Review: Volume 13

Review: Volume 13


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


The Mailer Review/Volume 13, 2019/ Cents

O n the Evening of September 10th 2001, having finished writing the first draft of a new article, I decided to take a walk to celebrate at some time around eight o' clock. I've always enjoyed taking walks, like the protagonist of Ray Bradbury's short story "The Pedestrian." And just the protagonist of "The Pedestrian" I discovered taking a walk in a suburb of Los Angles isn't always as easy as it should be.

Before I left the apartment, in a weird moment of psychic prescience, I said to myself, Maybe I shouldn’t take any money with me in case I get mugged. I was half-joking, as I’d never been mugged in my entire life and had no reason to think I would be tonight. Nonetheless, I found myself removing all the cash from my pocket and tossing it onto my bed. I remember thinking to myself, Oh, well . . . if I do get mugged all they’ll get is sixty-two cents in pennies. Why I had sixty-two pennies on me, I can’t quite remember.

Not far from my apartment building, on Arlington and Plaza Del Amo, I turned the corner and saw, about three blocks ahead of me, a trio of black teenagers huddled on the corner, talking to each other.. I thought to myself, Don't be racist. They're not going to mug you. Just as I thought that, a fourth black teenager emerged from an alleyway about one block ahead of me. He was tall and wearing an orange basketball jersey with the number 23 printed on it. The second he emerged from the alleyway, he glanced over his shoulder and looked at me. Then he kept walking. For some reason, I got the feeling he was looking for me specifically.

Jesus, don't be paranoid, I said to myself.

The fourth teenager walked over to the other three, as if he knew them.

There was no one else on the street. I suppose I could’ve crossed the street to avoid them, but I was intent on not giving in to some sort of irrational fear.

As I passed by these kids, one of them reached out and grabbed me. It was the guy in the basketball jersey.

Even at this point, I thought it was some sort of joke—that they were horsing around somehow. But they weren’t. One of them said, “Don’t move, cuz, or I shoot you!”

He stuck something hard and metallic into my ribs. It could’ve been a gun. It could’ve been something else. All I knew is that something unpleasant was being pressed into my ribs and I didn’t want it there. One of them held onto the back of my jacket while the basketball jersey said in a low, steady tone, “Give me all you got, cuz.”

I didn’t feel fear for some reason. I reached into my pocket, pulled out the sixty-two pennies, and dropped them at his feet. He just stared at me for a second. “That’s all you got?”

“You lyin’ to me, cuz?” The jersey started patting me down, from my chest all the way down to my pants. Now his voice wasn’t quite as low or steady anymore. “ ’Cause if you lyin’ to me, cuz, I’m gonna shoot you!” At first I was confident that nothing bad would happen because I didn’t have any money on me. Then I realized that something bad might happen because I didn’t have any money on me.

As the jersey patted me down, I glanced at his friends. They were wearing black hoodies over their heads, glancing nervously from side to side. They had no need to be nervous. No one was around, except us.

“Shit,” Jersey said as he stopped patting me. “You the poorest white boy I ever met.” He sounded disgusted with me. Perhaps this was their first time. Of all the white people they could’ve mugged in Torrance, CA, they chose the one with no money. I almost felt bad for them. I felt the need to explain.

“I don’t make much money,” I said, shrugging. “I write for Paranoia Magazine.”

“What the fuck?” one of the lookouts said. He seemed pissed. I thought for sure they were going to drag me off into the nearby alley and beat the crap out of me—or worse. But then the lookout said, “Is that the one with Bat Boy on the cover?”

It took me a couple of seconds to process what he was saying. “You’re thinking of the Weekly World News,” I said. “Paranoia Magazine doesn’t have Bat Boy in it. I wish it did. Paranoia Magazine comes out of Providence, Rhode Island where H. P. Lovecraft”

“Shut the fuck up!” Jersey yelled and gave me a violent shove that almost knocked me to the ground. “Turn around!”

I did as I was told. Jersey pressed the palm of his hand against the middle of my back and pushed me. “Just keep on walkin’, cuz, and don’t look back.”

I walked, and didn’t look back.

I kept wondering if they were going to come up behind me again and finish the job. Perhaps they were just toying with me?

After a few blocks, I turned a corner and picked up my speed a little bit. That’s when the fear kicked in. My heart started racing. I kept glancing to my right to see if they were circling the block to ambush me. But they weren’t.

The second I returned home I called my friend Wendy. Wendy told me to call the cops. I didn’t bother. What would be the point? I suspected I knew exactly which house on the block these kids lived in.(Think about that. You have to be a real amateur to mug people in your own damn neighborhood.) But the idea of me and a couple of mustachioed cops strolling up to a house full of black people while the Boys in Blue ask me to finger these idiot kids seemed like a potentially fatal idea. “Are these the scumbags, sir?” “Yes, officer, they most definitely are!” “And how much did they steal from you?” “Absolutely nothing!” “Well. we better toss these assholes in jail for a day—just teach ’em a lesson they’ll never forget!” Twenty-four hours later they’re back out on the street, circling the neighborhood over and over again, waiting to see me. That wouldn’t take long.

No, I decided just to forget about it.

But I couldn’t forget about it. I felt cheated and violated. I was pissed off that I was out sixty-two cents. Most writers can’t afford just to throw money around like that. So the second I woke up in the morning I slipped on my jacket and returned to the exact corner where the teenagers had assaulted me. I wanted my pennies back.


The Mailer Review/Volume 13, 2019/ More Than The Dead Know

I approached Professor Campanella’s richly detailed and illustrated history of Brooklyn with the perspective of a general reader who, while having merely the briefest personal experience of the borough thought he had more then a passing familiarity with it from the literature and films it has inspired. Consistent with his subjects of professional studies in urban planning and development, the author’s prime focus is on the evolvement of New York’s most densely populated borough: the formation of the suburbs, roads and parks, the rise and fall of buildings, the binding and eventual destruction of communities.

His concentration on the minutiae of details of the zoning and planning of developmental projects allows little space for more fully drawn portraits of many of the historical protagonists whose achievements, ambitions, and failures impact the lives of the ever-expanding population, whose hope might have been, no matter their national or ethnic backgrounds, for no more than security and opportunity.

That hope finds expression in the brief glimpse into the history of Campanella’s own family that he allows in the acknowledgments prefacing the book. In two long paragraphs, he tells of his grandfather taking his family, in 1902, across the East River from Manhattan’s East Side to escape a cholera outbreak, opening a barbershop in Coney Island and establishing roots from which his children and extended family would, over the generations, become part of the greater Brooklyn story.

The barest details are given of the lives and activities of the author’s great-uncles, aunts, mother, and father, set against the background of ever changing environmental and social conditions would have provided nourishment enough for such novelists as Dos Passos or the now-forgotten Albert Halper.

Here, too, can be perceived small indications of influences that allow for the very occasional revealing of Professor Campanella’s disapproval and the judgment of the many actions and schemes that contributed to the disappointment at a society’s loss of potential and vitality as represented in such a place as his Brooklyn.

Restrained as he seems by the discipline of his scholarship in city planning, architecture and urban studies, it is not until the epilogue that he permits himself the indulgence of mourning the loss of neighborhoods, their ‘essence, their identity, their soul,’ and the encroachment of ‘manufactured authenticity’. Brooklyn, he laments, “has become ground zero of gentrification in New York.”

While not as passionately expressed as Pete Hamill in Downtown: My Manhattan, raging at the destruction of Penn Station, he does single out one Fred C. Trump’s 1966 destruction of Coney Island’s Pavilion of Fun, ‘the last great example of Victorian Architecture in the United States’, as “an act of vandalism.”

The history of Brooklyn, as portrayed, allows limited time for nostalgia. Given the presentation of schemers, opportunists, the selfishly ambitious and piratically greedy entrepreneurs and a litany of “clear it . . . build it . . . tear it down . . . build it again,” there should be little surprise at the vulnerability of beauty and prospects of permanence.

The second-largest borough of New York City, the “western lump of that great glacial pile known as Long Island, now named Brooklyn, had been home to branches of the Leni Lenape Nation for a thousand years before the arrival of the Dutch in the Seventeenth Century.”

By the mid-1860s, the remaining Lenape, who had survived two hundred years of European occupation and the Dutch resistance against the British, followed by the 1776 ‘patriots’ revolutionary war would be, by U.S. government edict, removed to the so-called Indian Territories of Oklahoma. In his first two chapters, Campanella unearths in forensic detail a history forged by displacement, war, and slavery that would contribute to the identification of Brooklyn as “The Borough of Cemeteries,” host to more than half of the burial places in the combined five boroughs of New York City.

One estimate of the achievement and value of history such as he presents can be arrived at by the measures to which the general reader will be inspired to seek further information related to particular incidents and characters which the author has not pursued beyond the boundaries of his intent.

If those early chapters relate what is, after all, a sadly familiar narrative of early colonization and the varieties of exploitation imposed upon the land and its occupants, still, it is in the descriptions of several exceptional individuals and their achievements that the book is at its most engaging.

We meet Lady Deborah Moody who, in seeking liberation from the religious repression of the Puritans in the 1640s founded the Anabaptists community of Gravesend, the first such settlement known to be achieved by a woman.

An equally formidable woman is encountered in chapter six, appropriately titled “Isle of Offal and Bones.”

Situated in the South East of Brooklyn, Barren Island could be even more definitively named Hell Island the setting, Campanella writes “of dark tales that make children hug tight their dogs and elders bring in the cat.”

Once the fishing and hunting grounds of the Lenape, the island was, from 1855, the site of industrial fish processing and what would become the largest waste processing plant in the world, receiving all the “night soil” and garbage of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

By the century’s end, there were 130,000 workhorses in Manhattan. Afterlives of labor in service to the city’s economy and progress, most would sicken and die in stables and on the streets to be collected and loaded onto scows and shipped to Barren Island.

In 1889 alone it was recorded that 7,000 horses, near to 24,000 dogs and cats, thousands of cows, sheep, pigs, goats, and fowl were processed and rendered to fertilizer and multiple other uses and profitable products.

The workforce was such that a caste system evolved among the mix of African-Americans, immigrant Swedes, English, Irish, and Prussians, who mostly lived in company-owned boarding houses.

Such was the dehumanizing effects of the environment that those who on the rare occasion would cross to Manhattan were, in 1878, with the support of the courts, effectively banned from public transport because the system did not allow for “the transportation of smells.”

While true to the dispassionate tone that he employs throughout, Thomas Campanella frequently uses the subtle ironic comment or reference to contemporary reportage that communicates a prime interest in the human cost of the decisions and actions of the disparate and ever competing ambitious and powerful.

His portrayal of the feral hell-hole that “bred lawlessness and anarchy,” causing, in 1888, legal action to be instigated in Brooklyn against the rendering plants for inflicting grievous harm to “the health and welfare of the public,” only to be frustrated by the corruption of the courts and politicians, would have provided material capable of shocking even Upton Sinclair.

Yet, Campanella tells us, “life blossomed with weed-like vigor amidst the sand and garbage.” By 1910, the island, now home to 1500 people living in rudimentary dwellings and still lacking public services, police presence, and paved roads did have two churches, a school, baths, a butcher, a baker, and a grocery store.

