Month: May 2011

Text Analysis

Mine says: authorlauralee.tumblr.com is probably written by a male somewhere between 66-100 years old. The writing style is personal and happy most of the time.

Apart from the age (between 66-100?) I’ve heard this before.  The copy editor of my last book kept referring to the author (me) in the margins as “he.”  I also tend to be called “British author Laura Lee” in reviews a lot.  If you’re happy and you know it…

Now I’m wondering if my other blog is written by a “man” too.

My other blog is even more manly.  author-laura-lee.blogspot.com is the 437th most manly blog of 7834 ranked.   That’s pretty testosterone-ish.  It is also “academic” and “upset.”  You’re probably better off over here with the nice me.

brainpicker:

brainpicker.tumblr.com is probably written by a female somewhere between 66-100 years old. The writing style is personal and upset most of the time.

Accurate. urlai.com

Bad Publishing Deals of the Past: Noah Webster

The “American Spelling Book” made money but the contracts were never very good. Based on sales he should have been oozing with cash, but he never made the absolute killing he should have. In 1816 he landed America’s first blockbuster book deal, which promised him $42,000 over a 14-year period. He could have made even more, but because he had retired to devote himself full-time to the dictionary, he was dependent on the income from the “American Spelling Book” and didn’t strike hard bargains with his publishers. A year after signing that hefty contract, he caved and asked for the money up front, settling for a total of $23,000.

-Joshua Kendall quoted in Failure Magazine.

How the Wall Street Journal Spreads Stereotypes about Men

goodmenproject:

For the men who are part of the Good Men Project—guys fighting wars in foreign lands, working diligently to be good dads, recovering from economic hardship, striving to be loving spouses, searching their souls trying to figure out what it means to be a good man—the piece is one more example of mainstream media portraying us in an egregiously negative, quasi-sexist light.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Not sure why he uses the term “quasi-sexist.”  It is blatantly sexist.

The Challenges of Supporting Challenging Arts

An article in The Awl, centered around a lost e. e. cummings poem which was recently discovered buried in a pile of papers, is a reflection on the life of the poet and his friend and supporter Scofield Thayer.  One portion of the article ties into the thoughts I expressed last week about the difference between “entertainment” and “art” and how much easier it is to sell the former than the latter.

While working as an editor at the magazine [The Dial], Thayer had tried to persuade the editorial staff to publish Cummings’ work, but they rejected the unorthodox experiments of the young poet… The poet Amy Lowell, a skeptic of both The Dial and Cummings’ work, bet Thayer $100 that Cummings would not ascend to the pantheon of American poets.

The Dial’s success came at a great cost to Thayer. The magazine never made a profit, and at one point he and Watson were supporting it to the tune of $100,000 a year…

Thayer also quickly found out that being forward thinking in matters of art was not without its dangers. He had to work tirelessly to ensure that the magazine did not fall afoul of John Sumner, the new head of The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, who was successfully prosecuting and closing magazines deemed to be politically radical or immoral. Modernism itself, being an import from Europe, was often conflated in the public mind with immorality, and the vice societies were as likely to prosecute artists and intellectuals as they were the purveyors of smut…

It’s not an exaggeration to say that The Dial made Cummings’ career.

An Art Lesson from the Apocalypse

Seth Godin has posted an article that is getting a lot of tweets and retweets.

It is called A marketing lesson from the apocalypseHis thesis is that preachers can come along generation after generation and convince followers that the Rapture is on hand because of a simple marketing truth:

Sell a story that some people want to believe. In fact, sell a story they already believe.

As I thought about this I began to wonder if this is an explanation for why artists are so often “starving”—why fine arts have so often counted on grants and philanthropists rather than sales or box office receipts to survive.

As a professional writer, I can attest to the truth of Godin’s statement.  It is much easier to sell a idea for a book if it is much like other ideas that have shown success.

