Miles Davis With Alex Haley, September 1962 / Playboy Interview…

The technical and emotional brilliance of the trumpet played by Miles Davis has made him one of the most provocative influences in modern jazz. We spent two days with Miles not long ago in his rather unusual five-story home, a converted Russian Orthodox Church on West 77th Street near the Hudson River in New York City. Miles was between gigs at the time and we accompanied him on his restless daily home routine, asking questions at propitious moments while he worked out in his basement gymnasium, made veal chops Italian style for his family, took telephone calls from fellow musicians, his lawyer and stockbroker, gave boxing lessons to his three sons, watched TV, plucked out beginner’s chords on a guitar and, of course, blew one of his two Martin trumpets, running up and down the chromatic scale with searing speed. Spending time with Miles in the refuge of his own home, and seeing him surrounded by the activities and people he loves, it was hard to reconcile this reality with his sometimes flinty and truculent public posture. It was on this facet of his personality that we first queried him.

Playboy: Linked with your musical renown is your reputation for bad temper and rudeness to your audiences. Would you comment?

Davis: Why is it that people just have to have so much to say about me? It bugs me because I’m not that important. Some critic that didn’t have nothing else to do started this crap about I don’t announce numbers, I don’t look at the audience, I don’t bow or talk to people, I walk off the stage, and all that.

Look, man, all I am is a trumpet player. I only can do one thing—play my horn—and that’s what’s at the bottom of the whole mess. I ain’t no entertainer, and ain’t trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician. Most of what’s said about me is lies in the first place. Everything I do, I got a reason.

The reason I don’t announce numbers is because it’s not until the last instant I decide what’s maybe the best thing to play next. Besides, if people don’t recognize a number when we play it, what difference does it make?

Why I sometimes walk off the stand is because when it’s somebody else’s turn to solo, I ain’t going to just stand up there and be detracting from him. What am I going to stand up there for? I ain’t no model, and I don’t sing or dance, and I damn sure ain’t no Uncle Tom just to be up there grinning. Sometimes I go over by the piano or the drums and listen to what they’re doing. But if I don’t want to do that, I go in the wings and listen to the whole band until it’s the next turn for my horn.

Then they claim I ignore the audience while I’m playing. Man, when I’m working, I know the people are out there. But when I’m playing, I’m worrying about making my horn sound right.

And they bitch that I won’t talk to people when we go off after a set. That’s a damn lie. I talk plenty of times if everything’s going like it ought to and I feel right. But if I got my mind on something about my band or something else, well, hell, no, I don’t want to talk. When I’m working I’m concentrating. I bet you if I was a doctor sewing on some son of a bitch’s heart, they wouldn’t want me to talk.

Anybody wants to believe all this crap they hear about me, it’s their problem, not mine. Because, look, man, I like people. I love people! I’m not going around telling everybody that. I try to say that my way—with my horn. Look, when I was a boy, 10 years old, I got a paper route and it got bigger than I could handle because my customers liked me so much. I just delivered papers the best I could and minded my business, the same way I play my horn now. But a lot of the people I meet now make me sick.

Playboy: What types of people do you find especially irritating?

Davis: Well, these people that’s always coming up bugging me until they get me to act like this crap they heard. They ask you things, you say what you think, and if it ain’t what they want to hear, then something’s wrong with you and they go away mad and think you don’t like them. I bet I have had that happen 500 times. In this last club I played, this newspaper reporter kept after me when I told him I didn’t have no more to say. He wasn’t satisfied with that. After the next set, he come up again, either drunk or playing drunk, and shoved into me. I told him to get the hell out of my way, and then he was fine—he went right out and wrote that. But he didn’t tell how it happened.

And I’m mad every time I run into the Jim Crow scene, I don’t care what form it takes. You can’t hardly play anywhere you don’t run into some of these cats full of prejudice. I don’t know how many I’ve told, “Look, you want me to talk to you and you’re prejudiced against me and all that. Why’n’t you go on back where you’re sitting and be prejudiced by yourself and leave me alone?” I have enough problems without trying to make them feel better. Then they go off and join the rest saying I’m such a big bastard.