Conditions on the island had attracted attention from social reformists and agencies such as the North American Civic League for Immigrants. Immensely beneficial and progressive as the resulting improvements were, they were partly motivated by a concern that continuing neglect of basic human requirements would, in the words of an investigator for the Department of Labour, “provide the groundwork for rebellion and sedition.”

Such concerns were validated in 1913 when more than 500 workers, having been refused a raise in pay, took strike action, which closed one company plant for two weeks until strikebreakers were used, resulting in violence and one shooting. 1918 saw the arrival of Jane Shaw, who Campanella allows himself to describe as the “redeemer who brought more joy to the long scorned isle than a diamond ring pulled from the trash.”

“Lady” Jane Shaw, Guardian Angel of Barren Island, so to be named by the press at the time, was an experienced teacher sent by the public school system. Her positive presence stimulated a metamorphosis, and not only in the classroom. She went into homes to give cooking classes and encourage both the growing of vegetables and the raising of poultry. With a piano she herself provided, she conducted music lessons and arranged communal dances.

Skilled at lobbying as she must have been, she had the Red Cross send milk daily by police boat to be distributed by her pupils to the sick. After training with a Navy physician, she assumed the role of de facto doctor to the community where the disease was decreasing.

Within ten years, her work had contributed beyond measure to the transforming of the Isle into what she, in a deserved self-indulgent display of lobbyist hyperbole described as ‘the richest spot on Earth.’

The emerging nascent society, nourished so richly by its “counselor, dictator, friend and champion,” would in 1920 see the beginning of what would eventually be its destruction.

In that year, the New York Sanitary Utilization Company ceased operations on the island, with the loss of jobs resulting in a declining population. The narrow creeks and salt marshes separating the island from Brooklyn were filled in and Flatbush Avenue was extended, thus gathering what Campanella describes as “the Hades of horsedom” to the greater Brooklyn.

The former island became the site of New York City’s first municipal airport in 1931, by which time little evidence of its dark history survived.

Robert Moses, the contentious parks commissioner for New York, ordered the remaining 400 Barren Island residents to be evicted from their rented homes in March 1936. Given fourteen days to leave, many of the families had lived there forty years and all were known to Jane Shaw.

Lady Jane’s intervention persuaded the city officials to grant a reprieve enabling her last class to graduate on the 30th of June. The school was closed down the next morning.

Jane Shaw died in 1939, by which time no trace of the community she had transformed remained. The locations of her school and village, together with the toxic rendering plants, are now absorbed into a National Recreation Area and, by ironic symbiosis, a wildlife sanctuary.

Allowing that, in consideration of the scope of Professor Campanella’s history, I have given disproportionate attention to Barren Island and Jane Shaw, I yet believe justification can be claimed for an attempt to find a core of thematic unity in what is fundamentally an episodic narrative.

The account of Barren Island contains, in concentrated form, most of the recurring threads that bind the stories of the designing of roadways and the erection and destruction of amusement parks, racetracks, and hotels, the unrealized dreams of great buildings to doomed public housing.

Finally, in a world that allows too many Robert Moses’ and Fred Trumps to attain power and too few Jane Shaws, Thomas Campanella’s message of the failures and destructive results of the misguided and, at times, venal implementation of short-sighted and profit-motivated urban renewal projects needs to be heeded in many more places than his still beloved Brooklyn.


Volume 13 - Issue 1 - April 2006

Editorial

Editorial announcement

Abstract

ABSTRACTS

Article

Introduction to the special issue on the formation of an American monetary union

This special issue of the Financial History Review contributes to the vast literature on the political economy of monetary unions. Inspired by the recent events in Europe, it reaches back in history to consider an earlier experiment in forming a monetary (as well as economic and political) union. In this historical case the pivotal event was the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, two centuries before the Maastricht Treaty. Between formal independence in 1781 and the implementation of the Constitution reforms in 1789, the fledgling country was organised politically into a loose confederation of thirteen, virtually sovereign states. Despite the nominal powers granted to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, it lacked the direct means to collect taxes and to enforce its policies. Consequently, during this brief period, state governments could and did pursue their own economic and monetary policies.

Development of the US monetary union

The US monetary union has undergone four distinct phases of development. From the early colonial period through the Revolution and Confederation, the unit of account differed in each region of British North America. Soon after the Constitution went into effect in 1789, the country shared a single specie-based unit of account and standard of deferred payment, but exchange media were numerous. After the Civil War, the trend was towards the use of fewer media of exchange. Over the course of the twentieth century, the current system, characterised by a common medium of exchange denominated in a single unit of account divorced from specie, evolved.

The US Constitution and monetary powers: an analysis of the 1787 constitutional convention and the constitutional transformation of the US monetary system

The monetary powers embedded in the US Constitution were revolutionary and led to a watershed transformation in the nation's monetary structure. They included determining what monies could be legal tender, who could emit fiat paper money, and who could incorporate banks. How the debate at the 1787 constitutional convention over these powers evolved and led the founding fathers to the specific powers adopted is presented and deconstructed. Why they took this path rather than replicate the successful colonial system and why they codified such powers into supreme law rather than leaving them to legislative debate and enactment are addressed.

The transition to a monetary union in the United States, 1787–1795

A convertible US-dollar monetary union was the least controversial component of the US financial revolution of the early 1790s. Although the fiat paper currencies of the colonies before 1776 sometimes worked reasonably well, the founders had good reasons for the constitutional ban on their continuance by US states. The ban, a surrender of states' sovereignty over money, at the time proved to be relatively uncontroversial for two reasons. One is that the financial revolution lightened the fiscal burdens of states by assuming their debts and making them part of the national debt. The other is that states quickly learned that chartering banks could accomplish virtually all of the legitimate purposes of state fiat money issues, and possessed additional economic and political advantages.

A common currency: early US monetary policy and the transition to the dollar

The transition of the US money supply from the mixture of paper bills of credit, certificates and foreign coins that circulated at various exchange rates with the British pound sterling during the colonial period to the unified dollar standard of the early national period was rapid and had far-reaching consequences. This article documents the transition and highlights the importance of this standardisation in bringing order to the nation's finances and in facilitating the accumulation and intermediation of capital. It describes how the struggle of the colonies to maintain viable substitutes for hard money set the stage for the financial leaders of the Federalist period to settle upon the dollar, attach it to a convertible metallic base, and create a national bank that issued notes denominated in the new monetary unit. It also presents recently constructed estimates of the US money stock for 1790–1820 and relates them to measures of the nation's early modernisation.


Contents – Volume 13

Luisa A. Igloria – Featured Writer - Poetry
Interview By Anne Colwell, Poetry Editor
Maps for Migrants and Ghosts
Moving, Changing, Not Moving
Photograph, 1959
We Don’t Live in the Light
Volta
Orchard
Gnamma

Jason Gebhardt
Nectarine

Jennie Linthorst
How to Walk Among The Dead
Defiance of Dandelions

Ann LoLordo
A Knot That Holds
Eyes Of The Crab
Lambert’s Instant Guide to Birds

Mela Blust
fluidity

Rustin Larson
Ribbon Room

Doris Ferleger
Everybody Who Sits In The Zendo Is Breathing
The Way Her Lover’s Fingers

Katherine Gekker
When/Then/That
The Wind. The Wind.

David Salner
Leaving Spain
Harriet’s Song
Leave Me A List

Anne Yarbrough
After Peak Oil
Eve Explains How The Refinery…
The Leonids

Frederick Pollack
Light Elsewhere

G. Timothy Gordon
Magpie Season
Everything That Rises

Wendy Mitman Clarke
Rules For Beachcombing
Heidi The Octopus, Dreaming
Owls And How To Find Them
Two Million Breaths

Michael Salcman
Godwit

Dom Fonce
“Song For The Wild Frog”

Michael Brosnan
The Convexity of Winter
Yes, Who Were Those People?
North
Now That I’m A Grandpa

Carl Boon
Burning Stream
The Beautiful Impossible
My Son

Matthew Roth
Debris
Fatherly Gesture

Ed Granger
Never Room
Domain

Douglas Collura
Live-In Help
Franklin Roosevelt’s Hand-Controlled Car vs. Eleanor
Two Survivors In The New World

Tim Fab-Eme
I Like A Little Lie
Ill-Fate And The Puzzle Prince
All The Day Of Our Lives

Sepideh Zamani
Nothing Was The Same
Bring Me Some Hope

Kevin O’Keeffe
Crack
Cheek
light bulbs

Susan Roney-O’Brien
Blue Memory
Compulsion

Lisa Low
By Some God Meticulously Kept

Gwendolyn Jensen
In Such A Night
perhaps you’ve been there too

Alex Aldred
Summoning You

Connor Drexler
Winter Ghosts
Anything Can Slip Through Pocket Holes

Don Reese
Tether
Vocative
Pangs

Emma Wynn
Help Me To Fall

Joan Drescher Cooper
Days 8 & 9 Visits During Quarantine

Frannie McMillan
Heartsounds
Background Image

Donna Reis
Learn To Sail
Dawn

Peter Waldor
Crazy (E) Motion
Breach

Joshua McKinney
Wend (After Raymond Carver)
Balm
Stone SIJO (monosyllabics)

Michele Rappoport

BOOK REVIEWS

Barbara Lockhart reviews
CHASING ALICE by Stephanie L. Fowler

James O’Sullivan reviews
PIRATES OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
F
rom the Colonial Era to the Oyster Wars by Jamie L. H. Goodall

Harold O. Wilson reviews
IN SEARCH OF WARM BREATHING THINGS by Katherine Gekker

B. B. Shamp reviews
THOMAS AND BEAL IN THE MIDI by Christopher Tilghman

Judith Reveal reviews
FIONA DARES TO DISTURB by Marcelo Antinori

Mary Dolan reviews
FURIOUS HOURS – Murder, Fraud, and the Last Trial of HARPER LEE
by Casey Cep

Gerald F. Sweeney reviews
MOSQUITOES AND ME by Mark Alan Polo


Contributors – Volume 13

Alex Aldred (Scotland) lives and writes in Edinburgh, Scotland, where he is currently studying towards his PhD in creative writing. You can find out more about his work by visiting his website www.alexaldred.co.uk , or by summoning him to speak with you in person, provided you have access to the necessary runes.

Mela Blust (Pennsylvania) is a Pushcart Prize and three time Best of the Net nominee and has appeared or is forthcoming in The Bitter Oleander, Rust+Moth, The Nassau Review, The Sierra Nevada Review, South Florida Poetry Journal, Collective Unrest , and more. Her debut poetry collection, Skeleton Parade , is available with Apep Publications. She is a contributing editor for Barren Magazine and can be followed at: twitter.com/melablust.

Carl Boon (Ohio and Turkey) is the author of the full-length collection Places & Names: Poems (Nasiona Press, 2019). His poems have appeared in Prairie Schooner, Posit , and The Maine Review , among other journals and magazines. He received his Ph.D. in Twentieth-Century American Literature, from Ohio University (2007), and currently lives in Izmir, Turkey, where he teaches American culture and literature at Dokuz Eylül University.

