more precisely, I just have to adjust my initial aphorism. I should say: Beauty and Ugliness are mind-dependent Since both are dependent on specific subjective minds, debates constantly occur between different subjective minds on the status of Beauty or Ugliness of a given object. GONSALVES: Not bad, big cat! I can see that. They fought over opinions rather than over the understanding of a fact of the world. PROCOPE: Beautifully said, if I may say. See, there is a point on what your two Parisian fans did not debate: the mere existence of that note, its presence in the chorus. Neither of them said I heard nothing, what was another possibility for another argument... No, both agreed on the presence of that controversial note. It is because the sound of that note is not mind-dependent. Its Beauty or Ugliness is. GONSALVES: One minute. You are losing me here. Granted the dependence of the sound's Beauty or Ugliness. But the sound itself has to be perceived by a listener with ears and a mind in order to exist. What if one of these Parisian phonies would have denied the mere existence of the controversial note, as you just said? PROCOPE: Not an issue. The Duke would have told you after the gig if the note had been performed or not, in a snap! To support his already highly reliable perception, he could even have used the testimony of the other musicians. The existence or non existence of that note would have been clarified, because it was or was not. No fluctuation. No alternative. GONSALVES: OK. Agreed. I can easily imagine the Duke and his men getting impartially to the bottom of that couac inquiry!. Nevertheless, I maintain that a sound has to be perceived by a listener with ears and a mind in order to exist. Yours, mine, the fans', the Duke's... anybody's, but somebody's! PROCOPE: Where did you get that idea, Paul? Look, did you see these new portable tape recorders? Buster had one in his room the other day. GONSALVES: Yes. PROCOPE: Well, you take your sax and play Turkey in the Straw, and Buster records you on his portable tape recorder. Do you see that? GONSALVES: I see that. PROCOPE: Then bring the recorder to the recording studio and instead of sitting on the stool in front of the mike with your sax, put the recorder and start it. GONSALVES: Done. PROCOPE: Then have the disc recording technician start his recording device, and both of you get your asses out of the studio before your ears and mind perceive a single note. What happens? GONSALVES: Turkey in the Straw gets transferred directly from the portable recorder to the disc. PROCOPE: Without the intervention of any perceiving mind during the process. These combinations of sounds are popping and cracking independently from any mind or consciousness. They are in the world, just like your sax, in its case, in the closet. GONSALVES: But hey, these devices don't know that this specific tune is titled Turkey in the Straw. PROCOPE: No they don't. Because this title is mind-dependent. The same way the words false and foul are mind-dependent, and can therefore be mixed up only by thinking minds, not by recording devices. The recording devices of the studio have also no clue at all of the fact that they are recording music either. Because the mere reality of music is mind-dependent. GONSALVES: Oh man! This is getting too heavy for me, man! PROCOPE: Why? Look. Bring Buster's tape recorder in the wood. It has batteries, you know. Turn it on for the animals. What do they make of your Turkey in the Straw? What do they hear? Noise, my friend. Only noise. And they are scared shitless and escape. Hegel mentioned somewhere these animals which have listened to all the tones in some music, but to whose senses the unison, the harmony of their tones, has not penetrated, That's exactly what it is. To a raccoon, your finest solos are not music, but strictly auditive annoyance, my brother. GONSALVES: OK, Mister Hegel PROCOPE, Sir, what about the other so called arts: painting, drawing, sculpture? PROCOPE: Mind-dependent. GONSALVES: Wow! One minute! A statue of Russell PROCOPE playing his outstanding clarinet is erected in a square in Paris. Do you see it? PROCOPE: Shit, man! I would love to! GONSALVES: It would be a totally realistic project, man. They love clarinetists over there. You know it. PROCOPE: If you say so. GONSALVES: It is a superb statue of you. A bronze. Your exact replica. Same size, same expression when you play. Everything. A marvel of figurative art. It is like you being there, playing clarinet on a small pedestal in that small intimate square in Paris, with trees and so on. Do you see it? PROCOPE: If you insist, yes. GONSALVES: The pigeons see it too. It is exactly your shape and size. But they quickly recognize it as a statue despite its eloquent realism. So, they are not frightened by it. They go perch on it. PROCOPE: They even shit on its head and face. So what? They do not recognize it as "a statue", but rather as a non-human, safe, non-moving solid structure. They care a lot about safe solid structures of a certain height. They look for them. Such structures are part of their personal dharma, if one may say. On the other hand, they give jack-shit about the notion of a bronze imitation of a human being crafted for an artistic purpose. These ideas are totally foreign to them. GONSALVES: (scratching his head): You reproduce the mentality of a pigeon in a quite convincing manner, I must admit. PROCOPE: (throws the rag to him): Clean your instrument, Mister Funny Guy. The gig is about to begin. (A short silence) GONSALVES: (shining his saxophone): If I may come back to coprophilia. PROCOPE: Shit, man! You like it more than I do, obviously! GONSALVES: No. Take it easy, man! If I follow your reasoning, coprophilia is the confirmation of the mind-dependence of the Beauty of the turd. PROCOPE: Absolutely. That mind-dependence is constant for every subjective mind, but allowing the idea and the sensation of Beauty or Ugliness to fluctuate from mind to mind, or from group of minds to group of minds. GONSALVES: And a couac is nothing but a musical turd... PROCOPE: ...susceptible to be energetically defended as incredibly beautiful by sincere and convinced couacophiliacs, some of them as renowned as the Dizzy-Man. GONSALVES: (sighs) PROCOPE: Oh Yes, my Paul. And you, the performer, you stay a hit as long as the mind-dependence of their esthetic pulsions gives some focused collective consistency to their perverse orientation toward your music. Beauty... (Duke ELLINGTON enters on stage. The audience applauds) GONSALVES: Quick man. Here's the Duke. (They both stand up, along with the rest of the reeds section) Duke ELLINGTON: Ladies and gentlemen, we are all so pleased, so honored. So gratified to welcome you in that incredibly beautiful Grand Theatre. You are fantastic and we love you all! PROCOPE: (sliding the reed between his lips, whispering): The first couac of the evening... GONSALVES: (sliding the reed between his lips, whispering): What's that theatre again? TO BE CONTINUED NOTA BENE I want to thank my colleague and friend