I’ve got no plans of changing what I think. I don’t dig people in clubs who don’t pay the musicians respect. The average jazz musician today, if he’s making it, is just as trained as classical musicians. You ever see anybody go up bugging the classical musicians when they are on the job and trying to work?

Even in jazz—you look at the white bandleaders—if they don’t want anybody messing with them when they are working, you don’t hear anybody squawking. It’s just if a Negro is involved that there’s something wrong with him. My troubles started when I learned to play the trumpet and hadn’t learned to dance.

Playboy: You feel that the complaints about you are because of your race?

Davis: I know damn well a lot of it is race. White people have certain things they expect from Negro musicians—just like they’ve got labels for the whole Negro race. It goes clear back to the slavery days. That was when Uncle Tomming got started because white people demanded it. Every little black child grew up seeing that getting along with white people meant grinning and acting clowns. It helped white people to feel easy about what they had done, and were doing, to Negroes, and that’s carried right on over to now. You bring it down to musicians, they want you to not only play your instrument, but to entertain them, too, with grinning and dancing.

Playboy: Generally speaking, what are your feelings with regard to race?

Davis: I hate to talk about what I think of the mess because my friends are all colors. When I say that some of my best friends are white, I sure ain’t lying. The only white people I don’t like are the prejudiced white people. Those the shoe don’t fit, well, they don’t wear it. I don’t like the white people that show me they can’t understand that not just the Negroes, but the Chinese and Puerto Ricans and any other races that ain’t white, should be given dignity and respect like everybody else.

But let me straighten you—I ain’t saying I think all Negroes are the salt of the earth. It’s plenty of Negroes I can’t stand, too. Especially those that act like they think white people want them to. They bug me worse than Uncle Toms.

But prejudiced white people can’t see any of the other races as just individual people. If a white man robs a bank, it’s just a man robbed a bank. But if a Negro or a Puerto Rican does it, it’s them awful Negroes or Puerto Ricans. Hardly anybody not white hasn’t suffered from some of white people’s labels. It used to be said that all Negroes were shiftless and happy-go-lucky and lazy. But that’s been proved a lie so much that now the label is that what Negroes want integration for is so they can sleep in the bed with white people. It’s another damn lie. All Negroes want is to be free to do in this country just like anybody else. Prejudiced white people ask one another, “Would you want your sister to marry a Negro?” It’s a jive question to ask in the first place—as if white women stand around helpless if some Negro wants to drag one off to a preacher. It makes me sick to hear that. A Negro just might not want your sister. The Negro is always to blame if some white woman decides she wants him. But it’s all right that ever since slavery, white men been having Negro women. Every Negro you see that ain’t black, that’s what’s happened somewhere in his background. The slaves they brought here were all black.

What makes me mad about these labels for Negroes is that very few white people really know what Negroes really feel like. A lot of white people have never even been in the company of an intelligent Negro. But you can hardly meet a white person, especially a white man, that don’t think he’s qualified to tell you all about Negroes.

You know the story the minute you meet some white cat and he comes off with a big show that he’s with you. It’s 10,000 things you can talk about, but the only thing he can think of is some other Negro he’s such close friends with. Intelligent Negroes are sick of hearing this. I don’t know how many times different whites have started talking, telling me they was raised up with a Negro boy. But I ain’t found one yet that knows whatever happened to that boy after they grew up.

Playboy: Did you grow up with any white boys?

Davis: I didn’t grow up with any, not as friends, to speak of. But I went to school with some. In high school, I was the best in the music class on the trumpet. I knew it and all the rest knew it—but all the contest first prizes went to the boys with blue eyes. It made me so mad I made up my mind to outdo anybody white on my horn. If I hadn’t met that prejudice, I probably wouldn’t have had as much drive in my work. I have thought about that a lot. I have thought that prejudice and curiosity have been responsible for what I have done in music.