Erin Branning (Illinois) is a fiction editor for TriQuarterly , Northwestern’s literary journal, where she has published interviews with Ben Fountain and Lily King. She has had work published in Manifest-Station and LitBreak . Erin holds an MFA from Northwestern University, a BA in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Master of Public Policy from the University of Chicago. She lives in Chicago with her four children.

Michael Brosnan’s (New Hampshire) recent book of poetry is The Sovereignty of the Accidental (Harbor Mountain Press, 2018). His poems have appeared in Rattle, The Moth, Prairie Schooner, Confrontation, Borderlands, Barrow Street, New Letters , and other journals. He's the author of Against the Current , a book on inner-city education, and serves as the senior editor of the website: TeachingWhileWhite.org . He lives in Exeter.

Celine Callow (United Kingdom) is an anthropology student at Brunel, University of London. She has written a collection of short stories called ‘Bad Women’ and is looking for representation for her debut novel. She loves to write about complicated women with messy lives and inconvenient emotions.

Wendy Mitman Clarke’s (Maryland) writing has been featured in numerous publications. She won the Pat Nielsen Poetry Prize in 2015 and 2017, and her poem “The Kiss” (in Delmarva Review ) was nominated for a Pushcart Prize. Her nonfiction has been published in River Teeth and Smithsonian . Her novel Still Water Bending was released in October 2017. Website: WendyMitmanClarke.com.

Douglas Collura (New York) is the author of a spoken CD, The Dare of the Quick World , and the book, Things I Can Fit My Whole Head Into , a finalist for the 2007 Paterson Poetry Prize. He was the 2008 First Prize Winner of the Missouri Review Audio/Video Competition in Poetry. With two Pushcart Prize nominations, his work has been featured in numerous publications. He lives in Manhattan.

Anne Colwell (Delaware), Delmarva Review’s Poetry Editor, won the 2020 Individual Artist Fellowship for Established Literature: Creative Nonfiction, from the Delaware Division of Arts, and the 2013 Emerging Artist in Fiction Fellowship for her novel, Holy Day. Now, she is in the midst of a distinguished career as a poet, nonfiction and fiction writer, literary critic, and professor of English at University of Delaware. She earned a MA and Ph.D. in English and American Literature from University of Delaware and is a member of Bread Loaf Writer’s Workshop staff. Her poetry collections include Mother’s Maiden Name (2013) and Believing Their Shadows (2010, both by Word Poetry). Her book about Elizabeth Bishop’s poetry, Inscrutable Houses: Metaphors of the Body in the Poems of Elizabeth Bishop , was published by the University of Alabama Press.

Joan Drescher Cooper (Maryland) is a writer and teacher. She published a poetry collection Birds Like Me (Finishing Line Press) in 2019. Her poetry, book reviews, and fiction have appeared in Delmarva Review , River Babble , Doorknobs & Body Paint , Sand Dune Anthology and The Bay to Ocean Anthology. Joan published the Lilac Hill fiction trilogy with Salt Water Media. Website: joandcooper.com.

Orman Day (Maryland) has lived a life ruled by wanderlust and a love of writing. As a young man with little money, he hitchhiked and hopped freights. Eventually, he hauled his pack to dozens of countries. His prose and poetry have been published by Creative Nonfiction , Potomac Review , William and Mary , Passager Journal , Portland Review, and others. He lives in Laurel, Maryland.

Mary Dolan’s (Maryland) life falls into three parts. In the first, she ran her own marketing communications agency in Philadelphia. At age fifty, she switched gears and moved to Maine, launching a career selling her photography on the art show circuit. Her writing life follows her relocation to the Eastern Shore.

Kelly A. Dorgan (Tennessee) writes about taboo topics, including sex, race, and illness. A writer, speaker, scholar, and communications professor, she has published nearly 40 nonfiction stories, essays, and research articles. Her writings appear in online magazines, research journals including Women & Health , and scholarly books including Performing Motherhood . Dr. Kelly is a professor at East Tennessee State University. Website: www.kellydorgan.com .

Bohdan Dowhaluk (Maryland) is a former writing and literature teacher living in Silver Spring, Maryland. His previous publications include a story in Zymbol, a journal that focuses on surreal fiction and poetry.

Connor Drexler (Wisconsin) lives in Madison. When he is not reading or writing, he spends his time playing and singing music, adventuring in the outdoors, and pampering his cat. He hopes that people find the enjoyment of doing things for their own sake and meditating at least once a day.

Tim Fab-Eme (Nigeria) experiments with poetic forms while writing about exploitation, identity, and the environment. His work has appeared in The Malahat Review, New Welsh Review FIYAH, and Magma . He often turns to reggae and jazz when news weighs him down. He studied engineering at the Niger Delta University and is pursuing a BA in English studies at University of Port Harcourt. He lives in Rivers, Nigeria.

Doris Ferleger (Pennsylvania) is an award-winning poet and creative nonfiction writer. She is the author of three volumes of poetry, Big Silences in a Year of Rain, As the Moon Has Breath, and Leavened, as well as a chapbook, When You Become Snow. She holds an MFA in poetry from Vermont College and a Ph.D. in psychology. Dr. Ferleger is a mindfulness-based therapist in Wyncote, PA.

Dom Fonce (Ohio) is the author of Here, We Bury the Hearts (Finishing Line Press, 2019). He is editor-in-chief of Volney Road Review, the poetry editor at Great Lakes Review, and a candidate in the Northeast Ohio Master of Fine Arts Program . His poetry has been published in Obra/Artifact, Burning House Press, Black Rabbit Quarterly, Italian Americana, 3Elements Review, America’s Best Emerging Poets 2018: Midwest Region . He is from Youngstown.

Tara Gilson Fraga (Oregon) grew up in a rural logging town and started writing when she first learned to hold a pencil. She likes to spend her time with her family, when not writing. Tara believes stories have the power to change lives. “ I hope my humble piece might help shed some light on ASD, but also on the varied ways we view the world and our place in it.”

Lisa K. Friedman’s (Washington, D.C.) fiction has been featured in literary journals and anthologies. She is the author of two novels, Nothing to Lose and Cruise to Retribution . Her nonfiction has been published in the New York Times, Smithsonian , and in the Huffington Post, where she maintains a humor column. Website: www.lisakfriedman.com .

Jason Gebhardt’s (Washington, D.C.) poems have appeared in Southern Review , Poet Lore , Tinderbox Poetry Journal , Iron Horse Literary Review , Crab Creek Review , and William and Mary Review . His chapbook Good Housekeeping was a semifinalist in the 2016 Frost Place Chapbook Competition and won the 2016 Cathy Smith Bowers Prize. He is the recipient of multiple Artist Fellowships awarded by the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities.

Katherine Gekker (Virginia) is the author of In Search of Warm Breathing Things (Glass Lyre Press, 2019). Her poems have been published in Delmarva Review, Little Patuxent Review, Broadkill Review, Poetry South, Apple Valley Review . Her work has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and Best of the Net. Her poems, collectively called “…to Cast a Shadow Again,” have been set to music by composer Eric Ewazen. Composer Carson Cooman has set a seasonal cycle of her poems, "Chasing the Moon Down," to music. Website: www.katherinegekker.com .

G. Timothy Gordon’s (New Mexico) Dream Wind was published in December 2019 ( Spirit-of-the-Ram Publishing) . His work appears in AGNI, American Literary Review, Cincinnati Review, Louisville Review, Mississippi Review, phoebe, RHINO, Sonora Review, Texas Observer, Kansas Quarterly, and New York Quarterly , among others. Everything Speaking Chinese won the RiverStone Press Poetry Competition. His recognitions include NEA and NEH Fellowships and nominations for a Pushcart Prize. He divides lives among Asia, the Southwest, and Maine.

Ed Granger (Pennsylvania) lives in Lancaster County, where he works for a healthcare non-profit. His chapbook Voices from the First Gilded Age was published by Finishing Line Press, 2019. His poems have also appeared or are forthcoming in THINK Journal, Potomac Review, Little Patuxent Review, Naugatuck River Review, Rappahannock Review , and other journals.

Barbara Haas (Iowa) is a professor in the English Department of Iowa State University. She began as a fiction writer (M.F.A., UC-Irvine) and finds that creative nonfiction essays afford her the best way to address topics related to nature and environment. Her r ecent essays appear in The MacGuffin, Still Point Arts Quarterly, and The Chariton Review . Her nonfiction is forthcoming from Isthmus Review & Lake Effect International . She is a repeat contributor of nonfiction and fiction to The Hudson Review, North American Review, and Virginia Quarterly Review .

Luisa A. Igloria (Virginia) is the Delmarva Review featured writer for poetry. Her interview and seven poems are published exclusively in this issue. Dr. Igloria, a Filipina American poet, was recently named Poet Laureate of Virginia. She is professor of English and creative writing at Old Dominion University, in Norfolk. She earned a BA at the University of the Philippines Baguio, an MA at Ateneo de Manila University, and a Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Chicago, for which she received a Fulbright grant. Her early work was published under the name Maria Luisa Aguilar-Cariño. She is the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including The Buddha Wonders if She is Having a Mid-Life Crisis (2018), Ode to the Heart Smaller than a Pencil Eraser (2014), selected by Mark Doty for a May Swenson Poetry Award The Saints of Streets (2013), winner of a Gintong Aklat Award Juan Luna’s Revolver (2009), winner of the 2009 Sandeen Prize from the University of Notre Dame Trill & Mordent (2005) and In the Garden of the Three Islands (1994). She is also the author of the chapbooks Haori (2017), Check & Balance (2017), and Bright as Mirrors Left in the Grass (2015). From 2009 to 2015, Dr. Igloria directed the graduate program in creative writing at Old Dominion University. In 2018, she was the inaugural Glasgow Distinguished Writer in Residence at Washington and Lee University. Website: luisaigloria.com.

Mark Jacobs (Virginia) has published more than 150 stories in magazines including The Atlantic, Playboy, The Baffler, The Iowa Review, and Delmarva Review . He has stories forthcoming in several magazines including The Hudson Review . His five books include A Handful of Kings (Simon and Shuster) and Stone Cowboy (Soho Press). Website: markjacobsauthor.com.

Alexa Jeffress (Virginia) is a languages doctoral candidate at the University of Virginia. Her research includes translation, ecocriticism, Spanish and Catalan film, and nineteenth and twentieth-century Spanish literature. She recently published an English translation of Guillermo Martínez's short story “A Repulsive Happiness” and co-translated two books of poetry by Valparaíso Editions, Detroit Doesn't Love Us Anymore and Contemporary Colombian Poetry.

Gwendolyn Jensen (Massachusetts) began writing poems upon retirement in 2001 from the presidency of Wilson College. Her work has appeared in Beloit Poetry Journal , Harvard Review, Salamander , Sanskrit , Whistling Shade, and Measure . Her first book, Birthright (Birch Brook Press, 2011), is a letterpress edition, now in a second printing. Her other books are As if toward Beauty (2015) and Graceful Ghost (2018), both by Birch Brook Press. She lives in Cambridge. Website: GwendolynJensen.com.