For example, successful self-help books are often repackaged variants on the same self-esteem indoctrination we’ve had all through our lives: dream it and you can be it, if you work hard enough you can make anything happen, it is easy to become rich in America, stop sabotaging yourself… People already believe this.  They buy more books that reinforce what they already believe than books that challenge their underlying assumptions.  (At least the publishing industry expects them to and invests in literary properties and marketing priorities accordingly.)  This is also why we have so many copycat television programs and movies.  No one sits down to one of the many CSIs or NCIS or Law and Orders or… because they want their assumptions challenged.  They want to see generally what they have come to expect and to be entertained.

It occurred to me that “pre-belief” may mark the difference between “art” and “entertainment.”  The job of art is to challenge or expand the audience’s belief, expectation or perspective, while entertainment reinforces it.

This is where my brilliant closing paragraph would go if I had drawn any conclusions from this stream of thought.  But that is just what you would be expecting me to do, and I am an artiste…

Losing My Religion

“It is an age of nervousness… the growing malady of the day, the physiological feature of the age,” said a New York Tribune editorial.  “Nowhere are the rush and hurry and overstrain of life more marked than in this much-achieving Nation…  Inventions, discoveries, achievements of science all add to the sum of that which is to be learned, and widen the field in which there is work to be done.  If knowledge has increased, we should take more time for acquiring it…  For it would be a sorry ending of this splendid age of learning and of labor to be known as an age of unsettled brains and shattered nerves.”  The article was written in 1895.

There is one thing that you can count on throughout history.  People are nostalgic for an earlier age, one that was less busy, one in which young people took the time to read books, and when people still believed in that “old time religion.”

As for reading, that golden age in America, when every person had his nose in a book is as much a myth as the memory of an age when no one felt pressured and rushed. 

“If you grew up in a rural area, you have seen how farmhouses come and go, but the dent left by cellars is permanent,” Paul Collins wrote in Sixpence House.  “There is something unbreakable in that hand-dug foundational gouge into the earth. Books are the cellars of civilization: when cultures crumble away, their books remain out of sheer stupid solidity. We see their accumulated pages, and marvel – what readers they were! But were they? Back in the 1920s, booksellers assessed the core literary population of the United States, the people who could be relied on to buy books with a serious content, at about 200,000 people. This, in a country of 100 million: a ratio of about 500 to 1. It was this minuscule subset spread out over a three-thousand-mile swath, this group of people who could fit into a few football stadiums, that thousands of books released each year had to compete for. Perhaps the ratio has gone higher since then. You see, literary culture is perpetually dead and dying; and when some respected writer discovers and loudly pro­claims the finality of this fact, it is a forensic marker of their own decomposition. It means that they have artistically expired within the last ten years, and that they will corporeally expire within the next twenty.”

Which brings us to that old time religion.  I was reading on the blog Made in America today an article by Claude Fisher, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.  His article, Faith Endures, opens with a scene from 1907 when a group of ministers met with president Theodore Roosevelt to discuss the crisis of declining church attendance.  Yet church attendance did not decline, and was booming in the 1950s.  Fisher describes a complex history of Americans relationship to church-going from the nation’s founding- the good old days when most of the founding fathers were “unchurched” to the present day.  The history is not a straight line (oh but we love to see history as linear!) Rather church attendance has waxed and waned.

“Since time immemorial, it seems, people have described – some have decried – the loss of that ‘old time religion.’” Fisher writes.  “Modern scholars call it secularization. With the coming of science, industry, and urbanization, faith had to crumble, they argued. There must have been a time when everyone believed deeply and that time has presumably passed.”

The article presents a graph that shows a surprisingly consistent level of church attendance throughout our history.

Importantly, we see this consistency in expressions of faith even though the early surveys include many respondents who had been born around the end of the 19th century and in the later surveys these elderly folks are replaced by respondents who had been born in the 1970s and ‘80s. Swapping the World War I generation for Gen X’ers hardly changed average levels of faith.