Playboy: What was the role of the curiosity?

Davis: I mean I always had a curiosity about trying new things in music. A new sound, another way to do something—things like that. But man, look, you know one of the biggest things that needs straightening up? The whole communication system of this country! Take the movies and TV. How many times do you see anybody in the films but white people? You don’t dig? Look, the next movie or TV you see, you count how many Negroes or any other race but white that you see. But you walk around in any city, you see the other races—I mean, in life they are part of the scene. But in the films supposed to represent this country, they ain’t there. You won’t hardly even see any in the street crowd scenes—because the studios didn’t bother to hire any as extras.

Negroes used to be servants and Uncle Toms in the movies. But so much stink was raised until they quit that. Now you do have some Negroes playing feature parts—maybe four or five a year. Most of the time, they have a role that’s special so it won’t offend nobody—then it’s a big production made like that picture is going to prove our democracy. Look, I ain’t saying that people making films are prejudiced. I can’t say what I don’t know. But I see the films they make, and I know they don’t think about the trouble a lot of colored people find with the movies and TV.

A big TV network wanted to do a show featuring me. I said no, and they asked me to just look at a show featuring a big-name Negro singer. No, I ain’t calling no names. Well, just like I knew, they had 18 girls dancing for the background—and every one of them was white. Later on, when I pointed this out to the TV people, they were shocked. They said they just hadn’t thought about that. I said I knew they hadn’t. Nobody seems to think much about the colored people and the Chinese and Puerto Ricans and Japanese that watch TV and buy the things they advertise. All these races want to see some of their own people represented in the shows—I mean, besides the big stars. I know I’d feel better to see some kids of all races dancing and acting on shows than I would feel about myself up there playing a horn. The only thing that makes me any different from them is I was lucky.

This black-white business is ticklish to try to explain. You don’t want to see Negroes every time you click on your set. That would be just as bad as now when you don’t see nobody but white people. But if movies and TV are supposed to reflect this country, and this country’s supposed to be democratic, then why don’t they do it? Let’s see all kinds of people dancing and acting. I see all kinds of kids downtown at the schools of dancing and acting, but from what I see in the movies and TV, it’s just the white ones that are getting any work.

Look, man, right in music you got the same thing happening. I got this album, Someday My Prince Will Come, and you know who’s on the jacket cover? My wife—Frances. I just got to thinking that as many record albums as Negroes buy, I hadn’t ever seen a Negro girl on a major album cover unless she was the artist. There wasn’t any harm meant—they just automatically thought about a white model and ordered one. It was my album and I’m Frances’ prince, so I suggested they use her for a model, and they did it.

But it ain’t all cases where white people just didn’t think about the other races. It’s a lot of intended discrimination, right in music. You got plenty of places that either won’t hire Negroes, or they hire just one that they point out. The network studios, the Broadway pit bands, the classical orchestras, the film studios, they all have color discrimination in hiring.

I tell you why I feel so strong about the communication system. I never have forgotten one time in Europe this nice old man told me how in World War II, the Europeans didn’t know what to make of Negro troops. They had their picture of this country from our magazines and movies, and with a very few exceptions like Pops Armstrong and Joe Louis and Jesse Owens, they didn’t know about any Negroes except servants and laborers.

Playboy: Do you feel that your views are shared by most Negroes? And Puerto Ricans? And Orientals?

Davis: I can’t speak for them last two. I’m in no position. I just know what I personally feel for them. But I know that pretty nearly all Negroes hardly have any other choice about how they feel. They ain’t blind. They got to see what’s happening. It’s a thousand big and little ways that you run into the prejudices of white people. Just one thing—how long have Negroes been looking at immigrants coming into this country and can’t even speak the language, and in the second generations, they are in places the Negroes haven’t got to yet.