Anna Elin Kristiansen’s (Denmark) writing passion lies in crafting psychological drama. She only recently started sharing her work, and Natalie is her first short story. For many years, she was of the travelling tribe but has now settled in Copenhagen with her husband and two young daughters. During the daytime, she creates content for one of the city’s universities.

Rustin Larson’s (Iowa) poetry has appeared in The New Yorker, The Iowa Review, and North American Review . He won 1st Editor’s Prize from Rhino and was a prize winner in The National Poet Hunt and The Chester H. Jones Foundation contests. A graduate of the Vermont College MFA in Writing, Larson was an Iowa Poet at The Des Moines National Poetry Festival, and a featured poet at the Poetry at Round Top Festival. Website: RustinLarson.wordpress.com.

Lynn Lauber (New York) is a fiction and nonfiction author, teacher, and editor. She has published two books of fiction, White Girls and 21 Sugar Street , and one nonfiction volume, Listen to Me , published by W.W. Norton. Her essays have appeared in The New York Times , Boston Globe, and a number of anthologies. She teaches personal writing at UCLA online.

Jennie Linthorst (California) is published in Foliate Oak, Forge, Kaleidoscope, Literary Mama, Mothers Always Write, Sanskrit , and The Art of Autism . Her two books of poems, Silver Girl (2013) and Autism Disrupted: A Mother's Journey of Hope (2011), were published by Cardinal House. Jennie is certified in poetry therapy from the National Federation of Biblio/Poetry Therapy. Website: www.lifespeakspoetrytherapy.com.

Barbara Lockhart (Maryland) received her MFA from Vermont College and is the recipient of two Maryland State Arts Council awards for excerpts from her novel, Requiem for a Summer Cottage, and her short stories. Her historical novel, Elizabeth’s Field , received an Independent Publishers Book Silver Medal Award, and her collection of short stories, The Night is Young , won finalist in the National Indie Excellence Awards. She is the author of four children’s books as well as a manual on children’s literature used nationwide, Read to me, Talk with me.

Ann LoLordo’s (Maryland) poetry has appeared in Southern Poetry Review, The MacGuffin, The Greensboro Review, Puerto del Sol and The Sow's Ear Poetry Review . She is a former journalist who now works for a global health nonprofit organization as a writer, editor, and communications director.

Lisa Low’s (Connecticut) poetry, reviews, interviews, and essays have appeared in Massachusetts Review, Boston Review, Cross Currents, Boston Herald, Phoebe, Potomac Review, Crack the Spine , and Aphros Literary Magazine , among others. She received her doctorate in English literature from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has been an English professor for twenty years, teaching at Cornell College, Colby College, and Pace University.

Guillermo Martínez (Argentina) is the Delmarva Review featured writer for fiction and his story “The Reversed Miracle” was translated in English exclusively for publication in this issue of the Delmarva Review . Martínez is a prolific writer in Argentina, authoring six novels, numerous short stories, and essays. He holds a PhD in mathematical logic from the University of Buenos Aires. He worked for two years in a postdoctoral position for the Mathematical Institute, in Oxford, England. His best-known novel in English is The Oxford Murders , winner of the Planeta Prize. The book was translated into forty languages and produced as a film in 2008 starring John Hurt. His best-known short story in English is “Vast Hell,” published in The New Yorker (2009), and his best-known essay is “Borges and Mathematics” published in 2003. He is a native of Bahía Blanca.

Joshua McKinney’s (California) most recent book of poetry is Small Sillion (Parlor Press, 2019). His work has appeared in Kenyon Review, New American Writing, Boulevard, Denver Quarterly , and other journals. He is the recipient of The Dorothy Brunsman Poetry Prize, The Dickinson Prize, The Pavement Saw Chapbook Prize, and Gertrude Stein Award for Innovative Writing. He teaches poetry, writing, and literature at California State University, Sacramento.

Frannie McMillan’s (Virginia) poetry has appeared in The Coachella Review, K’in Literary Journal, isacoustic, The Indianapolis Review , and others. She is a National Board Certified secondary librarian, mother of three, and book reviewer from Richmond. Follow her on Twitter @franniemaq, but, please don’t ever call her Fran.

Patrick J. Murphy’s (Florida) short stories have been widely published. Several have been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and other awards and for anthologies. He’s been an intern pastor for the Presbyterian Church, an adjunct professor of English at University of Texas and Florida State, electronics engineer for NASA at the Ames Research Center, and a forensic toxicologist at Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Website: http://members.authorsguild.net/pjmurphy/.

John R. Murray’s (California) most recent work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The MacGuffin, and Mount Hope Magazine . He is associate professor in the undergraduate writing program at the University of Southern California. In addition to teaching academic writing, he teaches a class that helps students create short documentaries to raise awareness about social justice concerns in South LA. He received a Master of Professional Writing and Doctorate in Education from University of Southern California .

Kevin O’Keeffe (Massachusetts) was born in Ireland but has spent the bulk of his adult life in America. A mathematician by trade, he writes poetry to relax and recalibrate. His work has been featured in the Page & Spine and the upcoming anthology of best British and Irish poets from Eyewear Publishing (United Kingdom).

James O’Sullivan (Maryland) is Fiction Coeditor of the Delmarva Review . He received an M.A. in Writing from Johns Hopkins University, a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Connecticut, and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. In addition to working as an attorney, teacher and science writer, his fiction, poetry and legal writing have appeared in Sheepshead Review , Regardie’s Magazine , Laurel Review , Journal of Public Inquiry , and the United States Attorneys’ Bulletin . In 2019, he was the Second Place Winner in the Jim Martin Memorial Story Contest sponsored by Arizona Mystery Writers.

Frederick Pollack (Washington, District of Columbia) is the author of two book-length narrative poems, The Adventure and Happiness (Story Line Press the former to be reissued by Red Hen Press), and two collections, A Poverty of Words (Prolific Press, 2015) and Landscape With Mutant (Smokestack Books, UK, 2018). Pollack’s work has appeared in Hudson Review, Salmagundi, Manhattan Review, Chicago Quarterly Review, Poetry Quarterly Review and other literary journals.

Michele Rappoport (Arizona) is a writer and artist who divides her time between Arizona and a hill on the western slope in Colorado. Her writing and artwork have been published or are forthcoming in Delmarva Review, High Desert Journal, Right Hand Pointing and The Centifictionist . Michele also holds a certification in small animal massage and teaches basic calming techniques to volunteers at animal shelters.

Don Reese (Rhode Island) writes: “ A line connecting my homes would be a scribble in the Pacific Northwest, a straight line to Albuquerque, and then a line east to Providence, as if someone putting pen to paper were nudged but salvaged a checkmark. After a long period of writing rarely while learning to be a father, husband, and teacher, I am now working more intently.” His poetry has been published in numerous magazines and literary journals.

Donna Reis (New York) writes from the Hudson Valley. Her debut poetry collection, No Passing Zone (Deerbrook Editions, 2012) was nominated for a Pushcart Prize. She is co-editor and a contributor to the anthology, Blues for Bill: A Tribute to William Matthews (Akron Poetry Series, 2005), and the author of a nonfiction book, Seeking Ghosts in the Warwick Valley (Schiffer Publishing, Ltd, 2003). She received a MA in creative writing at The City College of New York and an MS in Early Childhood Education from Hunter College. Website: www.donnareis.com .

Judy Reveal (Maryland) is a fiction and nonfiction author, editor, and writing teacher who has provided editorial assistance to authors for over ten years. Her manuscript for Crossroads won second place in the 2018 San Antonio Writers Contest for Fiction. She is also a professional indexer. She is treasurer of the Delmarva Review Literary Fund and is past president of the Eastern Shore Writers Association and Maryland Writers Association. Website: JustCreativeWriting.com.

John Robinson (New Hampshire) is a novelist, playwright, essayist, memoirist, and short story writer, who lives in Portsmouth. His work has appeared in many journals including Ploughshares , the Sewanee Review , the Chicago Quarterly Review , the Green Mountains Review , the Cimarron Review , the Tampa Review , the Bitter Oleander, and has been translated into thirty-two languages.

Susan Roney-O'Brien (Massachusetts) is the Summer Writing Series Coordinator for The Stanley Kunitz Boyhood Home. Nominated for seven Pushcart Prizes, she has published Farmwife , winner of the William and Kingman Page Poetry Book Award, Earth (Cat Rock Press), Legacy of the Last World (WordTech), Bone Circle, and Thira, both by Kelsay Books). She lives in Princeton, MA.

Matthew Roth (Pennsylvania) is the author of Bird Silence (Woodley Press). His poetry has appeared in 32 Poems, Verse, Fence, Birmingham Poetry Review , and many other journals. He teaches creative writing and literature at Messiah University, in Grantham, Pennsylvania.

Michael Salcman (Maryland), a poet, physician and art historian, was chairman of neurosurgery at Maryland and president of the Contemporary Museum. Poems appear in Arts & Letters, Hopkins Review, Hudson Review , and New Letters . Books include Poetry in Medicine , his popular anthology of poems on doctors and healing, The Clock Made of Confetti A Prague Spring, Before & After , winner of the Sinclair Poetry Prize, and Shades & Graces (Spuyten Duyvil Press, 2020), inaugural winner of The Daniel Hoffman Legacy Book Prize .

David Salner (Delaware) worked as iron ore miner, steelworker, machinist, longshoreman, teacher, baseball usher, and librarian. His writing appears in recent issues of Delmarva Review, Threepenny Review, Ploughshares, Salmagundi, River Styx, Beloit Poetry Journal , and many other magazines. His fourth poetry collection is The Stillness of Certain Valleys (Broadstone Books, 2019).

B.B. Shamp (Delaware) is an environmental activist, editor, and writer of regional fiction who lives on a tidal creek in Fenwick Island. She is the author of two award winning novels, Third Haven (2015) and The Grist Mill Bone (2018). A work of historical fiction, Servant, Slave, Orphan - Three Women of Oxford, is forthcoming. Website: bbshamp.com.

Gerald F. Sweeney (Maryland), Delmarva Review’s Book Review Editor, is past president of the Eastern Shore Writers Association. Sweeney is a veteran and graduate of Michigan. A retired New York magazine executive, he just completed the final book in a seven-novel series called The Columbiad, stories that follow one family through the 20th Century. The novels include: Eagles Rising, First Lights, Crashing into Sunrise, A Tournament of a Distinguished White Order, Comes the Electric Circus, Yo Columbia! and Wizard Ho! Website : sweeneygf.com.

Caroline N. Simpson (Delaware) was awarded a 2020 Established Artist Fellowship in Poetry by the Delaware Division of Arts. Her chapbook, Choose Your Own Adventures and Other Poems , was published by Finishing Line Press in 2018. She has thrice been nominated for a Pushcart Prize in poetry and nonfiction. She teaches high school English at the Tatnall School, in Wilmington. Website: carolinensimpson.com .

Eric Smith (New Mexico) has an MA in English literature from the University of New Mexico. His travel articles and poetry have appeared in several regional newspapers and magazines. His short stories have been published in Jonah Magazine and Light and Dark . He has lived on the high plains in New Mexico territory for thirty years.