Louise RIPLEY for her precious help. Russell PROCOPE quotes SPINOZA in the 1883 Bohn edition, reprinted three years before his current gig. He does not remember that, but his two quotes on beauty are on page 290 and 382 respectively. Always reading these books instead of rehearsing. Strange cat... Spinoza, B. de (1955),On the Improvement of the Understanding - The Ethics -Correspondence, New York, Dover Publications, 420p. ISBN 0-486-20250-X -initially published in 1677, English edition of 1883. He quotes HEGEL from the original London, Kegan Paul, Trench, TrŸbner & Co. edition of 1892, which was to be reprinted with no alteration five years after his gig. The remarks on the effects of music on animals is at the middle of the so-called prefatory note, on a page paginated xv. Hegel, G.W.F. (1963), Lectures on the History of Philosophy, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul; New York, The Humanities Press, vol.1, 487p. ISBN 0-8032-7271-5 - published in 1840, English edition of 1892. The quote from Edward Kennedy ELLINGTON provided in the introductory epigram can be found under the title Paul GONSALVES in the so called Dramatis Felidae of the ACT FIVE of his autobiography. The portraits of GONSALVES and PROCOPE are respectively on pages 221 and 222 of the reprinted edition. That is actually particularly ironic because it makes them look like Mister Number Two Two number One, and Mister Number Two Two number Two. Ellington, E. K. (1973), Music is my Mistress, New York, Da Capo Press, 523p. ISBN 0-306-80033-0 - initially published in 1973, reprint. *********************************************************************** THE INSTITUTION OF MOTHERHOOD by MARY STASIUK *********************************************************************** The emergence modern industrial capitalism transformed European feudal society from a society with a relatively stable social order with rigid social roles based on obligation and responsibility, to a society wherein the vast majority became dependant on wages and the mercies of contractual obligation, or social policy, to remedy the worst vulgarities of capitalism. Using the Marxist conceptualisation of social relationships being formed around modes of production and commerce, "mothering", or the work of reproduction has since been informed by the needs and neglect of capitalism. Mothering has not been recognised or validated as being a necessary part of production and commerce. Women's "private" reproductive and childrearing labour in modern welfare states does not entitle them to public recognition as a social contributor. Women who are already marginalized by other factors such as; poverty, race, single parenthood, and sexual orientation, experience the marginalization of motherhood more acutely. In North America, the prototypical "good mother" is likely to be white, married, not working in a job that takes her away "too much" from her parenting responsibilities; has only one or two children, and they do not have any physical defects or behavioural problems. She conceived her children and is raising them in a heterosexual relationship; and she and her spouse are older than 20 years of age and are of the same ethnic and racial background. The more a mother deviates from this prototype, the more likely that she and her mothering practices will be marginalized (Coll et al. 1998. Pg.6) Further oppression of women occurs when mothers are blamed for their children's problems and larger societal problems that are structural and beyond their scope. This blame creates further damage when mothers internalise this pervasive personal and intellectual isolation and marginalization. Cultural persciptiveness about the image of the "good mother" further marginalizes women who are mothering with diverse circumstances. The definition of the "good mother" is ideologically charged in our society and has changed over time to suit the changing needs of the capitalist nation. In Ontario in 1916, the Bureau of Child Welfare was established as part of an effort to improve high infant mortality rates and the general poor health of Canadian men. The poor health of Canadian men became evident when a substantial proportion of potential recruits were rejected on the basis of poor health, when signing up for military service in World War 1. Although poverty, overcrowding and malnutrition were acknowledged contributors to the problem, the intervention direction was almost exclusively an individual approach directed at mothers. This was an era before pasteurisation and widespread availability of sterilised baby formula, so, women were encouraged to breastfeed and set aside work in the paid labour force or any other responsibility that interfered with breastfeeding. During the 1920's and 30s, "scientific" child care was implemented which corresponded with the expansion of science and the medical profession. Every mothering activity was to be carefully regimented and monitored. Feeding, diapering and bathing were to be dictated "by the clock". Mothers were warned against relying upon their "maternal instincts", and kissing of young children was forbidden as it was believed to spread germs. The reality of poor women was ignored when advice was given about hiring help for six weeks postpartum, and living accommodations. One prominent health crusader, Helen MacMurchy wrote in her pamphlet, "Never let the baby sleep with anybody...A flat is not a good place for a baby"(Arnup et al, 1986 pg. 202) A brief time during World War II, was the ony period of time that Canada endorsed a national daycare program. The definition of a "good" mother at this time, was a mother who worked in an area where there was a shortage of male labour. The end of the war saw an abrupt change and women were forced to hand their jobs back to men. In keeping with the needs of the state, they were encouraged to stay home, have babies and become consumers. By the 1950's and 60's the medicalization of childbirth had reached its height and bottle-feeding of infants in North America had become more common than breastfeeding. Women were routinely sedated to the point of missing the birth of their baby, and at the hospital, mothers were most likely not given the chance to breastfeed. Companies such as Gerber and Carnation benefited and expanded from women relinquishing the task of infant feeding to them. The institution of motherhood changed drastically in the first half of the 20th century, and can be seen to have been informed by the dictates of national and commercial interests. The therapeutic or individual approach of women in social work has historically focused on women helping "other" women to be better mothers. In London, England of the late 1800's, women from the middle and upper classes had become an active presence in the lives of the poor. Young privileged women actually yearned for the slums. For women enmeshed in Victorian gentility, exploring London poverty added zest and romance to their otherwise staid existences. And thanks to London's excellent regional railway network, ladies