Look, not long ago this big magazine had this Southern truck driver saying he’d carry sandwiches if they let Negroes eat in them Maryland highway restaurants. But where he wants to eat ain’t my point—I’m talking about what he said. He said, “You give them a finger, they take an arm” and a lot more. You dig? When it comes to human rights, these prejudiced white people keep on acting like they own the damn franchise! And man, with the world in the mess it’s in now, we trying to influence on our side all them Africans and Arabs and Indians and Chinese… You know two thirds of the people in the world ain’t white? They see all this crap with Negroes and supposed to feel white people really think any different about them? Man, somebody better get straight!

Another thing—there was no upset about them restaurants not serving Negroes, until it was an African they turned away. You think every Negro in the country don’t see what it says? It says that we been here 400 years, but it wasn’t no mess until they put out an African that just flew over here on a jet.

Playboy: Do you, in your position as a famous Negro, meet prejudice?

Davis: I told you, some way or other, every Negro meets it, I don’t care who he is! Look, man, I sent for an electrician to fix something in the house. When he rang the bell, I answered and he looked at me like I was dirt, and said, “I want to see the owner, Mr. Davis.” When I said, “You looking at him,” the cat turned beet red. He had me figured as the porter. Now he’s mad and embarrassed. What had I done to him but called to give him work?

That same week, I had seen a lot of them West Point cadets, and in a bar I asked why there was so many of them in town. Man, I just asked the cat a question and he moved up the bar and didn’t speak! But then somebody recognized me and he got red as that electrician. He came trying to apologize and saying he had my records. I told him I had just paid enough taxes to cover his free ride at West Point, and I walked out. I guess he’s somewhere now with the others saying I’m such a bastard. It bugged me so, man, I wasn’t worth a damn for two or three days. It wasn’t just him ignoring me I was thinking about, but in two or three years, Gregory, my oldest boy, may be doing some Army time. How am I supposed to feel about him maybe serving under this cat?

Then take this tour I made—Frances and I had train reservations to California. But this clerk I showed my identification to, he took it and looked at me just like the West Point cat. When he said he had to check with somebody else, I asked him what was the trouble. You know he had the nerve to tell me I might have forged it! Ain’t no need of me telling you what I told him, nobody would print it. But we went to the airport and took a plane. I’m spending my money, the railroads are broke, even this son of a bitch’s job’s in trouble, but all he can see is I’m black, so it’s all right to insult me. Bad as I hate to fly, I ain’t been on a train since, because I haven’t met Jim Crow on the airlines.

Playboy: In your field, music, don’t some Negro jazzmen discriminate against white musicians?

Davis: Crow Jim is what they call that. Yeah. It’s a lot of the Negro musicians mad because most of the best-playing jobs go to the white musicians playing what the Negroes created. But I don’t go for this, because I think prejudice one way is just as bad as the other way. I wouldn’t have no other arranger but Gil Evans—we couldn’t be much closer if he was my brother. And I remember one time when I hired Lee Konitz, some colored cats bitched a lot about me hiring an ofay in my band when Negroes didn’t have work. I said if a cat could play like Lee, I would hire him, I didn’t give a damn if he was green and had red breath.

Playboy: Do you find that being the head of your band adds to your problems?

Davis: Fronting a band ain’t no fun. A lot of people don’t understand that music is business, it’s hard work and a big responsibility. I hate to even think what all I’ve been through to play my horn, and still go through. I put everything I’ve got into it. Even after a good rehearsal, I feel empty. And you add to playing your instrument the running of a band and you got plenty of problems. I got my own family, and the guys that work for me, and their families to think about. On one tour, I had this white woman in Kansas City meet me when I came off the stand and wanted me to come to her table with her and her husband for a drink. I told her I didn’t like to do that, and she hollered, “They said you’re like that!” I felt like throwing down my horn and kicking it. But I said to myself I was going to try and educate at least that one couple. So I went over and talked to them.

I told them an artist’s first responsibility was to himself. I said if he kept getting upset with what other people think he ought to do, he never would get too far, or he sure wouldn’t last. I tried to make them see how I had worked all my life to play myself and then to get a band worth people paying to hear. I said that a lot of times when people in a club wanted to talk to me, I needed to be worrying about something about my band. They said they understood. I hope they did.