Sue Ellen Thompson (Maryland) is the Delmarva Review featured writer for nonfiction in this issue. Her fifth book of poems, THEY , was published in 2014. An instructor at The Writer’s Center in Bethesda, Maryland since 2007, she has previously taught at Middlebury College, Binghamton University, University of Delaware, and Central Connecticut State University. She received a Pushcart Prize, the Pablo Neruda Prize, two Pulitzer Prize nominations, and an Individual Artist Award from the state of Connecticut. In 2010, she won the Maryland Author Award from the Maryland Library Association. Website: sueellenthompson.com.

Peter Waldor’s (Colorado) work has appeared in American Poetry Review, Ploughshares, the Iowa Review, the Colorado Review, Poetry Daily, Verse Daily , Mothering Magazine, and other journals. He is the author of Door to a Noisy Room (Alice James Books), The Wilderness Poetry of Wu Xing (Pinyon Publishing), Who Touches Everything (Settlement House), which won the National Jewish Book Award, The Unattended Harp (Settlement House), State of the Union (Kelsay Books) and Gate Posts with No Gate (Shanti Arts). Website: peterwaldor.com.

Harold O. Wilson (Maryland) is Delmarva Review’s Fiction Senior Editor. He is the author of The Night Blooming Cereus and Other Stories and the novel A Taste of Salt and publishes short stories, literary criticism and poetry on his website: haroldowilson.com. In addition, he hosts Delmarva Public Radio’s “Writer’s Edition” and “Delmarva Radio Theater.” He and his wife Marilyn live on Kent Island on the Eastern Shore. Website: haroldowilson.com.

Chila Woychik (Iowa), born in Germany, tells us she is “a complex organism trying to live a simple life.” Kismet has led to awards from Storm Cellar and Emrys , and publication in Cimarron , Passages North , and more. She edits the Eastern Iowa Review , and when she wants to see her family roll their eyes, she calls river debris “tidewrack.” Website: www.chilawoychik.com .

Wilson W. Wyatt (Maryland) is a founder and the Executive Editor of Delmarva Review . He has been a seminar leader and on the board of The Writer’s Center, in Bethesda. He is past president of the Eastern Shore Writers Association, and the past coordinator of the Bay to Ocean Writers Conference. He was the senior officer for corporate communications and public policy at three international corporations. After college at Sewanee (University of the South), he was a reporter at The Courier-Journal, in Kentucky. In addition to writing, he is an avid photographer, with two published books of photography: YOSEMITE-Catching the Light (2011) and CHESAPEAKE-Catching the Light (2013). Website: WilsonWyattJr.org.

Emma Wynn (Connecticut) teaches philosophy and religion at a boarding high school in Connecticut. Her first chapbook, Help Me to Fall , includes her poem in this issue of Delmarva Review and won the Moonstone Arts Center 2019 prize and publication by Moonstone Press, in Philadelphia (2020). She received a masters degree from Harvard Divinity School. Her poetry has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize. Website: emmawynnpoetry.com .

Anne Yarbrough (Delaware) lives on the lower Delaware River between a bridge and a refinery. Her poetry has appeared in The Delmarva Quarterly , The Christian Century , and most recently in Poet Lore . These poems are part of a book-length project in progress, Refinery .

Sepideh Zamani (Maryland and Iran) graduated from law school in 1999 and moved to the United States two years later. Her poems, essays, short stories, and novels focus on immigration, gender inequality, and the lives of ethnic and religious minorities under cultural and religious cleansing and forced assimilation. Her poems, here, are for the 1500 Iranians who were killed during peaceful protest, last November, of the Ukrainian airplane crash in Tehran, and for the hope for world peace.


Editorial Board

Professor Linda Scott, Editor
Said School of Business
Oxford University, UK

Advertising & Society Review

Professor Anne Allison
Department of Anthropology
Duke University

Professor Russell Belk
School of Business
University of Utah

Professor Arlene Davila
Program of American Studies
New York University

Professor Stuart Ewen
Department of Film and Media Studies
Hunter College

Professor Robert Foster
Department of Anthropology
University of Rochester

Professor Guliz Ger
Associate Provost
Bilkent University, Turkey

Professor Robert Goldman
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Lewis and Clark College

Professor Stephen A. Greyser
Harvard Business School
Harvard University

Professor Sut Jhally
Department of Communications
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Professor Michael Kimmel
Department of Sociology
SUNY at Stony Brook

Professor Peggy Kreshel
Department of Advertising
University of Georgia

Mr. Paul Kurnit
Kurnit Communication and Kid Shop
New York

Professor William Mazzarella
Department of Anthropology
University of Chicago

Mr. David Mechlin
CoalHart Associates
New York

Professor Paul Messaris
Annenberg School
University of Pennsylvania

Deborah Morrison
Department of Advertising
University of Oregon

Professor William M. O'Barr
Department of Cultural Anthropology
Duke University

Professor Richard Pollay
Department of Commerce and Business
University of British Columbia

Professor Jef Richards
Department of Advertising
University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Fath Ruffins
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC

Professor Juliet Schor
Department of Sociology
Boston College

Professor Jonathan Schroeder
Department of Communication
Rochester Institute of Technology

Professor Susan Smulyan
Department of American Civilization
Brown University

Professor James Twitchell
Deparment of English
University of Florida

Patrick Vargas
Department of Advertising
University of Illinois

Professor Jing Wang
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Professor Alexei Yurchak
Department of Anthropology
University of California at Berkeley


The Mailer Review/Volume 13, 2019/ “Her Problems Were Everyone’s Problems”: Self and Gender in The Deer Park

B efore its publication in 1955, The Deer Park had been refused by seven publishers in ten weeks for no reason than its “six not very explicit lines about the sex of an old producer and a call girl.” Ώ] After its publication, it received more criticism than praise, and “the most common objection to the book was its sexual explicitness” ΐ] because “in the early 1950s no description of sexuality, however evasive, was readily accepted.” Α] In spite of responses from publishers and critics, Mailer refused to make any change of the original lines about “the sex of an old producer and a call girl” and the novel came out as it is now, with the sexuality of his characters to play “the more significant role” in the story. Β] The issue of sexuality in The Deer Park has drawn much attention from critics. Nigel Leigh argues that “in The Deer Park sexuality is both foregrounded and incorporated into Mailer’s political epistemology” Γ] and “Mailer investigates closely the sex lives of Sergius, Eitel, Elena, Faye and Lulu Meyers in a search of a discourse of pleasure.” Δ] Robert Merrill holds that the novel is “only incidentally a satire on Hollywood or an outlet for Mailer’s philosophical predilections at heart it is the story of a rather tragic love affair.” Ε] Norman Podhoretz points out that “it is on the sexual affairs of his characters that Mr. Mailer concentrates in The Deer Park.” Ζ]

Why does Mailer concentrate on the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park? Many critics have noticed that in The Deer Park, Mailer’s major concern moves from “the problem of the world” to “the problem of the self, or, from ideology to the individual or self. [a] As a result, he is highly concerned with the rebellious imperatives of the self, among which “none is more exigent than sex”. Η] A number of critics have directed their attention towards and made close investigations of the nature and meaning of the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park, and, consequently, a variety of conclusions have been drawn. To Jennifer Bailey, the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park is of great importance to themselves because it is “potentially redemptive.” ⎖] Nigel Leigh also believes that the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park is of great significance because their sexual activities can decide whether they will be able to grow or decline. Δ] Norman Podhoretz notes the relationship between the sexuality of the characters and themselves in The Deer Park, arguing that the world in the novel is populated with those “who have no true interest in anything but self” and for whom “sex has become a testing ground of the self.” Ζ] Like Podhoretz, Diana Trilling also considers the relationship between sex and self. She observes that in The Deer Park Mailer distinguishes two different kinds of sexuality, one “appears to be free but is really an enslavement,” as displayed by the movie colony in Desert D’Or, and the other “expresses a new, radical principle of selfhood,” as valued by Hipsterism. ⎗] Unlike the critics above mentioned, Jean Radford argues that in The Deer Park the sexuality of the characters functions as “an index of other things” and “at the more general level it is used to symbolize the moral state of the nation.” ⎘]

When investigating the nature and meaning of the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park, many critics direct their attention towards the love affairs between Eitel and Elena and Sergius and Lulu. To many critics, the relationship between Eitel and Elena is absolutely productive and constructive. For example, Gabriel Miller argues that, due to his relationship with Elena, Eitel can manage to recover “his sense of self” and “his sexual potency” and therefore is able to return to “work on an ambitious script,” thereby, to “reclaim his integrity as an artist.” ⎙] However, unlike the relationship between Eitel and Elena, the relationship between Sergius and Lulu is not so productive and constructive because one sees the other as nothing but a sexual object and their sexuality is very much like “sport” and “war” in which the man tries every means to test and prove his “manhood” and the woman becomes his “opponent” and “enemy” he “must fight and conquer.” ⎚]

Not only have many critics noticed the difference between the nature and meaning of the sexuality of Eitel and Elena and that of Sergius and Lulu, they have also observed the difference between Elena and Lulu. To Philip Bufithis, although Elena is “a discarded mistress” and “an unimpressive actress with an ungainly social manners,” she “is yet heroic in her embattled desire to be self-reliant and take her own measure free of men’s estimation of her” and therefore she always “clings to the hope of self-knowledge” and “retains her individualism.” ⎛] Jean Radford believes that Elena is the most important of Mailer’s women characters because she exists “not merely as a secondary human being who is an index of others’ moral possibilities, but who has herself a moral nature with distinctive ideas and possibilities for self-development and growth.” ⎜] Howard Harper makes a comparison between Elena and Lulu, arguing that “Elena is more generous, more perceptive, more honest, more sensitive than Lulu” because Lulu values “career” more than “any human considerations.” ⎝] Likewise, Jessica Gerson takes a positive attitude towards Elena, ranking her among those “benign, redemptive and creative women” who “repeatedly offer their men redemptive love.” ⎞]

Although many critics have commented upon the relationship between sex and self and the difference between Elena and Lulu when talking about the sexuality of the characters in The Deer Park, few critics have seen the love affairs and marriages of the characters in the novel as part of their pursuit of selfhood and happiness, nor have they noticed the puzzlements that Elena and Lulu confront after marriage. In fact, the sexuality of the characters in their love affairs and marriages is always linked with their pursuit of selfhood and happiness. It is always indicative of whether the partners involved are content with their lives or not, and whether they can satisfactorily do with their own lives or not. It is both a preserver and destroyer of happy love and marriage. It is an index both of love and hate. It involves not only warmness and tenderness but also coldness and indifference and it is founded on the ground of honesty and loyalty but, sometimes, it also grows out of deception and betrayal. Further, it is both redemptive and hurting and it makes one partner gain and the other partner lose. It is supposed to be love-bound and marriage-bound but sometimes it has little to do with love and marriage. It seems to facilitate selfhood outside love and marriage but it also seems to imprison selfhood inside love and marriage. So, it cannot be read as merely a sexual activity instead, it should be read and understood in association with its performers’ pursuit of selfhood and happiness and should not be read without taking gender into consideration. Only in this way can we really understand the nature and meaning of the sexuality of the characters in the novel and the puzzlements of Elena and Lulu after marriage.