and gentlemen could combine work with the poor with the routines of middle-or upper-class life (Ross 1993). From the British perspective, the field of social work appears to have sprung from the need for recreation or diversion of the privileged class. And if we think that the profession of social work in Canada has come along way from offering a diversion for privileged women, we need look at the research that points out that white women were the group most to benefit from affirmative action policy in Canada. Along with the reality that social workers, like other professional, middle class, white women have children, and their maintenance of middle class participation in society, is dependant on domestic workers (nannies) of colour. Becoming a mother tends to have different antecedents for women of different social classes. Compounded by women's different educational and income-earning resources and lack of social support in raising children, it also has different consequences for how women experience social citizenship. Policies with the 'regular' worker in mind do not serve women well(Vosko, 1996 in Evans and Werkerle 1997). Middle class women can experience motherhood and look forward to a pension from their participation in the recognised labour force. While women who are single parents on assistance, or who are working class and unable to afford the cost of childcare, are likely to experience poverty and old age at the same time. Social citizenship, is shaped by women's roles as mothers, carers and paid workers and is constricted by the ideology and reality of women's economic dependency. Claims made through social assistance on the basis of 'citizen-mother' are accorded neither the degree of legitimacy nor the level of benefits that accompanies 'worker' claims through social insurance(Evans 1997). Women who are "working" in paid labour are entitled to make limited claims employment insurance. Women who are caring for a child already are afforded no such claims. The changing images of women as mothers' and women as 'workers' that underpin income security play a defining role in relations between women and the welfare state. This worker-mother dichotomy is also played out in the class and race tensions in the welfare mother characterisation. At the core of this characterisation is the patriarchal force that struggles to control women's sexuality and reproduction. Moral panic around the issue of welfare mothers, is more about children being perceived as primarily men's children, produced through women's bodies, than it is about poor black mothers creating a drain on the welfare state. According to Coll, Surrey and Weingarten (1998), Ronald Reagan's family policies were as much about shoring up patriarchy as they were about establishing capitalism. Ensuring that women as mothers do not raise children independently is about maintaining the gendered nature of hetero- sexuality and the economic dependency that must follow. In the United States the reality is that few adolescents engage in sex in order to become parents and thereby claim welfare or housing subsidy(Furstenberg, 1992, p. 240 in Coll et al. 1998). Some theorists argue that unwed women's claims on welfare are in fact caused by the failure of the capitalist state to generate full employment. Male unemployment has made it impossible for many young men to support families. Contrary to the myth of the black single mother on welfare, the increase in unmarried birth-rates in the United States has occurred amongst white women(Coll, Surrey and Weingarten 1998). Linda McQuaig (1998) argues that high unemployment in Canada is desirable and maintained by banks and other financial power brokers, who benefit from the high interest rates and low inflation that accompany high unemployment. The desire for high unemployment and the consequential inability of young males to support families, may indicate that if the free market considers unemployment to be a benefit, the state will have to take over supporting children. For women who are forced to depend on government assistance, the power and capriciousness of husbands is being replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and power of the state, the very state which has upheld patriarchal power (Coll et al. 1998). Among Fabian circles of the late-nineteenth-century England, one woman did have a vision that would place motherhood as a compensated and acknowledged part of patriarchal, capitalist society. Eleanor Rathbone formulated the Endowment of Motherhood Movement which proposed the idea that "society" rather than the "male parent" should pay directly for the "cost of renewal". There would be a well funded set of health services for mothers and children as well as a new method for the national distribution of income that acknowledged the wife-mother's social contribution. State subsidies to mothers would eliminate the demeaning "economic dependency of the married woman" which Rathbone's Family Endowment Committee saw as the badge of female "subjection" (Ross, 1993). The "family wage" was to be replaced by a new system in which wages for both male and female employees would be aimed at the support of only one dependant, and state agencies would supply wives with housekeeping fund based on the number of children they cared for. Money issued to mothers would be in recognition of the social value of the work they were doing as mothers. This endowment notion was viewed as controversial but reasonable in 1919, however, by the mid 1920's, Rathbone's ideas began to lose appeal. The only tangible result of the Family Endowment movement was a token mothers allowance which was granted in 1945. Although it is difficult to believe that such a woman centred proposal would ever gain ground in a capitalist, patriarchal society, this kind of endowment plan had the potential of evolving society into one that would see the engendered division of the work of reproduction ended. While women involved in this movement were likely to have supported the maternal superiority of women as caregivers, the ideal consequence of their plan, would have been the result of men becoming equal parents. Thus allowing women to participate equally in the benefits of society outside the home while men shared domestic work equally. The present reality in Canadian families, is a far cry from equality. While women are participating in the workforce more than ever, and continue to earn less than men, studies have repeatedly shown that they still retain primary responsibility for work in the home (Luxton 1990, Michelson 1985, 1988; Bourdais et al., 1987). Over two-thirds (68 per cent) of employed women with children under 6 years of age worked full-time in 1991. Yet, Eighty-three per cent of women spend an average of 2.25 hours a day on housework, compared with just 50 per cent of employed men who spend an average of 1.75 hours a day doing housework. When it comes to meal preparation, 78 per cent of women had sole responsibility. In the areas of cleaning and laundry, 77 percent of women were burdened with