“Indian Camp” — A boy’s perspective

I have said that this section of Chapter Two of Afterlife Conversations with Hemingway could be called “Papa teaches little Frank to read what isn’t there.” Might teach you something too, if you don’t already know it.

A boy’s perspective

[May 16 and 17, 2010] A friend of mine, a retired teacher of literature in Denmark, followed these conversations as I sent them around on the Internet, and one day wrote me that her students never could decide which was the point of “Indian Camp,” that Uncle George was really the father of the baby and so the Indian killed himself, or that the Indian couldn’t stand her pain, and so he killed himself. So I asked which it was.

Neither. When you read my stories, look at every element in them. You may not know why, but every element is there for a reason. And, remember, you are to get an emotion from it. Look at the last line.

Nick knew that he would never die.

List the elements in “Indian Camp.”

[“Indian Camp” is only three pages long, but I listed many thing, including: the rowboat with two waiting Indians; Nick, his father, Uncle George; two rowboats, each with an Indian rowing; George smoking a cigar and giving the Indians cigars; a dog barking, then more dogs; an old Indian woman holding a lamp; the young Indian woman who had been trying to give birth for two days; her husband, who had cut his foot badly three days earlier; Nick’s father explaining that her screams were not important; no anesthetic; hot water, coffee, and sterilization; the doctor washing hands carefully and thoroughly, explaining why; the woman biting Uncle George during the operation; Nick’s father showing Nick, and Nick looking away; Nick’s curiosity had been gone for a long time; Uncle George looked at his arm. The young Indian smile reminiscently; Nick’s father excited and talkative afterwards. “One for the medical journal”; “oh you’re a great man all right.” The proud father dead with throat cut. “sorry I brought you, Nick. Awful mess”; always such a hard time? Exceptional”; “Why did he kill himself? Couldn’t stand things, I guess”; do many kill themselves? Not very many; do many women? Hardly ever; “is dying hard?” “I think pretty easy. Depends”; the sun coming up. Bass jumped. Hand in water; quite sure he would never die]

So compressed; hard to summarize more than it already was.

All right. Now, try to relax and we’ll get it through. Can you see how sex and death are interwoven in the boy’s experience?

I guess it was his first sight of a woman’s sex organs, and in a gory context. I guess that’s why “he looked away, his curiosity gone for a long time.”

And he asks if many men kill themselves, if many women do, and why, and is dying hard. And the physical surroundings — the morning, the warmer water, the fish, his father rowing — makes him “quite sure that he would never die.” Going forward in the dark it had been first the three white men, or the two and the boy, then they met the Indians and divided, then they were all together, then George went off by himself, then it was Nick and his father returning in the daytime.

I’m afraid I am still too dense to get the full intent.

The doctor intended to begin Nick’s education, but he got more than he had bargained for. He was not an evil or cruel man, but he turned off his emotional response to do the job he was there to do. Coming back he told Nick he was sorry he had gotten him involved, but he wasn’t sorry for anything else — not his lack of sympathy for the mother, not his own unawareness of the effect of someone’s pain on someone else. He didn’t realize. He didn’t realize that the Indian — who couldn’t get away because of his foot — would be affected by the pain that he himself had disregarded — not the pain but the evidence of pain, the screams.

I don’t understand the Indian smiling reminiscently. Just to bring the connection to sex back?

The same action in different contexts has different meanings, and it can suggest connections. As it did.

Nick was a boy and he didn’t really understand a lot about what he was seeing, did he?

That’s the point exactly. That’s exactly it. He was quite sure he would never die. He would also never get involved in messy situations, would never be callous or unimaginative, would never cause pain and certainly would never kill himself. That’s why the last line. He recorded, he remembered, he observed, but he didn’t really understand — and the reader who did understand got the point. It wasn’t designed to teach obstetrics or fishing, and it wasn’t a detective story. It was to feel that state of observing but not understanding.

And Uncle George?

He showed sympathy in contrast to his brother’s (or could be his brother in-law’s; didn’t matter) businesslike manner-of-fact attitude. George shared cigars; George helped, though it is mentioned only in the doctor asking him to move the blanket; George was a little disgusted by the doctor’s slight bragging and his self-satisfaction; George was upset by the suicide and didn’t want to be around the doctor’s matter-of-fact attitude about it, even though the doctor was upset. The two men were upset about it in different ways. The doctor was upset that Nick had seen it, that it was senseless and unnecessary. George could imagine the man’s cumulative state — for he had been unable to get away, remember. He had badly cut his foot the day before she had started going into labor two days before. He’d stood it all. The doctor abstractly understood, but he didn’t necessarily let himself feel it. His concern was for Nick. Where did Uncle George go? He’ll turn up all right. In other words, nothing happened to him; he’s safe. But he’s not in sight. So you see, George was there to bring out certain aspects that couldn’t have come out if the doctor and Nick had been there alone among the Indians. George was hurt, he was injured, by the woman’s pain, as the doctor was not. But there’s no need to make George the baby’s father — if I’d had that in mind, you’d have known, and if I’d had that in mind and you hadn’t known, I’d have failed (assuming perception on your part).