Playboy: You have been quoted as not being in favor of jazz concerts. Why?

Davis: Nobody can relax at concerts, the musicians or the people, either. You can’t move around, you can’t have a drink. A musician has to be able to let loose everything in him to reach the people. If the musician can’t relax, how’s he going to make the people feel what he feels? The whole scene of jazz is feeling.

Playboy: Do you now ever indulge in jam sessions?

Davis: I wish there was some jam sessions to sit in. But there ain’t none left—at least not in the big cities. I used to sit in some great ones around St. Louis and in Brooklyn, Illinois. We would blow sometimes clear up until the next afternoon. When I go back there now, I sit in with a little blues band. They have the feeling.

Playboy: You’ve won all the trumpet polls. After yourself, how would you rank others?

Davis: After me! Hell, it’s plenty great trumpet players don’t come after me, or after nobody else! That’s what I hate so about critics—how they are always comparing artists…always writing that one’s better than another one. Ten men can have spent all their lives learning technical expertness on their instruments, but just like in any art, one will play one style and the rest nine other ways. And if some critics just don’t happen to like a man’s style, they will knock the artist. That bugs the hell out of musicians. It’s made some damn near mad enough to want to hang up their horns.

Trumpet players, like anybody else, are individualized by their different ideas and styles. The thing to judge in any jazz artist is does the man project, and does he have ideas. You take Dizzy—he does, all the time, every time he picks up his horn. Some more cats—Clark Terry, Ray Nance, Kenny Dorham, Roy Eldridge, Harold Baker, Freddie Hubbard, Lee Morgan, Bobby Hackett—a lot of them. Hell, that cat down in New Orleans, Al Hirt, he blows his ass off, too!

Playboy: Is there any special reason you didn’t mention Louis Armstrong?

Davis: Oh, Pops? No, why I didn’t mention him is because I was talking just about modern-jazz players. I love Pops, I love the way he sings, the way he plays—everything he does, except when he says something against modern-jazz music. He ought to realize that he was a pioneer, too. No, he wasn’t an influence of mine, and I’ve had very little direct contact with Pops. A long time ago, I was at Bop City, and he came in and told me he liked my playing. I don’t know if he would even remember it, but I remember how good I felt to have him say it. People really dig Pops like I do myself. He does a good job overseas with his personality. But they ought to send him down South for goodwill. They need goodwill worse in Georgia and Alabama and Mississippi than they do in Europe.

Playboy: To go back a moment, you expressed a sharp dislike of critics. Are there other reasons besides their comparing musicians?

Davis: Well, aside from that, I get sick of how a lot of them write whole columns and pages of big words and still ain’t saying nothing. If you have spent your life getting to know your business and the other cats in it, and what they are doing, then you know if a critic knows what he’s talking about. Most of the time they don’t.

I don’t pay no attention to what critics say about me, the good or the bad. The toughest critic I got, and the only one I worry about, is myself. My music has got to get past me and I’m too vain to play anything I think is bad.

No, I ain’t going to name critics I don’t like. But I will tell you some that I respect what they write—Nat Hentoff, Ralph Gleason and Leonard Feather. And some others, I can’t right off think of their names. But it ain’t a long list.

Playboy: Are there any particular places or clubs that you don’t like to play?

Davis: There are plenty I won’t play! I won’t take a booking nowhere in the South. I told you I just can’t stand Jim Crow, so I ain’t going down there in it. There’s enough of it here in the North, but at least you have the support of some laws.