this task. (Statistics Canada, 1992d:4; taken from Evans and Werkerle 1997) Homeless single mothers can count on little of no recognition of their special needs of mothers. According to 1995 American statistics, 79% of homeless families in 29 major cities were headed by single parents. In these predominantly female led families, 59% of women said unavailability of childcare was a barrier to gaining employment and a home. Yet Canada and the United States have no national system of childcare like other countries such as France and Sweden. This lack of structural supports corresponds with the dominant American belief system, that it is the moral fabric of individuals, not the social and economic structure of society, that is taken to be the root of the problem. Social activists close to the issues would disagree; "As women who have worked with homeless mothers for more than 25 years among us, we reject this view [individualised] of the roots of mothers' homelessness. We believe that social, political, and economic factors far beyond individuals' control create poverty, and we believe poverty creates the homelessness of mothers.(Coll et al, 1998 pg11)" There are important differences between the ways it which working women and middle class women experience motherhood. These differences were reported by McMahon in 1995, from data gathered in 1988-1989, through in-depth interviews with 59 mothers living and working in the metro- politan Toronto area. Middle-class women indicated that they had to achieve maturity before having a child, while working-class women saw themselves as achieving maturity through having a child. Motherhood was taken more for granted among working-class women, while for middle class women motherhood was seen more as a lifestyle choice. The average age working-class became mothers was 22.1, while for middle-class women it was 30.5. Middle-class women do not typically give birth in their teens or early 20's when they have little post- secondary education and limited work experience. Middle class women do not typically become welfare mothers. Seventy-one per cent of all middle-class women planned their first pregnancies while only 46% of working-class women planned their first pregnancy. It is not early childbearing itself, that causes poverty, but the reality that women in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, who become mothers in their teens come predominantly from groups of women who are already economically, educationally, and economically disadvantaged. It has been difficult for middle-class people to understand how motherhood is viewed so positively by many economically disadvantaged women. However, for these women, motherhood may offer a means of (temporary) liberation from dreary work (Griffin, 1989) and remains one of the most valued aspects of the feminine role. Middle- class women, on the other hand, can find valued adult identities and self-esteem in the roles and relationships of advanced education or professional training (Rubin, 1976, p, 41; Sidel, 1990, p150). Rubin (1976) argues that accidental pregnancies among young working- class women are often not truly accidental. She contends that, the emotional pain of growing up in families scarred by poverty, creates particular urgent needs to escape parental control, to assert adult identity, and to find safety and nurturance. Rubin's assertion that accidental early pregnancy is chosen on some sort of conscious level by working class, seems like one more way to blame individual women for the larger structural issues of poverty in which they exist. However, Roddy Doyle's portrayal of Paula in his novel The Woman Who Walked into Doors, illustrates how one working-class woman's need to escape poverty, parental control and seek safety and nurturance in her own family, put her at risk. Paula had a desire to escape a family in poverty as well as the hopelessness of her future prospects, which was created out of being placed in a stream of school that she described as "the dopes, the thicks...nearly retarded" The destruction of her hopes for the future can be seen in this passage; "One day I was Mrs Paula Spencer, a young wife and soon to be a mother, soon moving into a new house, in a new place, making my husband's dinner, timing it so it would be just ready for when he came in from work and had a wash...was a young, attractive woman with a loving, attractive husband who was bringing home the bacon with a smile on his handsome face. I was loving and loved, sexy and pregnant. Then I was on the floor and that was the end of my life. The future stopped rolling in front of me. Everything stopped."(Doyle 1996, pg168) Although spousal abuse is by no means confined to the working class, working class mothers like Paula are more likely to lack the resources to leave an abusive situation. The younger age that working class women become mothers increases the likelihood that they will be economically dependant upon their spouses. Mothers like Paula, who are seriously compromised in their ability to access social resources are blamed, mis-seen, or vilified. It is precisely in the context of the unrealistic demands placed on contemporary mothers that marginalization of mothers and their mothering practices take place. Marginalization is the social phenomenon of being diminished and devalued in comparison to others, or having one's ideas, feelings, practices or actions rendered less valid or useful in relation to a dominant ideal. Value is placed on the experiences of those in the Centre, and less value, no value, or a negative value is placed on those pushed to the margins(Coll et al. 1998). Those who are marginalized also resist, motherhood as resistance can also be seen as creating a counter-culture. Mothering to persisting in practising one's own language, religion, health-care, community or family against the dominant ideals, is resistance. Enduring on-going hardship as mothers do, while refusing to give up one's belief or life, is resistance. As a member of a marginalized culture, raising one's children to understand and to live in both their own and the dominant culture, is resistance(Stacey 1997 from Coll et all. 1998). The theme of motherhood as resistance and creation of a the counter- culture of motherhood, comes across clearly in these letters published as "Litters" in the Spring 1997 issue of the rural Ontario magazine; The Compleat Mother: The Magazine of Pregnancy, Birth & Breastfeeding. "I'm a labor and delivery nurse working in a toxic environment (hospital). Just birthed my third child at home much to my co-workers' disapproval..." Lisa Lilley, Berlin Maryland "If there were any justice in this lunatic asylum we call our world, I would send you ten million dollars and say give me and my next three generations of daughters life time subscriptions. But, sadly there is no justice and I have to beg for a free subscription. Anne V. Peyterek, Chicago, Illinois "It is comforting to know people like you exist in our troubled world. Next year I hope to be able to pay for a subscription