Another strand to the story was good intentions going astray, wasn’t it?

Yes. The doctor saved the baby and the mother but never thought of the father; he wanted to give Nick experience but gave him more than he wanted to. George was there in sympathy but never realized who needed it, and wasn’t able to do anything except help in the operation.

Other elements in the story?

Well, reread it again and see if it looks different now.

I see that it is a description as a young boy would see it. The objects that stood out to him. And I noticed, this time, the line about the men having moved off up the road to be out of the range of her screaming. Her husband is smoking a pipe, like them, but he is right there. As you say, he couldn’t get away.

When the doctor says the screams are not important is when the husband rolls over against the wall. And you will notice, the young Indian woman after the operation “did not know what had become of the baby or anything.” Nick’s perception, you see. Sensory inputs still wide open, regardless of what he did or didn’t understand.

I can see how the stories were aimed: you wanted people to react to them as they reacted to life. The stories affect you as life comes at you, and they affect you but you may not know why or how.

That’s it exactly. Does this say anything about how far off the critics were? If you criticize the facts of the story but don’t absorb the atmosphere of it, you can’t see the reason for the facts. So you don’t know what you’re talking about. You wind up trying to make George the father because of the cigars, or you ask about the wrong things. But the reason for the story is right there in the final line: “In the early morning on the lake sitting in the stern of the boat with his father rowing, he felt quite sure that he would never die.”

That’s as much as I can do for now. Thank you. I’m learning something.

Planetary Spirit interview

Just got off the phone from a one-hour radio interview with Jeff Ferrinini about Afterlife Conversations with Hemingway.

He is a joy to interact with: He reads the book carefully and thinks about what he has read.

The show, Planetary Spirit,  is produced in Boston. Today’s interview will be accessible online at some point. When Jeff tells me when, I will pass on the information.

Coast to Coast AM, next month

Okay, we’re going to do it all again

Gearing up for radio interviews for Afterlife Conversations with Hemingway, as we did last year for The Cosmic Internet.

The biggest show is Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. That show really helped last year. The show’s producer and I talked today and she scheduled me for Thursday October 11, 1 a.m. to 3 a.m., eastern time. (That’s Wednesday October 10, 10 p.m. to midnight, Pacific time.)

Details, and periodic updates, right here, courtesy of my good friend Rich Spees.

 

the reality behind the words

Political theater is so threadbare today that it shouldn’t be able to fool anyone, yet it contues to do so. Nice to see Michael Ventura’s analysis cut through the drama to show the reality. Intriguing final paragraph.

MICHAEL VENTURA

LETTERS AT 3AM –

THE SYSTEM AIN’T THE SYSTEM

Austin Chronicle – August 31, 2012

 

   One political question cuts through all others: Who benefits?

   Who, for instance, benefits from the following?

   “Half the jobs in the nation pay less than $34,000 a year … A quarter pay below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually. … Wages for those who work on jobs in the bottom half have been stuck since 1973” (The New York Times online, July 28).

   Let’s see. Since 1973, we’ve had eight presidents – five Republicans and three Democrats (one of those Democrats deregulated the finance industry). Democrats pretty much controlled Congress from 1973 to 1995 and it’s been pretty much a Republican show since. It’s hasn’t been in the interest of either party to address the stagnation of buying-power that traps the lower half of the American work force. One administration gives some benefits, another administration takes some away, but the basic situation of half the American workforce does not change.

    So who benefits? Duh. A powerless workforce with no real representation in government is global capitalism’s wet dream.

   For instance, in California’s Inland Empire, “where unemployment reaches above 15 percent in several cities,” a “local economist” named John Husing says, “You can have people [he means corporations] come in here and find a robust blue-color work force eager for employment” (The New York Times online, July 22).

    “Robust” is a funny word for people desperate for any work at all, under any conditions.

    Who benefits from the lawful bribery we call “elections”?

    “The average member of the House of Representatives has to raise $367 for every hour they’re supposedly serving their constituents to pay for their re-election campaigns. The average senator needs to wrangle $819 an hour” (Mother Jones, quoted in The Week, June 29, p.20). Crunch those numbers. Unless you’ve got an awful lot of money, your representatives are not representing you. Which leads one to believe that these days Congress may be doing exactly what it’s paid to do: nothing.

   A pretty cute set-up, when you think about it. Oligarchs finance both sides to fight and stymie each other so that the United States can keep up the appearance of a republic while, in function, it is nothing like a republic.

     Say this for the “loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires” that make up our oligarchy: They’re crafty.

     Oligarchs finance both parties because it serves their interests when neither Republicans nor Democrats can dominate.

    Unlike fascists and totalitarians, oligarchs don’t want a strong central government. Oligarchs want to reduce government to the role of an accomplice, and not a very organized accomplice. The more confused, hysterical, and contradictory the better. Make it damn near impossible to accomplish anything solid. You don’t want Republicans to win all out, because their drastic budgets will drive the workforce into frenzy and frenzy is dangerous. Bad for business. You don’t want Democrats to win all-out – not because you’re afraid of what the Democrats might do (there’s not much to fear in that regard) but because Democratic domination would demoralize a lot of dangerous people – frenzy again, bad for business.