Faith among Americans endures, surprisingly so to many casual observers — even to professional observers…

Had the ministers who visited Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 known that a century later this would be the level of American faith, would they have been less alarmed? I suspect not.  Except when the evidence is too overwhelming — for instance, during the Great Awakenings around 1800 or during the 1950s — people just assume that faith is one of those things we are always in the process of losing.

So the loss of those old time values and a simpler way of life have always been and will always be decried even as things remain, to quote that great thinker David Byrne “same as it ever was.”

Talking Heads – Once In A Lifetime by hushhush112

Unlearning Not to Speak

“When a member of a congregation says to the preacher at the door of a church on a Sunday, ‘That was a first rate sermon,’ he or she is saying the preacher said all the things with which the person agreed, but only half as well.”-Peter J. Gomes, The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus

“Unlearning Not to Speak” was the title of a poem I read years ago, or maybe it was an essay.  Only the title remains in my memory.

I have been thinking about this title for the past few days.  I came across a number of articles, in quick succession, addressing the idea of how we have learned not to speak in situations in which we probably should.

The first was by Patricia Singleton writing on the blog Spiritual Journey of a Lightworker.   Her article was called “Fear— You Might Not Like Me if I Have An Opinion.

She writes from the perspective of a survivor of child abuse, but her words will probably have a familiar feel to anyone who has felt insecure or shy:

Remember the panic of being asked, “What do you think?”  I remember thinking what does this person want me to say? What am I going to say? Can I get away with not saying anything at all? Do I tell them what I really think and take the chance that the person might not like me? Do I take the chance that what I say could anger this person and make them hate me?

Not speaking is something we associate more strongly with women, and we females surely do have extra social pressure to keep the conversational peace by avoiding controversy and strong opinions. It is the feminine thing to do.

Yet men are not immune to these social forces.  They use a particular masculine variant on not speaking.  They may sound as though they are firmly stating a deeply held belief simply because they use a firm voice.  They may just as often be saying what they think they are expected to say as women are.  (For example, a man might have more social leeway to argue politics, but if he noticed that your bias cut skirt was a particularly fetching shade of mauve he might very well keep that observation to himself.)

In every day life we take an educated guess about what the other person expects from us, and we do our best to say appropriate things.  You would not talk to your football coach the same way as you would speak to your mother or your priest or to your best friend or spouse. You will probably keep mum on your deeply held democratic ideals around your republican cousin, as you might avoid talking about religion to your atheist friend.  These are the types of adjustments we make all the time to get along with one another.

It gets harder to know how “not to speak” as your audience becomes larger.  Your blog readers, your Facebook community, your Twitter followers may come from different backgrounds and different parts of your life.  When you can’t be sure who you are addressing, and you want everyone to like you, the easiest thing is to say things so uncontroversial that no one can take offense.

As Peter Gomes noted in the quote that led this article, the best way to get people to compliment you on your brilliant thoughts is to say what they are already thinking.

You can hardly go wrong, then, when you come out and argue that sunshine is nice, kindness is good, you like puppies, material things should not be the focus of life, and you’re trying to improve yourself so you can give back to the community.

You’re not going to make anyone flame you with that (unless he has a serious personality issue.)  The only problem is, if everyone already agrees with you, there isn’t much point in saying it.

The other problem with all this self-censoring is that we do not actually know what our friends and peers think.  We take educated guesses, and we are likely to be wrong.  Sometimes we end up on a mutually self-reinforcing loop in which we repeat what we think we need to say to stay in step with the other person who is only expressing a view because she thinks that is what you believe.

Yesterday, I posted a video that quotes Harry Knox citing two polls, one of clergy and the other of members of mainstream protestant congregations.  According to Knox, 2/3 of the church members were in favor of gay rights but didn’t want to come out and say it for fear of speaking against their church’s position, while 2/3 of the clergy said they personally favored equal rights for lgbt people, but they didn’t think their members were there yet.