for myself. Our town is very conservative, everything is so underground. No one here knows about The Mother except for a few who are "on the edge" Glenda Turner, Richmond, Virginia "I read The Mother one week before I gave birth and I loved it. I plan to spread The Mother around this small community, and turn some other mothers onto real mothering." Shireen Sumariwalla Finck, Mt Currie, British Columbia How does The Compleat Mother define "real" mothering? Notions of "real" and "natural" are culturally constructed. This counter-culture magazine defines these terms by actions such as homebirth, prolonged nursing, opposition to large multi-national companies who persistently market breastfeeding substitutes, rejection of immunisation and infant male circumcision, large families, home schooling and stay-at-home parents (mostly mothers). The counter-culture of the Compleat mother is situated in a specific social context that may not include women of colour and immigrants. For example, the option of homebirth is mostly a reality for white middle-class "low risk" women. (Reid 1998) Immigrant women are frequently diagnosed as "high risk" or having "infant at risk" due to language barriers and labelling which accentuates differences, and interprets them as deficits. (Fraktman, 1998) The label of "high risk" carries with it the probability of increased medical intervention, therefore immigrant women are more likely to undergo Caesarean section births. Social workers involved can further self-empowerment through the provision of information and support, for women who are experiencing a sense of victimisation, and have been negatively affected by poverty and stress in their lives. Because women's experience and ideas of motherhood varies greatly according to the diversity of women, it is problematic to propose any utopic view of what motherhood would look like. For example, second wave white feminists such as Betty Friedan in her 1977 book The Feminine Mystique, lamented the isolation that white middle class women felt while caring for children at home. These women left themselves open to criticism by black women who were seldom afforded the privileged of being able to raise their own children. The challenge for women seems to be, the ability to transform the oppressive ideologies of motherhood into cultural practices that support the multiplicity of ways that motherhood is lived. Whether women will continue to become mothers by cultural dictate or choice, they may not consciously associate their experience of the institution of motherhood as being informed by the larger economic and political structures of society. However, while discussions about a woman centred influence on the institution of motherhood are being played out, it is more likely that motherhood will be informed by other global economic realities. Private interests in the United States are ready and willing to fund family planning efforts that that aim at reducing population growth in developing countries. These wealthy philanthropist's self interest can be seen in their desire to quell growth of poor, non-white babies, and their fear of immigration to the United States. All of which, they fear, may lead to a decrease in the standard of living for wealthy Americans. Along with this fear of population growth among "the undesirables", is the restructuring of capital that requires less and less human power. These two factors may combine to result in motherhood becoming a privilege for the chosen few. When workers are no longer desirable, society's concern with children is likely to decrease. Government policy which aims at supporting women and creating equal opportunity for all children is also likely to be an unrealistic ideal of the past. Bibliography Arnup, Katherine & Levesque, Andree & Pierson, Ruth (editors) (1990). Delivering Motherhood: Maternal Ideologies and Practices in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Routledge: London. Coll, Cynthia and Surrey, Janet and Weingarten, Kathy (1998). Mothering Against the Odds: Diverse Voices of Contemporary Mothers. The Guilford Press: New York. Doyle, Roddy (1996). The Woman Who Walked Into Doors. Penguin: New York. Evans, Patricia and Wekerle Gerda (1997). Women and the Canadian Welfare State. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. Katz Rothman, Barbara (1989). Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. McMahon, Martha (1995). Engendering Motherhood: Identity and Self-Transformation in Women's Lives. The Guilford Press: New York. McQuaig, Linda (1995). Shooting the Hippo:Death by Deficit and Other Canadian Myths. Penguin: Toronto. Reid, Margaret (1989). Sisterhood and Professionalization. A Case Study of the American Lay Midwife" in Women as Healers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Ross, Ellen (1993). Love and Toil: Motherhood in Outcast London 1870- 1918. Oxford University Press: New York. Thurer, Shari (1994). The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Mother. Penguin Books: New York. Young, Catherine (1997). The Compleat Mother: The Magazine of Pregnancy, Birth & Breastfeeding. *********************************************************************** DESTROY ALL STEPHENKINGS By Anti-Press (c) Copyright 1999 Anti-Press *********************************************************************** No bloodshed: boycott! Boycott not Stephen King the man nor Stephen King the writer but Stephen The King. He's top o' the heap. Ruler of Royal Royalties. Good. But what about the rest of us, writers struggling just to get published in the mainstream once before we die? In the "golden age" there used to be more opportunities for an aspiring writer to break into print. Big names from Mickey Spillane to Tennessee Williams broke in through pulp magazines. And there were the "slicks", the classy magazines like Colliers that used to publish short fiction. All gone. Years ago with the paperback market you had inexpensive Ace Doubles, two books in one, especially for science fiction. An open frontier for Harlan Ellison, Philip K. Dick, and many others to stake their first claims. And the other fiction genres: mysteries and westerns. Sure, most of it was crap, but most writers had to crap before they learned how to walk. And some went on to run, runaway bestsellers that poured in the money and soon created the limited market for new talent. A publisher's (simple) mind: Why take a chance on a new writer with a new idea when Stephen The King can crank out another one and rake in the moolah on just name recognition? Cut down on the midlist, that middle zone of opportunity between the Big Bestsellers and the genre titles. Play it safe. Stay with a winner, even though there might be many other winners out there to be heard. Stephen King-- man and writer-- didn't create Stephen The King. It was the unimaginative middlemen (meddlemen) who run the major publishing houses that brought forth this massive hindrance to new talent. And now with one Big House buying out The Other Big House, it seems the day of One Gigantic House (Get