    Oligarchs want our pathetic political theater to continue so that they may remain backstage, unmolested.

    Occupy Wall Street outed them last year — a big accomplishment, never to be underestimated. But outing is not nearly enough.

   President Obama “staffed his White House with former Wall Street executives. During his term in office, the gap between rich and poor has widened to unprecedented levels” (NYMag.com, quoted in The Week, Aug. 3, p.6).

   “Wall Street firms made $83 billion in profit during the first two years of the Obama administration – more than the $77 billion in profit these firms made over the entire eight years of the George W. Bush presidency” (The Washington Post, quoted in The Week, Nov. 18, 2011, p.16).

    At the same time, “[t]he average American family’s net worth dropped almost 40 percent … between 2007 and 2010” (CNNMoney.com, quoted in The Week, June 22, p.34)

   “The richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010 (The Economist, June 23, p.84).”

    “Since 2008, when the biggest banks caused a crisis that ‘decimated the middle class,’ these banks have actually gotten bigger, with just five banks controlling $8.5 trillion in assets – equal to 56 percent of the nation’s economy.” (TheAtlantic.com, quoted in The Week, May 25, p.2).

    The goal of oligarchy is to utterly disempower the workforce. For that, the oligarchs’ best operatives are Republicans on the state level.

   Texas Gov. Rick Perry and “[a]t least five other Republican governors … [have announced] that they will not expand their Medicaid aid program for the poor even though the federal government would pay for almost all of it. … [I]n Pennsylvania … 61,000 residents – almost all of whom are disabled and poor – were told they would abruptly lose their $200 monthly general assistance payments, all to save $150 million a year. Our hands are tied by a tightening budget, welfare officials told astonished recipients, though Gov. Tom Corbett’s hands didn’t seem restrained when he handed out $300 million in business tax cuts earlier this month (The New York Times online, July 17).”

   This is nothing less than a war of terror against the working class.

   Who benefits from a terrorized working class? Any employer who wants to maximize profit no matter the human cost, making labor, and life, ever cheaper.

   That works best if the workforce is not only frightened but ignorant. That’s why you read things like these:

    “[T]he Texas GOP platform proudly declares: ‘We oppose the teaching of Higher Order thinking skills, critical-thinking skills, and similar programs’” (Newsweek, July 16, p. 18).

    On a global level, the U.S. education system ranks 26th (Time, Nov. 14, 2011, p.44).

    “Less than half of all Americans who start college ever graduate, putting the U.S. ‘dead last’ among industrialized countries” (TheAtlantic.com, quoted in The Week, June 29, p.42).

    Who benefits from a mal-educated workforce? Oligarchs who can pump billions into propaganda that the mal-educated haven’t the means to question.

    So here come two grandiose infomercials called “political conventions,” Republican and Democrat. But the political system they advertise ain’t the system that is.

    Reporters will report, commentators will comment, and, across the political spectrum, they’ll mouth a vocabulary obsolete and inaccurate because they analyze as though the United States is a functioning republic. But the facts says that the system they speak of ain’t the system we got.

    Power is always more fragile than it seems. We can get out of this mess, but it would help if our speech caught up to our reality.

    Occupy Wall Street was a good beginning. The 1% has been identified. Next, the 1% must be confronted in many (nonviolent) ways and from all sides.

    What will it take to make that happen?

    Something. Something stirring out there somewhere.

    Can you feel it? I can.

    Something unexpected.

The Cosmic Internet now an ebook

Those of you who have been wondering how you were going to get by for another day without The Cosmic Internet as an ebook are in luck. It is now available for Kindle on Amazon, courtesy of a couple of my friends, which means it’s just a couple of clicks away. Bear in mind, it is published not by Hologram Books but by Rainbow Ridge books.

Dion Fortune: How it works

Haven’t been posting. Writing another novel. This popped up, though, and I thought I’d mention it. This passage is from Dion Fortune’s novel The Goat Foot God (p. 365-6)

“…one expects psychic phenomena to be reasonably tangible and to have something of the miraculous about them. We’ve had nothing of that…. We’ve had nothing that you can’t father onto the subconscious if you have a mind to. nothing you could call evidential if you’d got any notion of the nature of evidence. But all the same we’ve had — or at any rate I’ve had, some pretty drastic experiences. I couldn’t prove them to anybody else, and I’m not such a fool as to try to; but I’m quite satisfied about them in my own mind. Anyway, whatever they are, subconscious, super-conscious, hallucinations, telepathy, suggestion, auto-suggestion, cosmic experiences, bunk, spoof or hokum, I feel as if I had been born again….”

“How do you know it isn’t all your imagination, Hugh?” asked Jelkes, watching him.

“I don’t know, T.J., and don’t care. It probably is, for I’ve used my imagination diligently enough over the job. But via the imagination I’ve got extended consciousness, which I probably should never have been able to make a start on if I’d stuck to hard facts all along and rejected everything I couldn’t prove at the first go-off. It’s no use doing that. You’ve got to take the Unseen as a working hypothesis, and then things you can’t prove at the first go-off prove themselves later.”