Have you ever had one of those conversations with a group of friends about where to have dinner that went:  “Where do you want to go?”  “I don’t know, where do you want to go?”  “I’ll go wherever everyone wants to go?”…  To break that stalemate, someone needs to speak and risk being shot down.

Brian McClaren, the founder of Red Letter Christians, wrote a revealing article about his own process as a religious leader and how he unlearned not to speak in favor of lgbt equality.  He describes it as “coming out of the closet as a straight ally.”

When I became a pastor, more and more gay people came out to me and data started to accumulate that indicated problems with my inherited understanding. I went through a stage where I sought to be as personally understanding and humane to LGBTQ people as I could while still holding, however tenuously, to a theology that stigmatized them. (You might call this my “accepting but not affirming stage.”) I hurt some people deeply and inadvertently in this stage, and I wince when I think about it.

That led to a stage where I wanted to change my position – where I felt it was ethically and morally wrong to even tacitly support the conventional view. You might call this my “internally conflicted stage.” I wasn’t where I wanted to be and I didn’t know how to get from here to there…

I was a pastor and had to deal with the conflict between two commitments: first, one of my primary job requirements – to keep together rather than divide my congregation on the one hand, and second, to stand up with integrity and be counted as an advocate for people I had become convinced were being treated with neither justice nor compassion. I negotiated this tension by speaking up when I could and by seeking to use my influence to increase sensitivity to people whom I felt were being treated by Christians in a truly sub-Christian way.

But at every turn I felt that I couldn’t speak out too strongly too fast without dividing the church that I was called to serve. At times I probably pushed too far too fast – and got angry letters and emails about it, and at times I didn’t lead strongly enough – and got angry letters and emails about that too, just from other people.

You might ask why I didn’t go ahead and take a stand, letting the chips fall where they may. After all, I had inherited a conservative position on the role of women in church leadership, and our church crossed that boundary and never looked back. The honest answers to that question are complex and many (perhaps a subject for another time). Suffice it to say that the first few people who took a bold public stand paid the highest price, and the price, while still significant, has been going down steadily.

What we tend to discover when we share those scary ideas of ours is that, for the most part, people stick by us.   It is a cliche, but absolutely true, that any friends worth having are not going to pack up and leave because you disagree with them on an issue or two as you go through your life.  You probably have friends of your own who are totally different from you.  You say, “My friend is this crazy hippie,” or “My friend is kind of over-the-top about religion,” or “My friend is into all this New Age stuff,” or “My friend is obsessed with finding a man and I’m happy being single” or “He watches Fox News and I campaign for the Green Party…” You love them anyway.  (See my older post of a great quote from Joe Perez on this same subject.)

One of the best pieces of writing advice I ever got when I was in high school was from a teacher who told me never to end an essay with a quotation.  The last word, he said, should always be my own.  I should conclude my argument with my own voice.  Many years later (don’t ask how many, let’s just say a lot) I am still working on that.  It is a lifelong process, and important.  Who knows what words might touch another person and in what way?

The one thing I do know is that if that poem I found years ago had been worded in a more typical, conventional way (the one approved by grammarians) without its “inappropriate” double negative (“learning to speak” instead of “unlearning not to speak”) it would not have made an impact on me, and I would not be sharing it with you today.

It’s the End of the World as We Know It

Bad Predictionsmumble, mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble …Leonard Bernstein!….  It’s the end of the world as we know it…

Back in 2000, I published a book called Bad Predictions.  (I predicted it would sell better than it did and have many copies available for just $5 each if you’d like one, follow the link.)

The book had a full chapter called It’s the End of the World which listed predictions that the world would end.  As another end of the world approaches, here is a look back.  The full chapter ran more than 10,000 words and had dates on which the world was rumored to end from 634 B.C. to the year 2000.  Here are some highlights.