lost, kid!) is dawning. (Yes, publishers are middlemen because they become between the writer and his audience. The world will be a lot better off with fewer people meddling with producers and their endeavors. For example, the struggling farmer would get more pay for his toil if there were less middlemen between him and the consumer, "facilitators" siphoning off too much money for their semi-parasitic involvement.) But while the publishing industry heads towards a literary oligarchy, hack editors aren't worried about fewer jobs tomorrow, they're just concentrating on the here and now. Their key operating phrase: Play it safe. Follow success, don't try to create it. "Hey, we need our own stephenking." Does your publishing house have a stephenking? If not-- losers! The cover blurb: THIS WRITER IS THE NEXT STEPHEN KING! (Gee, does Stephen King want to be the next Anti-Press?) We came across a New York Times article that stated The King had taken a cut on the advance for His latest book-- He was just getting only $2 million as opposed to His initial demand of $18 million. Boo hoo. Maybe we should start up a collection for Him and Disney honcho Michael Eisner. (You know about poor Mike: his _bonus_ is being cut from 9.9 million bucks down to a paltry five mil. How can he live on such a paltry bonus with his regular pay? Does this mean he can only buy three private jets instead of two?) A cut down to two million for The King. So the publisher saves money. How much of that savings will be put into showcasing up-and-coming writers? We spoke years ago to someone who was involved with a professional writers vorganization. He said publishers would rake in money off a book and then throw the dough into a bank to collect the interest before paying out royalties. It was a great system until the interest rates went down. So with conservative interest rates publishers went the conservative route and now avoid any dark horses. Fine. Let's show them how we appreciate their narrow-minded thinking. Don't buy a bestseller. Read it at the library or buy a used copy or bum a copy off a friend. Want to really stick it to 'em? Do some bin-diving behind your local bookstore and get a nice clean copy with the cover stripped off. The cover has been returned by the bookstore for credit so why waste the rest of the book? Recycle! Boycott with your bucks. If you enjoy reading Stephen King, OK, but realize you're supporting a stagnating system of stephenkings and johngrishams and tomclancys. If you don't read The King, then start a whisper campaign against his latest one. ("Bag of Bones"? That's not a horror novel; it's actually Gwyneth Paltrow's autobiography.) Save your bucks. And spend your time with creators searching for an audience out here in the Wild Frontier of cyberspace. Check out a backwater ezine. Visit a Web Site in the outback. Sure, there's a lot of crap out here, but it's NEW&DIFFERENT crap. *********************************************************************** The United States versus the World at the United Nations submitted by Paul Laurendeau *********************************************************************** Below is an exceprt from the document compiled by William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. This information was submitted to TAF by Paul Laurendeau. America, we have all been taught for half a century, is the leader of "The Free World". If this is so, it's proper to ask: Where are the followers? where is the evidence that Washington's world view sways the multitude of nations? To enlist support for its wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, the United States had to resort to bribery and threats. At the United Nations, the US has, with noteworthy regularity, been on the minority side in voting on resolutions. The table below shows a portion of this pattern. It cover and edited, arbittary period in the 1970's and 1980's broken down as follows: 1978-1981: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote or were joined by one or two other nations are listed. 1982-1983: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote are listed. The number of abstentions is not shown. There were many resolutions where Israel cast a solitary "no" vote and the US was the sole abstainer. Voting on resolutions of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council are not included here, but these votes show a very similar pattern. In the Council -- where its solitary "no" vote is enough to defeat a measure -- the United States is free to play its role of international school bully. We were all also taught that the Communists had no respect for world opinion. "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind ..." -The Declaration of Independence Date/Issue Resolution Yes-No vote 1978 Number Dec. 15 33/75 119-2 (US, Israel) Urges the Security Council, especially its permanent members, to take all necessary measures for insuring UN decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. Dec. 18 33/110 110-2 (US, Israel) Living conditions of the Palestinian people Dec. 18 33/113C 97-3 (US, Israel, Guatemala) Condemnation of Israeli human rights record in occupied territories Dec. 19 33/136 119-1 (US) Calls upon developed countries to increase quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Jan. 24 33/183M 114-3 (US, France, UK) To end all military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa Jan. 29 33/196 111-1 (US) Protectionism of developing countries' exports Nov. 23 34/46 136-1 (US) Alternate approaches within the UN system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms Nov. 23 34/52E 121-3 (US, Israel, Australia) Return of inhabitants expelled by Israel. Dec. 11 34/83J 120-3 (US, UK, France) Negotiations on disarmament and cessation of nuclear arms race. Dec. 12 34/90A 111-2 (US, Israel) Demand that Israel desist from certain human rights violations Dec. 12 34/93D 132-3 (US, UK, France) Strengthening arms embargo against South Africa Dec. 12 34/93I 134-3 (US, UK, France) Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. Dec. 14 34/100 104-2 (US, Israel) Against support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of States. Dec. 14 34/113 120-2 (US, Israel) Request for report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries. Dec. 14 34/133 112-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Assistance to Palestinian people. Dec. 14 34/136 118-2 (US, Israel) Sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. Dec. 17 34/158 121-2 (US, Israel) Prepare and carry out the UN Conference on Women Dec. 17 34/160 122-2 (US, Israel) Include Palestinian women in agenda of UN Conference on Women Dec. 19 34/199 112-1 (US) Safeguarding rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations 1980 Nov. 3 35/13E 96-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Requests Israel to return displace persons. Dec. 5 35/57 134-1 (US) Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. Dec. 5 35/75 118-2 (US, Israel) Condemns Israeli policy re the living conditions of Palestinian