Saturday, February 26, 2005

Reading the Blues

Tony Horwitz' Blue Latitudes is well worth cracking. This is highly entertaining, almost painfully well-researched travel writing, improvised around James Cook's three amazing exploratory voyages a while back (1768-80). I couldn't resist it when I came upon it at Powell's, that Portland, OR book mecca. Attractions for me (besides gorgeous blue cover and Bryson squib!) were resonances with two ongoing personal reading interests: Australia and environs as a result of son's study there a few years back and cousins in Adelaide and biology/exploration in the Wallace/Darwin/island biogeography vein.

This can certainly be relished as a straight travelogue. There are also plenty of insights on culture including the loss of paradise throughout widely scattered parts of the Pacific and a repeated pattern of conflict between "discoverers" and "discovered" due among other things to Cook's seeming inability to grasp that Euro-American concepts of ownership are not innate in our species. But I'm going to focus on several bits that reverberated unexpectedly with current American politics. This caught my attention:

During his brief pauses between sails, however, he'd fathered four children by Elizabeth, three of them born while he was at sea. Cook had listed his two young boys, James and Nathaniel, as a servant and a sailor aboard the Endeavour, though they were aged only five and four at the time. This was a sanctioned fiction that earned the boys several years' time toward taking an officer's exam, should they one day join the Navy. (p. 210)

Privilege has been around for a long time. The optimistic among us might hope that history could repeat itself:

Elizabeth also took comfort from her three surviving children, whom she described in a letter as 'my greatest pleasure now remaining.' Two had gone to sea very young and had risen much more quickly than their father had done a generation before. By listing Nathaniel and James on the Endeavour's muster roll when they were only four and five, Cook had hastened their naval careers.

This proved, however, no blessing. Nathaniel Cook was a fifteen-year-old midshipman when his ship went down in a hurricane off Jamaica. His older brother, James, began his naval education at the age of eleven and made commander at thirty. On a winter's night in 1794, he boarded a longboat on the south coast of England to take command of his first ship - and was later found stripped of his clothes and possessions, with a wound to his head, dead on the shore of the Isle of Wight. The longboat's crew was never discovered. (p. 436)


Cook was a God-fearing Quaker. It's interesting given the in-our-face behavior of the religious right today, ever so eager to tell others how to live, behave, and believe, to read of Cook that:

. . . he had no room for religious ritual, at least not external ritual. He couldn't bear reverends on his ships and he almost never referred to the Deity in his writing. Belief is within oneself. (p. 308)

On the other hand, there are these words, attempting to partly explain the eventual horrific failure of diplomacy that led to Cook's death, evoking images of our petulant (and still-wired and earphoned!) president:

He was not accustomed to having his intentions frustrated by any person, and had but little command over himself in his anger. (p. 415)

However, in contrast to our pathetic little cowboy wannabe, Horwitz concludes:

If there was an overriding message in his journals, it was that people, the world over, were alike in their essential nature - even if they ate their enemies, made love in public, worshipped idols, or, like Aborigines, cared not at all for material goods. No matter how strange another society might at first appear, there were almost always grounds for mutual understanding and respect.

This was a radical notion in eighteenth-century Europe. And it seemed relevant to me more than two hundred years later, at a time when so much of the world appeared perilously divided along ethnic, religious, and ideological lines.

An entertaining read on many levels. Recommended!

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Anti-advertising

I'm much more the victim than the knowledgeable analyst when it comes to modern advertising. Nevertheless, risking sounding like Andy Rooney, is it just me? I'm focusing on radio here, despite being a limited consumer of the medium. But it seems like at least half of the ads have one or more aspects that are sufficiently irritating that at best I am left with no recall of product - and in the remainder of cases a resentful memory is what lingers.

There are at least a couple types of advertising that seem to have taken over the airwaves and especially tend to make me cranky. One is the "forced emoting" type, particularly popular when it is some sort of conscience-tweaking public service that is being promoted, though unfortunately the sappy "let me stick my fake feelings in your face" tone is becoming more and more pervasive. One recent example is a 60-mile fundraiser walk for breast cancer. How can you not approve of the cause? To hell with patriotism as an obligation! So why does the narrator feel compelled to talk breathily as though his spouse is dying in the other room? Come on: (a) she survived, as he tells the tale and (b) he's a shill in the first place, faking emotions badly.

And speaking of faking emotions, another category of annoying and routinely ineffective (at least with me) radio adverts involves the faux-testimonial. These pretend to be interviews with users of a product (restaurants a common theme) but are patently faked by hired voices. The dialogue is often very cheesy and at best not credible. Voices are so routinely mellifluous and trained that they are a dead giveaway. One annoyingly repeated local example has the speakers change roles halfway through - the supposed drugstore clerk demo-ing digital photo machine suddenly morphs into an agog consumer being cued by former customer! The idea of never underestimating the stupidity of the American public with legs. Of course recent presidential elections may be all the validation needed for a "never underestimate" marketing program.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

They Love the Jerk

This is a bit of a cart-horse situation. I'm a big fan of the singer-songwriter John Hiatt. This is a guy with an incredible story and a gift for telling it and connecting while doing so. (Do not miss the chance to attend his concerts if you are an R&R fan.) I'm neurotic enough to try to keep a record of my disks, and in terms of numbers, Hiatt lags behind only Dylan in collection (Beatles, Stones, and Van Morrison just back). You'd probably have learned that at some point anyway as this blog evolves, but ideally with a bit more graceful setup. How I became a fan, etc.

Anyway, that horse will have to wait. The point here is that I'm agitating for a new cover of Hiatt's "She Loves the Jerk," a truly great hymn to unrequited love. With apologies to any of you Hiatt devotees, here are some key lyrics:

He was a guy always out on the make
I guess he had what it takes
To turn the heads of pretty girls
She thought he would change
The worst of us will settle down
But he wouldn't stay out of town
Not even for this precious pearl
Now she lives with the lies and the bumps and the bruises.

He's a no-good so and so
But she'll never let him go
Though she knows it will never work
She loves the jerk.

He's never gonna change
Oh love is strange
She'll never let him go
I know I know I know I know
She's never gonna see
She'd be better off with me
He's never gonna change
Whoa love is strange.


Now, I could use some help. Anyone know if John Kerry has a musical agent?

[from Hiatt's '83 classic "Riding With the King," produced by Nick Lowe]