In The Deer Park, Mailer seems to concern himself more with the relationship between self and gender than with the love affairs or sexuality of one character or another in other words, what he is deeply concerned with in the novel are the problems closely related to self and gender, such as: Whether living alone or together with someone else, married or single, what should one do with his/her life? Should one be honest with himself/herself or deceptive of himself/herself? Should one be obedient to another to lose his/her pride and dignity or defiant of another to keep his/her pride and dignity? Should one live for himself/herself or for others? What does happiness mean to men and women? Does the life of a wife mean that she should maintain a house, love her husband and children, be on good terms with family members, and learn to grow so as to make herself match well with her husband or people around her? Are love and marriage enough to make a woman really happy? What does life mean to a woman? Does it mean to find a good husband, have children, be a good wife and mother and on good terms with family members? To be herself or serve others? Can being a lady make a woman a really happy wife? Can being a gentleman make a man a really happy husband? What can make a man a happy husband and a woman a happy wife? In the novel, Mailer tries to give answers to these questions by closely investigating the love affairs and marriages of his characters. It should be noticed that Mailer’s investigation of the love affairs and marriages of the characters in the novel reflect his concern not only with the problem of selfhood but also with the gender issues of his time. In The Deer Park, gender differences in male and female pursuits of selfhood and happiness is explicitly manifested in the affairs and marriages of the characters, but it has not drawn much attention from critics. Many critics have directed their attention towards Charley Eitel, Sergius O’Shaugnessy and Marion O’Faye as the major characters in the novel, as clearly shown in Norman Podhoretz’s remark that “Sergius and Marion are the natural heroes of the world of The Deer Park” ⎟] or Jean Radford’s argument that “there are in fact three heroes in the novel: Eitel the ‘potential artist’ and professional film director, Marion Faye the nihilistic pimp and pusher to the film world, and Sergius O’Shaugnessy, the would-be writer and narrator of the novel.” ⎠] No critic has paid much attention to Elena or Lulu or Dorothea as major characters in the novel. Further, many critics tend to read and understand the significance of the love affair between Eitel and Elena from a male perspective. Although Jean Radford claims that Elena “has herself a moral nature with distinctive ideas and possibilities for self-development and growth,” ⎜] she fails to see that Elena’s possibilities for self development and growth are not the same as or equal to Charley Eitel’s, Sergius O’Shaugnessy’s, or Marion O’Faye’s. Although Elena can pursue her selfhood in her love affairs, she cannot transcend her marriage life to pursue her true self as can Eitel. Further, we can say that Lulu cannot have a happy life so long as she does not know what a woman should do with her own life after marriage.

Now, it seems in order to make a close investigation of the major characters and their self-pursuit in terms of love affair and marriage. Unlike earlier critics who see Eitel, Sergius and Marion as major characters in the novel, I would add Elena, Lulu, and Dorothea to the group of major characters, and unlike those critics who focus their attention mainly on the major male characters, such as Eitel, Sergius and Marion, I would like to direct my attention towards the major female characters in the novel, such as Dorothea, Elena and Lulu, whose life experiences demonstrate different alternatives of women in their pursuit of selfhood and happiness.

Dorothea is a showgirl, a night-club singer, a call girl, a gossip columnist, a celebrity, and a failure. Her father is a drunkard, dies that way, and her mother remarries. She begins to work when she is twelve, collecting rent from tenants and taking care of household duties. She is seventeen when she has her first love affair with a man named O’Faye, who makes her considerably unhappy because “she was crazy about him,” but “he liked a different girl every night” and never wants to meet her desire “to settle down, to have children” and, therefore, when she gets pregnant, he does not hesitate to choose to leave her. ⎡] She does not gain much from this affair instead, she suffers a lot from it. We do not know how much pain she experiences, but we can be sure that she does suffer to no small extent. However, her fate always seems to be connected with that man. When she turns nineteen, she becomes pregnant by a passing European prince and, after he leaves, she is left to take care of everything on her own. With no one to help her, she seems to have no choice but to turn to O’Faye to help her out of trouble because “three months went by, four months went by, it was too much late” ⎢] to do anything about her forthcoming child. Fortunately, O’Faye is willing to save her because he “sympathized with her predicament.” ⎢] Although “he would never marry a girl who carried his own child,” he “considered it right to help a friend out of her trouble.” ⎢] So, to her great expectation and satisfaction, “they quickly married, and as quickly divorced, and her child had a name”. ⎢] Clearly, Dorothea’s quick marriage with O’Faye is not grounded on the love of one for the other it is essentially a loveless one. It seems to help Dorothea gain, but this gain, if it really is one, is founded on her miserable experience with the irresponsible European prince who gets her into trouble. She later marries a man, of whom she says, “I can’t remember him as well as guys I’ve had for a one-night stand.” ⎣] She then has a romance with an Air Force pilot who, unfortunately, is killed in a flight and she is, in a sense, a tragic woman. She has more than one affair and, more than once, she loses more than gains. The only affair from which she seems to have gained something is the one that she has with Martin Pelley when she settles down in Desert D’Or and “their romance began on the sure ground of his incapacity.” ⎢] That is to say, instead of being at the mercy of others, as she used to be, now Dorothea is able to decide her own life, but her ability to make decisions of her own is grounded on the incapacity of the man she chooses as her partner. Although she begins her life as a victim of men, she grows as a woman who can make men yield to her as the narrator remarks of her, “Dorothea had lasted. If her night-club days were finished, if her big affairs were part of the past, she was still in fine shape. She had her house, she had her court, she had money in the bank men still sent airplanes for her.” ⎤] If we take a backward look at Dorothea’s life experience with men, we find that she loses her selfhood, but she manages to regain it by becoming a woman who seems to be able to dominate men rather than be dominated by them.

If Dorothea’s life is one of misery and happiness, loss and gain, Elena shares much with her, but is quite different from her, as well. She was born into an unhappy family. Her father is “a bully” and so is her mother. Neither of them treats her really well. The mother coddles Elena but scolds her as well, “made much of her and ignored her, given her ambitions and chased them away.” ⎥] The father does not like Elena because “she was the youngest and she had come much too late.” ⎥] Although she has a big family consisting of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, cousins, and grandparents, she does not feel that it is a happy one because “fist fights started” whenever there is a family party. In addition, the father is “a dandy” and “could not be alone with a woman without trying to make love to her,” and the mother is “a flirt,” always greedy and jealous. ⎥] Born into such a family, Elena suffers significantly and experiences more misery than any other girl her age. When she is a child, more often than not, she “would cry silently while the mother and father yelled insults at one another” and therefore she has to spend her childhood “listening to their jealous quarrels.” ⎦] She has her first love affair when she is in her teens, with Collie Munshin. She lives with him for three years but fails to develop her relationship with him into marriage. She loves him but receives no love in return. In her eyes, Collie is “a hypocrite” because he claims himself to be “a good liberal” who does not believe in a double standard but rather in the equality between man and woman, white and black, and the rich and the poor, but he looks down upon Elena for no other reason than that “she’s obviously from a poor background.” ⎧] Unlike what he claims himself to be, Collie has “always been full of prejudices about women” and “wanted girls with some class and distinction to them.” ⎧] It is no wonder that three years of living with Elena is not long enough for him to develop a bit of love for her. Although he believes that “Elena is a person who hates everything that is small in herself” and is “consumed by the passion to become a bigger person than she is” and therefore is “the sort of girl who would love a husband and kids,” ⎨] he sees her as just “a beautiful, warm, simple child” ⎩] that is to say, he never sees her as his equal. Being innocent, Elena spends three years being cheated on by Collie. Although she is Collie’s mistress, she has never been treated as such by him. To Collie, Elena is not a “beautiful, warm, simple” young woman who has given herself wholly to him but a possession he can exchange with others when he becomes fatigued with the relationship, which is the reason why Collie transfers Elena to Charley Eitel. Leaving Collie and coming to Eitel, Elena seems to have freed herself from imprisonment, just as the narrator says, “she reminded me of an animal, ready for flight.” ⎪]

Indeed, living with Eitel, Elena feels quite different than when she is with Collie. Eitel is a man of over forty. He has “a big reputation as a film director” but is “better known in other ways” because he experiences more than one marriage and is believed to be “the cause of more than one divorce.” ⎫] He has had three failed marriages and more than one love affair before he meets Elena. His first wife “worked in a bookstore to support him,” ⎬] but as his own career grows, he begins to forget what she has done and sacrificed for him because “he wanted a woman who was more attractive, more intelligent, more his equal” and even “wanted more than one woman.” ⎭] Quarrels between them become more and more routine and, as a result, they end up divorced. His second wife is an actress from the social register. From her, he “picked up what he wanted and paid for it of course.” ⎮] Like his first wife, his second wife ends her relationship with him in a divorce. After divorce, Eitel is commissioned into the Army in Europe and, when he comes back from the war, he becomes extremely notorious because “there was a year or two when he was supposed to have slept with half the good-looking women in the capital, and it was a rare week which did not have his name in one gossip column or another.” ⎮] His third wife is a woman named Lulu Meyers. She is beautiful and young and therefore “he hardly believed she needed him.” ⎯] Knowing that his marriage with her “could never last,” ⎰] he soon falls into an affair with a Romanian actress, which lasts just one year. Although he has never been faithful to any woman that he has ever been with, he believes that he is truly loyal to his Romanian woman, as he states:

I’ve never been the kind of man who can be faithful with my regularity. I’ve always been the sort of decent chappie who hops from one woman to another in the run of an evening because that’s the only prescription which allows me to be fond of both ladies, but I was faithful in my own way to the Rumanian. She would have liked to see me every night for she hated to be alone and I would have liked never to see her again, and so we settled for two nights a week. It didn’t matter if I were in the middle of a romance or between girls, whether I had a date that night or not—on Thursday night and Friday night I went to her apartment to sleep. ⎱]

Although Eitel believes that he has been loyal to his Romanian woman in his own way, his very loyalty suggests that he is by no means loyal at all. If Collie claims himself to be a man who does not believe in double standard, Eitel is obviously one who does believe in double standard, as Sergius the narrator remarks of him, “One of his qualities was the ability to talk about himself with considerable masculinity of mind.” ⎬] Living with such a man “with considerable masculinity of mind,” Elena, however, does not subordinate herself as a woman to Eitel. She always attempts to pursue her selfhood, protect her pride, gain respect from Eitel, and maintain her individuality.