people. Dec. 11 35/119 134-3 (US, UK, France) Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Dec. 11 35/122C 118-2 (US, Israel) Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. [Same day, similar resolutions, 35/122E -- 119-2 vote, and 35/122F -- 117-2] Dec. 11 35/136 132-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Endorse Program of Action for Second Half of UN Decade for Women Dec. 12 35/145A 111-2 (US, UK) Cessation of all nuclear test explosions Dec. 12 35/154 110-2 (US, Albania) Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Dec. 15 35/169C 120-3 (US, Israel, Australia) Rights of Palestinians Dec. 15 35/174 120-1 (US) Emphasising that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. Dec. 16 35/206J 137-3 (US, UK, France) Assistance to oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1981 Oct. 28 36/12 145-1 (US) Anti-racism; condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia Oct. 28 36/13 124-1 (US) Condemns collaboration of certain States and transnational corporations with the South African regime Oct. 28 36/15 114-2 (US, Israel) Demand that Israel cease excavations of certain sites in E. Jerusalem Nov. 9 36/18 123-1 (US) To promote co-operative movements in developing countries (agricultural, savings and credits, housing, consumer protection, social services, etc.) Nov. 9 36/19 126-1 (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes Nov. 13 36/27 109-2 (US, Israel) Condemns Israel for its bombing of an Iraqi nuclear installation Dec. 1 36/68 133-3 (US, UK, Guatemala) Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories Dec. 4 36/73 109-2 (US, Israel) Condemns Israeli policy re living conditions of the Palestinian people Dec. 9 36/84 118-2 (US, UK) Cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons Dec. 9 36/87B 107-2 (US, Israel) Establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East Dec. 9 36/92J 78-3 (US, Canada, Brazil) World-wide action for collecting signatures in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament Dec. 9 36/96B 109-1 (US) Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons Dec. 9 36/98 101-2 (US, Israel) Demands Israelis renounce possession of nuclear weapons Dec. 10 36/120A 121-2 (US, Israel) Rights of the Palestinian people Dec. 10 36/120B 119-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Palestinian rights Dec. 10 36/120E 139-2 (US, Israel) Status of Jerusalem Dec. 14 36/133 135-1 (US) Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights Dec. 16 36/146A 141-2 (US, Israel) Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip Dec. 16 36/146B 121-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes Dec. 16 36/146C 117-2 (US, Israel) Revenues derived from Palestinian refugees' properties Dec.16 36/146G 119-2(US, Israel) Establishment of University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees Dec. 16 36/147C 111-2 (US,Israel) Israeli violations of human rights in occupied territories Dec. 16 36/147F 114-2 (US,Israel) Condemns Israeli closing of universities in occupied territories Dec. 16 36/149B 147-2 (US,Israel) Calls for the establishment of a new and more just world information and communications order Dec. 16 36/150 139-2 (US,Israel) Opposes Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea Dec. 17 36/172C 136-1 (US) Condemns aggression by South Africa against Angola and other African states. Dec. 17 36/172H 129-2 (US, UK) To organize an international conference of trade unions on sanctions against South Africa Dec. 17 36/172L 126-2 (US, UK) To encourage various international actions against South Africa Dec. 17 36/172N 139-1(US) Support of sanctions and other measures against South Africa Dec. 17 36/172O 138-1 (US) Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa Dec. 17 36/173 115-2 (US,Israel) Permanent sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories Dec. 17 36/226B 121-2 (US,Israel) Non-applicability of Israeli law over the Golan Heights Dec. 18 36/234B 127-1 (US) UN accounting changes for 1980-1 1982 [only solitary US Oct. 28 37/7 111-1 votes] World Charter for protection of the ecology Nov. 15 37/11 136-1 Setting up UN conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives, and debts Dec. 3 37/47 124-1 Appeal for universal ratification of the convention on the suppression and punishment of apartheid Dec. 9 37/69E 141-1 Promoting international mobilization against apartheid Dec. 9 37/69G 138-1 Drafting of international convention against apartheid in sports Dec. 9 37/69H 134-1 Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa Dec. 9 37/73 111-1 Need for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty Dec. 9 37/78A 114-1 Request to US and USSR to transmit a status report on their nuclear arms negotiations [USSR abstained] Dec. 9 37/83 138-1 Prevention of arms race in outer space Dec. 10 37/94B 131-1 Support of UNESCO's efforts to promote a new world information and communications order Dec. 13 37/98A 95-1 Necessity of a convention on the prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons ******************************************************************** YES, WILLIAM, YOU CAN BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT by Ron Callari ******************************************************************** On the heels of the House of Representatives' Judiciary case of impeachment against the President and the President's State of the Union address, I am presenting a response to William P. Summers' (the Chicago 3rd grader's) letter to Representative Henry J. Hyde. Similaritiy to Virginia O'Hanlon's letter to the New York Sun, 1897 is purely intentional: Yes, William, you can believe the President In answer to William P. Summers' letter to Senator Henry J. Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary committee, who as a third-grader in Room 304 at Chase Elementary School in Chicago asked: "If you cannot believe the President, who can you believe?" William, your inclinations are wrong. They have been affected by a world less idealized, or as Francis P. Church so markedly pointed out, over a 100 years ago: "they have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age." Truth lies in our constant striving to reach beyond the confines of the every day; it lies beyond personal gratification and self-serving rhetoric. And although it thrives within our reach, it sometimes alludes us. We get it mixed up with shame and guilt and it looks much better sometimes if we color it with the mask of falsehood. The 'whole truth' is more than just an oath. It is the peeling away of life's protective shields; it exposes our naked souls. And on some days, it is too difficult to be caught in its' blinding light. We face allegorically the Adam and Eve syndrome of disgrace, and potential exclusion. Yes, William, there is a reason to believe the President. Because he is a compliment of all the Presidents that came before- some more trust worthy than others- some more willing to face the truth head on. But when they fell short, William, we should not question our belief so much, as we