I won’t play nowhere I know has the kind of audiences that you waste your breath to play for. I’m talking about them expense-account ofays that use music as a background for getting high and trying to show off to the women they brought. They ain’t come to hear good music. They don’t even know how to enjoy themselves. They drink too much, they get loud, they got to be seen and heard. They’ll jump up and dance jigs and sing. They ain’t got no manners—don’t pay their women no respect. What they really want is some Uncle Tom entertainment if it’s a Negro group on the stand. These are the kind will holler, “Hey, boy, play Sweet Georgia Brown!” You supposed to grin and play that. I hate to play in a place full of those kind of squares so bad that if there wasn’t nobody else to play to, I’d invest in some more property and just stay home and collect rents. I can’t stand dumb-ass people not respecting the other customers that have come to hear the music. Sometimes one table like that has bugged me so that when I get home or to my hotel, I walk the floor because I can’t sleep.

I told you I ain’t going to play nowhere in the South that Negroes can’t come. But I ain’t going to play nowhere in the North that Negroes don’t come. It’s one of two reasons they won’t, either because they know they ain’t wanted, or because they don’t like the joint’s regular run of music. Negroes ain’t got as much money to throw away in night clubs as white people. So a club that Negroes patronize, you can figure that everybody that goes there comes expecting to hear good music.

Playboy: What is your opinion of the jazz audiences in Europe?

Davis: European audiences are generally more hip about the background of jazz than most of the fans here. Some cats hardly heard of here are big record sellers in Europe. In this country, it’s more following of personalities. You want to hear something funny? One club-owner friend of mine said a lot of people pay their money to come where I’m playing just because they want to see me—they heard I’m so bad. Ain’t that a bitch?

But this country has a lot of great fans. You know, they appreciate what you’re trying to do, and that inspires a musician to give his best. I know some Americans that don’t stop with just knowing jazz, but that even think just like musicians.

Playboy: Do you plan another European tour soon?

Davis: Maybe. I like to play in Europe every now and then, but I don’t like to spend no more time out of this house than I can help. Jack Whittemore, my booking agent at Shaw Artists, schedules me so I don’t stay long on the road. I like to have time at home to be with my kids and Frances, and to just think about things—like worrying about the people running this government maybe slipping and getting us into another war. But I like them Kennedy brothers—they’re swinging people.

Playboy: Would it please you if the image of you changed, that people quit regarding you as a tough guy?

Davis: Well, nobody wants to be always accused of something he ain’t done. But people that want to think that, it’s their worry, it ain’t mine. I’m like I am, and I ain’t planning to change. I ain’t scared of nothing or nobody, I already been through too much. I ought to be dead from just what I went through when I was on dope. I ain’t going around anywhere trying to be tough and a racist. I just say what I think, and that bugs people, especially a lot of white people. When they look in my eyes and don’t see no fear, they know it’s a draw.

Playboy: Have you always been so sensitive about being a Negro?

Davis: About the first thing I can remember as a little boy was a white man running me down a street hollering “Nigger! Nigger!” My father went hunting him with a shotgun. Being sensitive and having race pride has been in my family since slave days. The slave Davises played classical string music on the plantations. My father, Miles the first, was born six years after the Emancipation. He wanted to play music, but my grandfather wanted him to be more than an entertainer for white folks. He made him go to Northwestern to be a dental surgeon. My father is worth more than I am. He’s a high-priced dental surgeon with more practice than he can handle—because he’s good at his business—and he raises hogs with pedigrees. It’s a special breed of hogs with some funny name I would tell you, but I never can remember it.

Playboy: You’re said to be one of the financially best-off popular musicians. Is this correct?

Davis: Well, I don’t have any access to other musicians’ bankbooks. But I never have been what you would call poor. I grew up with an allowance, and I had a big newspaper route. I saved most of what I made except for buying records. But when I first left home as a musician, I used to spend all I made, and when I went on dope, I got in debt. But after I got enough sense to kick the habit, I started to make more than I needed to spend unless I was crazy or something.