John of Toledo wrote what came to be known as the “Letter of Toledo” in 1179.  The letter announced that a planetary alignment would occur in Libra on September 23, 1186.  The result would be the end of the world as anyone had previously known it.  Only a few would survive.  People believed his forecast.  In Germany they dug shelters.  In Mesopotamia and Persia they prepared their cellars in much the same way people readied bomb shelters in the 1950s.  The Byzantine emperor had the windows of his palace boarded over.  While the planets did untie under the sign of Libra, the earthquakes and storms failed to appear.  John was not daunted.  He announced that his prophecy was meant to be symbolic of the Hunnish invasion and that he had actually been right.

“The world will end by a giant flood on February 20, 1524.”-German mathematician and astrologer Johannes Stoeffler, 1499.  Stoeffler was certain that a planetary alignment in Pisces was a sure sign that the end would come.  Since Pisces is a water sign, he reasonably predicted the world would be ended by a flood.  This became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Although the world did not end, part of Germany was gripped by panic when it rained on the fateful day.  One of those who believed Stoeffler was Count von Iggleheim who ordered a three story ark built in preparation.  February 20th was the end of the world for him.  The count was trampled to death by a stampeding mob trying to board his vessel.

German prophet Johann Jacob Zimmerman convinced many followers that the second coming would occur in the fall of 1694 and that Jesus was coming to America.  In February, Zimmerman and his cult, known as Woman in the Wilderness, made plans to cross the Atlantic but Zimmerman died on the day they were set to sail.  The group decided to continue under the leadership of member Johannes Kelpius.  They arrived safely in America but did not meet Jesus there.

A giant earthquake failed to destroy London on Apr 5, 1761, much to the disappointment of William Bell who had convinced many other people that it would happen.  He based his prediction on two previous earthquakes, one on February 8 and another on March 8.  They proved, in his mind, that the world must end in another 28 days.  The believers gathered in boats on the Thames or headed for the hills.  Following the day the earth stood still, Bell was thrown into Bedlam, London’s notorious insane asylum.

“I am fully convinced that sometime between March 21st, 1843 and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come and bring all His Saints with Him; and then He will reward every man as his work shall be,” said William Miller, one of the most famous millennialists.  He wrote about his calculations in a book called Evidence From Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year A.D. 1843.   His views attracted as many as 100,000 followers called Millerites and later Adventists.  When March 21, 1843 rolled around the Millerites waited… and waited….A few became disenchanted, but others grew more determined than ever that Christ would arrive within the year. 

A year later, on March 21 1844, some of the most fanatic followers jumped from roofs in the belief that Christ would catch them before they landed.  He did not.  Surprisingly, the Millerites did not disband.  One of them, Samuel Snow, was certain that there had to be a simple explanation.  He reworked the dates based on Jewish chronology and found that Miller should have said the end would come on October 22, 1844.  Snow managed to convince Miller of his methodology and the faithful waited once again.  Obviously the world did not end, but Miller’s ministry did. Miller, who had been a true believer, sank into a deep depression and disappeared from public view.  Although the Millerites officially disbanded, some of the devotees continued on with a new religion that borrowed many of his teachings.

From the “I have one year to live and I’m going to spend it reading one title” file: In 1868, Anglican minister Michael Paget Baxter published a book that said the world would end within the year.  It was called: Louis Napoleon, the Infidel Antichrist Predicted in Prophecy to Confirm a Seven Years Covenant With the Jews, About the Year 1861, and Nearly to Succeed in Gaining A Universal Empire; and Then to be Deified, and Idolatrously Worshiped, and Also to Institute A 3 2 Years Sanguinary Persecution Against the Christian Church, From 1864-1865 to 1868, During Which Time Wars, Famine, Pestilences & Earthquakes, If Not Religious Persecution, Will Prevail in England and America Until the Slaughter of the Witnesses, Elias and Another Prophet; After Which Napoleon, Their Destroyer, Together with the Pope Are Foreshown to Be Cast Alive Into the Lake of Fire At the Descent of Christ At Armageddon About the Year 1868. 