should examine the knowledge that we are just men. Men with all the flaws, foibles and uncertainties that are part and parcel of the human condition. Our salvation is however, in the fact that we are part of a greater whole- and if we fall short today - we will be bolstered up tomorrow by a better example. William Jefferson Clinton is limited by his human-ness. But in his weakness, he has done us a great service - he has reminded us that we need to be more strident in our search for the truth. His fall from grace is a moral signpost warning us they we may have dipped into another valley of forgetfulness. Without him, we might not have taken the time or the care to acknowledge our departure from the truth. But this William is just another temporary detour from the high road to moral character. It is not so much that our political parties are at odds with each other over the fate of this one man. It is more important that they are taking the time to ask the questions. Because questions unanswered make truth unobtainable. Partisan discourse is necessary to shake the good and bad apples from the tree. If we just pull in one direction, we sometimes get only what we want, not the bounty that we can share with others. So William, " Can we believe the President?" A resounding yes. Will he sometimes be more Machiavellian than Jeffersonian? - yes! Will he hurt others when he strays from the truth? - yes! Will he never reach a state of grace that is commendable? - probably not! Will he be lost because of his inability to define the truth in a noble and ideal manner? - probably not! But will today's President's humanity blend into the higher purpose of the office for which it stands? Will the founding fathers that came before him and those that will follow help us all to share some of this burden and when we view the total compliment of the Presidential body - will we not say that they strove to do good, in spite of being human? - absolutely yes! Do not believe the President? William, that would be like not believing in Santa Claus. And as Mr. Church most poignantly pointed out to your 19th Century compatriot, Virginia O Hanlon, those 100 years ago; "Thank God! He lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood Rest easy, dear William, we are of strong stock. It is a question like yours that helps us all to crystallize our thinking, as we approach the dawn of a new century, a new millennium- in our quest for truth in our highest of offices. Thank you William for joining us in this most important quest! *********************************************************************** CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE *********************************************************************** Anti-Press Bio We came. We saw. We kick ass. :: Ronald Warunek was born in Detroit Michigan on January 16, 1951. He did his early studies in Dearborn Heights Michigan; and in 1988 he received his Master of Fine Arts degree from Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan. He is a Painter, Sculptor, Print Maker as well as a maker of Photo Montage. He believes in the unification of art, science, and technology, and works within the direction of complexity. For a detail study of his exhibitions, media reviews, and awards see his resume at www.warunek.com :: Michael Moreth is an artist and photographer who lives in Chicago with his wife Helene and five birds. He has exhibited films, videos, photography, and computer art in galleries throughout the United States and has exhibited photographs around the world over the internet. Michael is an amateur radio operator with the callsign N9OGC. :: Ron Callari is a freelance writer, publisher and self-proclaimed futurist who has an office overlooking the Hudson River, the Big Apple and the Statue of Liberty. When he isn't daydreaming about palm trees and hammocks, he spends the bulk of his time writing articles pertaining to business, the Internet, trends, travel and humour. His online credits include articles in Career Magazine, iAgora, WebCentral and FolksOnline. Ron has also been a consultant to the travel industry for the past 20 years. He has held marketing posts with Marriott International, Adam's Mark Hotels and MeriStar Hotels and Resorts. In 1987, he founded innovations, a sales and marketing firm. He feels that his corporate upbringing has prepared him for being able to debate on any issue: pro, con and/or vice-versa; sometimes, simultaneously. He has been interviewed by print and electronic media, nation-wide and appeared on network television (CBS This Morning Show) in a 1991 feature detailing the growing popularity of B&Bs for business travel. This 15 minutes of fame amounted to a couple free lunches and one autograph seeker (thanks Mom). Ron received his B.A. from Kent State University and his Masters degree from Cornell University (go Big Red!). He lives with his significant- other, has two sons and resides in Jersey City, NJ (for no other apparent reason than to have an office overlooking the Hudson River, the Big Apple and the Statue of Liberty, allowing him to daydream about palm trees and hammocks). Ron is currently the publisher and editor of his own online webzine, entitled: y-two-k.com, which features articles pertaining to Y2K and the changes in our lifestyles as we approach the millennium. Ron also partners with Chris Moujaes to produce the comic strip kidd millennium(tm), spotlighting the life and times of a narcissistic rugrat who thinks he is a spokesperson for the next generation. "While kidd is currently in the womb and won't be visible until January 1, 2000, his voice is heard regularly in a recurring zany comic strip, online." Ron appreciates the fact that the Big Guy put him on the planet at this point in time, and enjoys communicating with anyone who will answer his e-mails. :: Paul Laurendeau is an associate professor in linguistics at the department of French Studies, York University. Influenced by the thought of Spinoza, Diderot, and Marx, he is currently working on a book titled MATERIALISM AND RATIONALITY (PHILOSOPHY FOR THE SOCIAL ACTIVIST). Describing himself as a materialist rationalist atheist, Laurendeau formulates the religious debate in philosophical terms in the tradition of the progressive struggle against the mystical and irrationalist tendencies of philosophical idealism. His previous contributions to TAF include: On a Philosophical Implication of the Astronomical Big Bang Theory; The Doom Of Religion; I Stink, Therefore I Am; An Email Debate; and An Inquiry into a Sample of Vernacular Philosophy: The Aphorisms of Yogi Berra He recently cut all his hair off. :: Mary Stasiuk is a mother of 3. She is completing a Bachelor of Social Work at York University, Toronto where she has already completed a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts - Health Studies. As always, Thanks Gary 03/09/96 RIP {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} The Annihilation Fountain & TAF Copyright 1997-99 Neil MacKay http://www.capnasty.org/taf/ the_annihilation_fountain@iname.com