Although Eitel is a man “with considerable masculinity of mind,” his masculine mindset seems to be powerless in front of Elena. He begins to change with his love affair with Elena. To him, Elena has something that other women always lack, just as he believes, “not too many women really knew how to make love, and very few indeed loved to make love,” ⎲] but “Elena was doubly and indubitably a find.” ⎳] He learns something about Elena from the way she makes love, for he “always felt that the way a woman made love was as good a guide to understanding her character as any other way.” ⎳] Believing that “to be a good lover, one should be incapable of falling in love,” ⎳] Eitel “usually wanted nothing more than to quit a woman once they were done.” ⎴] However, when it comes to Elena, he no longer believes what he used to believe because “he not only wished to sleep the night with Elena but to hold her in his arms.” ⎴] Elena makes Eitel realize that “he had never been with anyone who understood him so well,” ⎵] and therefore he believes that Elena is “the best woman” he has ever had. ⎶] Consequently, he believes that his affair with Elena “could return his energy, flesh his courage, and make him the man he had once believed himself to be.” ⎵] He also believes that he and Elena each “could make something of the other.” ⎵] After the affair, “he felt full of tenderness for Elena” and “through the day he toyed with the thought that she should come to live with him.” ⎵] But unlike what Eitel expects, Elena does not want to live with him because she does not want to lose her freedom and selfhood she has just achieved, as she tells him, “You can do what you want, and I’ll do what I want.” ⎷] When Eitel becomes furious with her for her affair with Marion Faye, Elena refuses to surrender to his criticism instead, she is very defiant, saying that “I’ll go if you want me to go” and that “I think we’d better quit now, you and me.” ⎸] Feeling that Eitel has treated her as “a game,” Elena says defiantly to him, “When a woman’s unfaithful, she’s more attractive to a man.” ⎸] Elena does not believe that Eitel loves her, but when she finds that he really does love her, she says with final abandon, “Nobody ever treated me the way you do. I love you more than I ever loved anyone.” ⎹] However, when living with Eitel, Elena seems to have lost her selfhood completely once again, as the narrator states, “in the first few weeks of living together, Elena’s eyes never left Eitel’s face her mood was the clue to his temper if she was gay it meant he was happy if Eitel was moody, it left her morose. No one else existed for her.” ⎥] That, however, does not mean that she is quite sure of Eitel’s feeling towards her. On the contrary, she is always doubtful. Once she says to Eitel, “You think I’m not good enough for you. . . You tell me I don’t love you because you don’t love me. It’s all right. I’ll leave.” ⎺] After Eitel confirms his love for her, she becomes calm and says, “Oh, Charley, when you make love to me, everything is all right again. Is it really the same with you?” ⎻] Another time, she says to him calmly, “I could be happy with somebody else . . . I’m going to leave you some day, Charley, I mean it.” ⎼] Still another time, she even says to Eitel, much like an order, “Love me, really love me, and maybe I can do what you want.” ⎽] Eitel comes to feel somewhat fed up with Elena and appears to be pleased when she tells him that Marion wants her to live with him because he knows if someone else cares for her, “his own responsibility was less.” ⎾] Although he believes that Elena is “the most honest woman I’ve ever known,” ⎾] Eitel finds that “the time had come to decide how he would break up with her.” ⎿]

Eitel wants to break up with Elena because he does not see her as his equal. He sees himself as a second-rate man and Elena as a fifth-rate woman and he does not believe it is logical for a second-rate man to seek out a fifth-rate woman because a second-rate man should seek out a second-rate woman. ⏀] And yet, he is not able to make himself desert his principle of caste. Although “he had come to resent the attraction of their love-making,” he never really wants to separate himself from Elena, and therefore, rather than resent her, more often than not, “he enjoyed her as much as ever, and in his sleep, he would sometimes be aware that he was holding her and whispering love-words to her ear.” ⏀] On the other hand, he seems to be troubled by a dilemma because his love for Elena seems to have prevented him from pursuing the freedom of his own. He knows that “the unspoken purpose of freedom was to find love, yet when love was found one could only desire freedom again.” ⏁] Now that he has found love in Elena, it is natural that he has a strong desire for “an affair with a woman for whom he cared nothing, an affair simply exciting, exciting as the pages of a pornographic text where one could read in safety and not grudge every emotion the woman felt for another man,” but his desire can never be satisfied because “he was locked in Elena’s love,” ⏁] and it seems that he will never be able to unlock that lock because the longer they live together, the more doubtful Elena will become of Eitel’s love for her. Her very doubtfulness suggests that she loves and values him so much that she is very fearful of losing him because she is very fearful of being alone and lonely, but then, she does not want to lose herself completely to him, as she once says to Eitel, “You’re a good-time Charley. You only like me when I’m in a good mood [. . .] When I say nice things, then you love me. . . You’re so superior. But you don’t know what goes on in my mind.” ⏂] Obviously, Eitel does not know what goes on in Elena’s mind, so, sometime later, she tells him that she wants to leave him to become a nun because “a nun is never alone” and “nuns always have company.” ⏂] Eitel takes it as his fault that Elena should have such an idea because she chooses to live with him and fully loves him, but he gives her “nothing but loneliness” and therefore it is he who “ruined everything he touched.” ⏂]

Despite Eitel’s confession that “he ruined everything he touched,” Elena does not believe that he is really honest. When he tells her, “You must know that I care about you. I can’t stand the thought of hurting you. I mean, I want you always to be happy,” ⏃] she does not believe what he says. When Eitel seriously says to her, “I want us to be married,” Elena just simply replies, “What I thought is that we could go on like this.” ⏃] When he once again says to her, “You have to marry me,” she tells him once again, “When you don’t want me, I’ll go. But I don’t want to talk about it any more.” ⏄] Elena’s uncompromising refusal to cooperate and comply with Eitel suggests that she minds not only his love for her but also his respect for her. She wants to love and be loved deeply by Eitel, but she does not want to be controlled and manipulated fully by him. On the other hand, Eitel does not want to be controlled and directed by Elena. Although “he loved her as he had never loved anyone,” Eitel is afraid of his love for her because “if he stayed with her, he would be obliged to travel in her directions.” ⏄] Although “he loved her as he had never loved anyone,” Eitel does not want himself to be locked by his love for Elena. He needs love, but he desires freedom even more. His love for Elena seems to be quite abnormal because “it was only after quarrels and crises that he could feel love for Elena the way he desired.” ⏅] However much he loves her, “he hated her” because “it was impossible not to remember how she had given herself to others.” ⏅] Although he says love words to her more than once, he does not truly love her, just as the narrator says, “they had been tender to each other, they had forgiven one another, and yet he did not love her, she did not love him, no one ever love anyone.” ⏆] Caught between to love and love not, and between love and hate, Eitel wants to finish his affair with Elena because he feels that “neither he nor she had been able to make the happiness they should have made.” ⏇] When he decides to tell Elena his decision to end their relationship, he finds that she has already been prepared for it, as she says, “You want me to go away. All right, I will.” ⏇] She even tells Eitel, “Maybe I’ll become a prostitute. Don’t worry. I’m not trying to make you feel sorry. You think I’m a prostitute anyway, so how could you feel sorry? In fact you always thought of me as a prostitute, but you don’t know what I think of you. You think I can’t live without you. Maybe I know better.” ⏈] Elena’s words clearly show that she sees herself as an independent woman rather than a woman who would like to depend on men for a living. That is the reason why she does not hesitate to choose to leave Eitel after she quarrels with him. It might never occur to Eitel that Elena can really leave him. After Elena leaves, Eitel “sat down and began to wait for her telephone call” because he believes that “she would phone,” but no telephone call came to him after “an hour went by, and then the afternoon, and much of the night,” and he can do nothing but “sighed to himself, not knowing if he were relieved that he was free, or if he were more miserable than he had ever been.” ⏈]

After leaving Eitel, Elena comes to Marion O’Faye, but her life with him turns out not to be so happy as she has expected. So, not long afterwards, she begins to regret for her leaving Eitel for Marion, and due to that, she writes Eitel a long letter, in which she confides to him:

I hate the kind of thing that happens to women where they go out with a man maybe two or three times and immediately, they’re forced to start thinking about marriage. That’s how my mother got married and a lot of my sisters and what a drudgery sort of life they have, everybody’s so afraid to live. I am, too, and it’s silly. Once I remember I had a girlfriend, and she had a steady boyfriend and I used to fall into a thing with the two of them on a Saturday night [. . .] the three of us liked each other like good friends and I almost never felt lowdown about it [. . .] the girl liked me so much and nobody was asking anybody else to solve their whole life for them. But that’s what you were asking me and what I was asking you and I resented it as much as you did. ⏉]

Elena’s letter to Eitel, from which the above quotation comes, is intended to express her introspective guilt for Eitel. Covering more than seven and a half pages, it is really a long letter, but what this long letter actually represents is by no means a pure confession of Elena’s guilt for Eitel but a clear demonstration of her view of love and marriage and of how a woman should live her life as well. From the above quotation, we can clearly see that Elena is a woman who is deeply concerned with issues highly relevant to her life in particular and the lives of men and women in general, such as love and marriage. To her, love and marriage should not lay restraints upon those who are in love or marriage. She obviously believes that love and marriage are something that should be taken seriously before one falls in love with somebody or gets married and, therefore, it is wrong for a woman to fall in love with some man hastily and even hurry to get married to him. She pities her mother and sisters for the way they get married, but, unfortunately, she comes to follow their suit, hastily giving herself to Marion, a notorious pimp. Although she quarrels and fights with Eitel, Elena knows that Eitel has never seen her as a prostitute, as Marion always does. In Marion’s eyes, Elena is “the kind of girl you could wipe your hands on.” ⎾] In the letter she writes to Eitel after she has left him, Elena remarks of Marion, “I keep asking him to make me a call-girl and he says no, he says he wants to marry me and then I can become a call-girl. I suppose he wants to be a champion pimp.” ⏊] This shows that, unlike Eitel, who asks Elena to marry him because he really loves her and wants to have her as his wife, Marion asks Elena to marry him for no other reason than turning her into a prostitute because he has never really loved her. He has never been free from nightmares since Elena comes to live with him because he is not able to rid himself of “the idea that she was his nun and he would transmute her into a witch.” ⏋] Accordingly, in the few weeks they live together, Elena “passed from gaiety to high excitement to illness to depression and back to the liquor again.” ⏌] Although “she felt free with him,” ⏌] Elena is not able to develop “a decent healthy mature relationship” ⎨] with Marion. Unlike Eitel who might appreciate Elena’s dependence on his promise, Marion “could even grieve for her since she did not realize how much she depended on his promise.” ⏍] When she swears that she will leave him “in a day or two,” ⏎] Marion has no objection because that’s exactly what he really expects her to do. We might feel sorry for Elena because she never knows why Marion does not love her and she never understands the way he treats her. Even at the last moment of her being with him, she does not forget to ask him, “Why didn’t you like me a little? Why didn’t you know you could have loved me?” ⏏]

It might be wrong to blame Marion for the car accident that happens when he drives Elena to the airport, but it is good in that the accident puts him under the police guard and Elena back to Eitel. Her meeting with Eitel at the hospital after the car accident is really a very moving one because it causes both of them to change fundamentally. Eitel makes up his mind to take care of Elena and Elena decides to marry Eitel. Not only does she decide to marry Eitel, she decides to change herself as well, as she tells him, “Marry me, oh, Charley, please marry me. This time I’ll learn. I promise I will.” ⏐] After Elena leaves the hospital, Eitel meets her desire to marry him because he believes “if he did not marry her he could never forget that he had once made her happy and now she had nothing but her hospital bed.” ⏐] It seems that Eitel marries Elena out of compassion and responsibility, but the marriage changes Elena to no small extent. She comes to learn to love her husband and children and can manage to be on good terms with her family servants. It seems that she gets herself out of trouble and has a happy life because she has successfully developed “a decent healthy mature relationship” ⎨] with Eitel, but the fact is that she does not feel really happy, for she gradually finds that she still has some problems she does not know how to solve because she finds that whatever she does, she always ends up doing what Eitel wants her to do or expects her to do, as she tells him:

We have the baby, and we’ll probably have another baby, and I have good relations with the servants and I do love the dancing lessons, and Charley, I love you, I can tell because I still get sacred at the thought of losing you, but Charley, listen to me, I don’t know if you understand how much I love Vickie, I keep worrying that I won’t be a good enough mother to him, but is that enough? Is Vickie enough? I mean where do I go? I don’t want to complain, but what am I going to do with my life? ⏑]

To Elena’s problem, Eitel does respond, but his response is just a few comforting words because he does not really know how to solve it. He tries his best to comfort her by saying that she has grown so much that there will be no need for him to worry about her anymore, and whatever she does, she is surely going to be better and better. But Eitel knows that however he tries to comfort Elena, he is not able to satisfy her because “she had come now into that domain where her problems were everybody’s problems.” ⏒] Eitel is not able to solve Elena’s problems because he does not really know what one should ever do with his/her own life. If a husband can go to the comfort of his family that always does what he wants after a day of business outside home and go outside to do what he wants after a night of comfort at home, where can a wife go after a busy day of doing housework and taking care of her husband and children inside home? Eitel does not really know how to solve Elena’s problems because he realizes that her problems are somewhat, and indeed to a large extent, also his problems. He knows that unless she knows what she can do with her own life, she “would grow away from him” ⏒] because she will not “be forced to stay out of kindness and loyalty and boredom.” ⏒] Elena’s problems suggest that although she can manage to have “a decent healthy mature relationship” ⎨] with her husband after marriage, she is not able to have her selfhood when she is a wife and mother. It seems impossible for her to have both at the same time, and, therefore, she has to choose one and abandon the other that is to say, to have her selfhood, as she does when she lives with Eitel and then with Marion as lovers, she can only choose not to have a “happy” marriage and family. That is a contradiction she is not able to solve. She does not like the kind of relationship between her and Eitel and then between her and Marion as lovers, nor is she satisfied with her relationship with Eitel as wife and husband. She is puzzled, and her puzzlement is, to some extent, the puzzlement of every woman because Lulu Meyers is also puzzled with a similar puzzlement.

Lulu is an actress. She first gets married to Eitel. Their marriage is, as Eitel describes, “the meeting on zero and zero,” ⎰] and therefore, it soon comes to an end. She then meets Sergius and falls in love with him. To Sergius, Lulu is quite different from any girl he has known, just as he remarks, “I had never known a girl like Lulu, nor had I ever been in such a romance” ⏓] because she appears incomprehensibly mysterious and always changes so quickly that he is not sure whether they are “in love or about to break up,” whether they will “make love or fight, do both or do nothing at all.” ⏓] Besides, she is too much self-centered. Sometimes, she wants Sergius to leave her alone, and other times, she will not let him quit her for a moment. He has no choice but “to follow every impulse” of hers. ⏔] However different and self-centered Lulu is, Sergius does not feel unhappy when being together with her, just as he says, “We were great lovers . . . I was superb. She was superb . . . We played our games. I was the photographer, and she was the model she was the movie star and I was the bellhop she did the queen, I was slave. We even met even to even.” ⏕] It seems that they are in a fully harmonious relationship, but beneath it lies great disharmony. When Lulu suggests that they get married, the thought of marriage makes Sergius “badly depressed” ⏖] because he believes that Lulu’s self-centeredness will turn him into “Mr. Meyers, a sort of fancy longshoreman scared of his wife, always busy mixing drinks for Lulu and the guests.” ⏖] He wants to be Mr. Sergius rather than Mr. Meyers. He dislikes talking about marriage because it means “death of enjoyment” for him. He does not want to marry Lulu because they are having more and more quarrels than harmony between them, just as he says, “Lulu and I had come to the point where we fought more often than not, and the fights had taken on some bitterness. There were times when I was sure we had to break up, and I would look forward with a sort of self-satisfied melancholy to the time when I would be free.” ⏖] Each of them “looked forward to the separation,” ⏗] but, when separated, they have a strong desire to be together and an equally strong desire for love from each other, just as Sergius says, “Once she was gone, I could not get myself together . . . While she was gone, we were always on the phone. I called her up to tell her I loved her, she called me back half an hour later and we had the same conversation again. So, like the old gypsies who make a sign a hundred times a day, we swore we loved each other.” ⏗]

The separation, however, has very much changed Sergius. He begins to realize that there will be no love without weakness and that he should have loved Lulu and married her. However, somewhat to his surprise, when he proposes marriage with her, she refuses his proposal. Although their lovemaking makes Lulu “feel like a woman for the first time” ⏘] and makes them really love each other, just as Sergius says, “I loved her and I think she loved me,” ⏘] Lulu does not let herself turn into Mrs. Sergius instead, she leaves Sergius and gets married to Tony Tanner to continue her pursuit of selfhood and happiness.

In a sense, Lulu’s marriage with Tanner is the result of her rebellion against Herman Teppis, her superior, under whose leadership she works as an actress, because he wants and even demands her to marry Teddy Pope, a homosexual she does not love at all. Getting married to Tanner is Lulu’s own choice. It is an indication of her pursuit of selfhood and happiness, but it turns out to be a wrong choice. Although she says her marriage with Tanner is based on her understanding of him, it turns out that she does not really understand him. Although she believes she will be happy in her defiance of Herman Teppis’ will, Lulu’s marriage to Tanner does not go according to plan. She comes to realize her error, because she feels that Tanner is not the proper man to be her husband. She regrets that she has been married to him. Probably due to her regret, during her marriage with Tanner, Lulu has a love affair with Eitel, who, she believes, is her “big love.” ⏙] It seems that Lulu is capable of choosing her own love and marriage and retaining her selfhood she, however, does not really know why she is not able to be really happy after she is married, and, therefore, is not what she really wants to be.

Looking back at the love and marriage experiences of Dorothea, Elena and Lulu, three major female characters in The Deer Park, we find that they illustrate three alternatives of women in their pursuit of selfhood and happiness in love and marriage, but none of them seems to be an ideal persona. Dorothea chooses to cohabit with Martin Pelly, a man who is much inferior to her, and thereby keeps her selfhood in the end she loses her selfhood but comes to regain it. Elena chooses to get married to the man she really loves, bears children and lives as a good wife and mother she keeps her selfhood but then loses it. Lulu chooses to get married to the man she does not really love in defiance of the authority imposed upon her and lives an unhappy life in a childless marriage she keeps seeking her selfhood but fails to achieve it. Their experiences lead us to wonder: What should a woman do if she wants to have both her selfhood and happiness and “a decent healthy mature relationship” ⎨] with a man, whether lover or husband, at the same time? What could make an ideal relationship between a man and a woman? Should they live, when they live together, like soul mates, or brother and sister, or husband and wife, or lovers? These are the problems, that the novel suggests, and they are the very problems that Elena confronts and does not know how to solve. Elena’s problems are “everybody’s problems.”


The Grazier's Review Volume 13: April 1933-March 1934 - EBOOK

The Graziers’ Review was the official organ of the United Graziers’ Association of Queensland. It included much information of particular relevance to graziers – on the weather, meat market, live stock market, stud stock, stock movements and much more. Importantly, it also mentioned the people involved – a “personal” section, engagements, weddings, obituaries, lists of estates for which probate has been granted, lists of shearing contractors, and reports from the various district meetings. As well, it has good information, in the advertisements, about many of the properties.

SAMPLE ENTRY:

Mrs. Mary Anna McManus, who died at Toowoomba recently in her 90th year, was one of the earliest settlers in the Roma district. She was a daughter of the late Mr. Stephen Spencer, who purchased Mount Abundance in 1857, and in the following year travelled by road with his family and 1000 head of cattle and 60 horses from Barraba, N.S.W. The journey of 400 miles took four months. Mrs. McManus lived at Mount Abundance (then known as Bungeworgorai) until 1873, when her father purchased Armadilla, near Morven. Shortly after her father’s death in 1890 she married the late J. C. McManus, who was the original holder of Tyrconnel Downs, near Mungalla, and who at one time managed Thylungra. After her husband’s death, Mrs. McManus lived for some years at Mitchell, and later went to Toowoomba.
[September 16, 1933]

This product contains high quality scanned images of the original book, and has been bookmarked for easy navigation. Pages can be searched, browsed, enlarged and printed out if required.


The Nonproliferation Review

The Nonproliferation Review is a refereed journal concerned with the causes, consequences, and control of the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The Review features case studies, theoretical analyses, historical studies, reports, viewpoints, and book reviews on such issues as state-run weapons programs, treaties and export controls, safeguards, verification and compliance, disarmament, terrorism, and the economic and environmental effects of weapons proliferation.

Authors come from many regions and disciplines. With subscribers in 50 countries, the Review is an essential resource for policy makers and scholars worldwide.

All accepted submissions published in the Nonproliferation Review will be automatically entered to win the Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Prize of $5,000. See our Call for Submissions for more information.

To submit your manuscript, follow the submission guidelines and submit your article through our online Editorial Manager system.


Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 13, 1902.djvu/200

Strange to say, they had no knee or ankle-joints, and their feet grew to the rear instead of to the front.

" There appears also to be a kind of Banshee in Chitral, which wails round the walls of Shoghrot Fort, a week or so before the death of the Melitar or King of Chitral, and differs from the Irish variety in not being [ ? haunting] a residence of the doomed man."

11. — Iti the Faroe Islands.

[The following notes are from the pen of an American lady who has been spending the last ten or twelve months in one of the most northerly and inaccessible of the Faroe Islands. The allusion in the opening sentence is to her correspondent's previous reference to the Rev. J. G. Campbell's Superstitions of the High- lands and Islands of Scot/and, p. 191, where he classes "the Niagruisar of the Faroe Islands " with the Scottish Brownie, as a " drudging goblin." — Ed.]

I think your Niagruisar must be the same word as our Ni3a- grisur, but the Faroe creature is not a Brownie. A Brownie is a Vattrir he lives about houses and cow-stalls, and comes out in the twilight and sits under the eaves, and careful housewives when they throw out the dishwater call out a warning to him and his fellows. Like the Brownie he, if well-treated, will perform little friendly services for the family.

A Ni^agrisur is the spirit of an unbaptised child (generally a murdered illegitimate child), that takes the shape of a round- bodied creature that often goes on all-fours and is as a rule malignant, lying in wait for people in the dark and doing them harm, though just how I have not learned. Sometimes they haunt a pastor, begging to be given a name, and to be buried in sanctified earth a former pastor here was haunted in that way. Long ago, a servant-girl here had an illegitimate child, killed it, and buried it in a stocking belonging to a serving-man called Pisli (he was not the father). Some time afterwards she married Pisli and the bride's dance was under way in the big kitchen


Watch the video: Death Note: How to Read - Volume 13 Encyclopedia Manga