Now I got a pretty good portfolio of stock investments, and I got this house—it’s worth into six figures, including everything in it. My four kids are coming up fine. When the boys get in from school, I want you to see them working out on the bags in our gym downstairs. I keep myself in shape and teach the kids how to box. They can handle themselves. Ain’t nothing better that a father can pass along. Then I got my music, I got Frances, and my Ferrari—and our friends. I got everything a man could want—if it just wasn’t for this prejudice crap. It ain’t that I’m mad at white people, I just see what I see and I know what’s happening. I am going to speak my mind about anything that drags me about this Jim Crow scene. This whole prejudice mess is something you would feel so good if it could just be got rid of, like a big sore eating inside of your belly.

Rip Doctor Fever…

Is D.J. of ‘WKRP’ Bound for Cultdom?

From New York Times – 8 December 1979

No, he does not look like Erik Estrada or any of the other usual American male television idols. His blond hair is thinning, his forehead is heavily lined, and underneath the sunglasses he almost always wears deep pouches ring his eyes. He does, in fact, look slightly dissipated.

Yet when Howard Hesseman walked down the Avenue of the Americas the other day, many passers‐by did doubletakes, beamed and pointed at him. Several of them shouted, “Hey, Johnny Fever, is that you?” One man even grabbed him and hugged him. And Mr. Hesseman said he was still recovering from the surprise of being ardently kissed twice by a fan,a woman, while he was trying to eat brunch in San Francisco.

The 39‐year‐old Mr. Hesseman plays the freewheeling counterculture disk jockey Dr. Johnny Fever on the popular CBS‐TV series “WKRP in Cincinnati.” He and Loni Anderson, who plays the station’s blond receptionist, are the leading characters on the series, which last week ranked sixth in the Nielsen popularity ratings.

Virtually a Cult Figure

Mr. Hesseman, virtually a cult figure these days, is causing commotion in Manhattan because he is in town to be the host of “Saturday Night Live” tonight at 11:30 on NBC. A former member of San Franclsco’s famed improvisational group the Committee, Mr. Hesseman said his “Saturday Night Live” stint was “like going borne, except your cousins have moved into the house. “Saturday Night Live” is the logical media outgrowth of what the Committee and Second City were doing 10 and 15 years ago, and I’m really thrilled they asked me to do the show.”

Sitting in a restaurant over a plate of sea bass, which he ordered because he said be liked “a fairly tasteless fish,” Mr. Hesseman bantered with a fawning waiter and then talked about his battles with the CBS censors, who he said were afraid of the “counterculture aspects” of his character.

Dr. Johnny Fever, as Mr. Hesseman makes clear in his portrayal of the disk Jockey, has ingested a fair share of drugs in his lifetime. He is one of the first characters on commercial television to openly espouse a style of life alien to much of middle America.

Alcohol and Drugs

“I think maybe Johnny smokes a little marijuana, drinks beer and wine, and maybe a little hard liquor,” Mr. Hesseman said. “And on one of those hard mornings at the station, he might take what for many years was referred to as a diet pill. But be is a moderate user of soft drugs, specifically marijuana.”

“The network, needless to say, is terrified about that element,” he added. “But by no means am I advocating drug use. I understand the fears. I have a fair share of friends who are dead because of drugs, or close to it. I just think the fears are overblown.”

Mr. Hesseman, who favors the decriminalization of marijuana, said he did 90 days in the San Francisco County Jail in 1963 for selling an ounce of marijuana — a conviction that was later thrown out for entrapment. When asked if he still used marijuana, he smiled and said, “It’s sort of a residual hobby.”

The six‐foot, 165‐pound actor, who was wearing a plaid wool shirt with a matching plaid necktle and black denim jeans, said he was upset CBS was moving “WKRP” from its 9:30 P.M. time slot on Mondays to 8 o’clock. When the show came on the air last year, it faltered in that time slot and was dropped for a while.

‘Some Sophisticated Issues’

“None of us feel we’re doing Shakespeare or Strindberg or anything,” he said, “but we don’t feel we’re an 8 o’clock show. We’ve dealt with some sophisticated issues, like the boss’s wife getting pregnant at the age of 47, and things like that can’t be too fascinating to young viewers.”