Baxter was another prophet who continuously updated his dates of doom.  He had first predicted the end would come between 1861-1867.  He later revised it to 1868.  Then 1869.  He then announced it would arrive between 1871-72.  Then he published a book entitled The End of This Age About the End of This Century in which predicted the Rapture would come in 1896 and it would all be over in 1901. This, of course, did not come to pass.  While a lesser man might have felt his credibility was strained, Baxter did not give up.  His next book, Future Wonders of Prophecy, announced the Rapture was to take place on March 12, 1903 between 2pm and 3pm, and Armageddon would take place on Apr 23, 1908.

Ellen G. White, once a follower of William Miller, took the leadership of a new religion, The Seventh Day Adventists.  White explained that Miller’s teachings had not been incorrect at all.  Miller had spoken of the “cleansing of the sanctuary.”  White argued that the sanctuary had, in fact, been cleansed.  The sanctuary, however, was not earth but a spiritual realm.  White, further, refused to make the same mistake as Miller and set no deadline for life on earth.  A splinter group, the Second Adventists, was not as cautious.  They prophesied that Christ would return between 1873 and 1874.  One of the notable Second Adventists was Charles Taze Russell who would live beyond 1874 to form his own religion.

According to Paul F. Boller’s book Presidential Campaigns, during the campaign of 1860 (which Abraham Lincoln won) several men were on a train in New England discussing the upcoming election.  One of the men, a devout follower of William Miller said, “Before the election of 1860, the world will have come to an end and Jesus Christ will be president of the universe.”  After a brief silence one of the passengers replied, “Sire, I’ll bet you ten dollars New Hampshire won’t go for him.”

“We know that the end of the age is within this generation, but whether the present generation began in 1870 or in 1871 we do not know… What is to become of the present United States when the end of the world comes?  It will be carried over to England.  McKinley is to be the last President of the United States.  Before the end of his term there will be a terrible European war… What will become of Wall Street?  That I can positively answer. Wall Street three years from now will be in Jerusalem.  But the work will be over.  Its usefulness will have been accomplished.  Wall Street is not a bad institution and it will be saved if the men individually are right.  And our politicians?  Now you get down to personalities.  I could pick out twenty good politicians and twenty bad ones.  The bad ones will be cast into outer darkness and the good ones transported to Jerusalem where they can mix for a thousand years in the delights of the perfect reign of Christ.. Now when it comes to locating the day for this…All signs say that the world will come to an end March 29, 1899, but it may be September, 1901.”-Dr. Beverly O Kinnear, quoted in the Berkshire Courier, February 4, 1897.

“The deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914.”-Charles Taze Russell, Studies in Scripture, 1910.  The revised edition of the book, published in 1923, contained the line “The deliverance of the saints must take place some time after 1914.”  Russell, a former Second Adventist was the founder, in 1884, of the Watch Tower Tract Society, the forerunner of the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“If Christ does not appear to meet his 144,000 faithful shortly after midnight on February 6th or 7th, it means that my calculations, based on the Bible, must be revised.”-  Margaret Rowan of Los Angeles, leader of the Church of Advanced Adventists, said in 1925.  She got her information from the angel Gabriel.  A New York house painter named Robert Reidt was convinced.  He took out ads in a number of newspapers and attracted many believers who followed him to a hilltop dressed in white robes.  At midnight, they raised their arms and changed “Gabriel!  Gabriel!  Gabriel!”  When nothing happened Reidt realized that, since Rowan lived in Los Angeles, the end of the world would probably come on Pacific time.  The group waited three hours and still no vast destruction.  Reidt blamed news photographers who came to cover the story.  Their flashbulbs, he said, kept Gabriel away.  Later Reidt consulted the Book of Revelation and came up with his own doomsday date- October 10, 1932.  When the world failed to end, Reidt retired from the prophecy business.

Relatives became worried when 44 year old Charles Laughead, a respected physician at Michigan State College, announced that the end of the world was coming December 20, 1954.  He had gotten the information from his psychic Dorothy Martin who, he said, had taught him to communicate with an extra-terrestrial civilization.  While much of Europe and the United States perished in a flood, those who believed would be whisked away in a spaceship.  Laughead did not lose his faith when December 20th came and went.  He simply explained that “God had stopped it all.” Loughead’s relatives tried to have him committed but the judge ruled that his unusual ideas did not constitute mental illness.

Anders Jensen, the Danish leader of the Disciples of Orthon told viewers of The David Frost Show that Christmas, 1967 would be the start of the Apocalypse.  The faithful built a huge underground nuclear shelter and spent their Christmas there.   When the members of the sect finally ventured out of the bunker they “expected to see ash covering the ground, a red glow in the sky, and everything destroyed.”  Instead they were met by applause from sightseers who had come to watch their emergence.  How did they feel to know the nations of the world had averted a full-scale thermonuclear war?  “It’s all a bit disappointing,” said Jensen.

What Makes a Body Obscene?

Sociological Images is weighing in on the controversy surrounding Dossier Magazine’s Andrej Pejic cover.   (And I am sure Dossier Magazine is deeply disappointed that everyone is making such a fuss.)

The article discusses what the fundamental difference between chests and breasts is, and why one can be seen and the other must be covered.

I was reminded of something that happened a few years ago.  A friend of mine, a British comedy writer named Mark Oswin, had a web site devoted to his work.  It was called “The Digital Comedy Nipple.”  (I don’t think the site exists any more.)

The splash screen for the page was a disembodied nipple— just the areola with no skin surrounding it.  My first reaction was that it was a bit obscene.  Then I realized that I was not sure, without the context of the chest surrounding it, whether the nipple belonged to a man or a woman.  (Most likely it belonged to one of the male writers responsible for the content of the site, but I never did find out.)  It was jarring to find myself looking at an image of something that was either forbidden (if female) or fine and dandy (if male) and that there was no way to know.

Lisa Wade, in her Sociological Images article comes to a similar conclusion about the ambiguity of chests and breasts:

It’s not true that women have breasts and men have chests. Many men have chests that look a bit or even a lot like breasts…  Meanwhile, many women are essentially “flat chested,” while the bustiness of others is an illusion created by silicone or salt water.  Is it really breasts that must be covered?  Clearly not. All women’s bodies are targeted by the law, and men’s bodies are given a pass, breasty or chesty as they may be.

Unless that man’s gender is ambiguous; unless he does just enough femininity to make his body suspect.  Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier cover reveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation.  It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic.  It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.

Successful Failure

Miguel de Cervantes was an inept businessman described as “a starving writer of unsuccessful dramas, poetry and finally a novel.”  Cervantes died a year after finishing Don Quixote.  He was broke and penniless and “broken in spirit.”  Don Quixote lived on to become one of the classics of world literature.

In 1843 Dickens had released a book called American Notes which flopped in England and outraged Americans.  His novel Martin Chuzzlewit was being published in installments, as was then the practice, and it was meeting with commercial and artistic indifference.  He was so broke, however, that he could not afford to stop writing the book.  He called it “the Chuzzlewit Agonies.” 

In October 1843, the idea of A Christmas Carol came to him and he wrote it very quickly.  He believed entirely in its value and he saw it as his solution to his financial problems.  He wanted to publish it as soon as possible but his publisher didn’t think much of A Christmas Carol, so Dickens paid to produce it himself using his publisher’s production facilities.  The book came out December 17 and by Christmas the entire print run (of 6,000) had sold.  That next year all kinds of pirated versions came out.  Dickens sued.  His publisher declared bankruptcy leaving him with the court costs.  When his royalties finally came he was expecting about 1,000 pounds, but it turned out to be only 230 pounds.  When he figured in the court costs (700 pounds) he had actually lost 470 pounds (about twice the yearly salary he’d earned as a reporter)

He wrote to a friend that the only thing that made it bearable was the “wonderful success of the book.”

Successful failure.  There’s a long tradition of that.