He added that he thought pitting “WKRP” against NBC’s “Little House on the Prairle” and ABC’s “Laverne and Shiriey” would result in all three shows dropping from the top 20.

Mr. Hesseman is well qualified to play a counterculture disk jockey. Back in 1967, while be was a member of the Committee, he worked Saturdays as a disk Jockey for San Francisco’s pioneering underground rock‐and‐roll station, KMPX. “Most of my friends said I wasn’t that good,” he said. “I have pretty eclectic tastes, and I got into some pretty bizarre riffs on the radio. I was terrified of the technology, and I knew nothing about running the boards. There was none of Dr. Johnny Fever’s amphetamine‐euphoria approach to the weather reports.”

Because of his real‐life deejay experience, Mr. Hesseman said he adlibbed all of Johnny Fever’s on‐the‐air patter, and also picked the records to be played.

He said he was originally considered for the part of Herb, WKRP’s sales manager, a solidly Middle Western type who often wears plaid suits, a white belt and white shoes. “I could have played Herb, I’ve played that type many times before,” Mr. Hesseman said. “But I told them, ‘Johnny is the only one I’m interested in.”

Before “WKRP,” Mr. Hesseman was one of those character actors whose face, if not his name, was sort of familiar. Known as Don Sturdy while he was with the Committee, he took back his own name in 1971 when he was cast in his first movie, “Steelyard Blues,” with Jane Fonda. He also had small parts in “Billy Jack,” “Shampoo,” “The Sunshine Boys” and “Silent Movie.” He has also appeared in a number of television movies and had nmning roles as a patient on “The Bob Newhart Show,” the prosecutor on “Soap” and the psychiatrist on “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman.”

Mission From ‘The Jerk’

He was to have appeared as a rowdy carnival worker in Steve Martin’s coming movie “The Jerk,” which will open Friday. “But it’s gone, the whole thing was edited out,” he said. “I was disappointed, because I got to work with four other members of the Committee with one of my heroes, Carl Reiner. the scene is not sorely missed from film.”

Born in Salem, Ore., Mr. Hesseman Is single, after two failed marriages. He said he lived in a rented Hollywood bungalow, drove a 1964 yellow Oldsmobile convertible, and collected Oriental rugs and Buddha statues. He tries swim a mile a day, he said, to ward the effects of smoking two packs cigarettes daily.

The actor said that his goal was to work in films, and that he was under consideration for five or six major roles.

“Some are total departures from Dr. Johnny Fever, and that makes me happy,” he said. “One part I like is a community leader, a hail fellow well met, in a small Florida town. Now that’s really a departure from Johnny.”

Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary



Ambassador Adams Replies

Sir:

I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.

So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.

The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Francis Adams

A.J. Liebling Obituary


“I used to be shy about ordering a steak after I had eaten a steak sandwich,” he once said, “but I got used to it.”


A.J. Liebling, a critic of the daily press, a chronicler of the prize ring, an epicure and a biographer of such diverse personages as the late Gov. Earl Long of Louisiana and Col. John R. Stingo died yesterday at Mount Sinai Hospital.

                Mr. Liebling, who was 59 years old, entered the hospital on Dec 19, suffering from bronchial pneumonia.

                In 1935, after about a decade of intermittent employment as a newspaperman. Mr. Liebling went to work for The New Yorker. Since then he had written hundreds of articles for the magazine, many of which later appeared in book form.

                He first came to prominence as The New Yorker’s Paris correspondent on the eve of World War II. Later he followed the First Infantry Division across North Africa and into northern France. Despite chronic gout, a degree of plumpness and extreme nearsightedness, he regularly accompanied combat patrols.

                In 1946, he took over the magazine’s “Wayward Press” department, first conducted by Robert Benchley. His perceptive, sardonic articles on such subjects as editorial campaigns for the end of meat price controls, news treatment of the Alger Hiss trial, and, more recently, the newspaper strike here, were widely read.

                He resided in Chicago for a while in the late 1940’s, and the resulting dissection, published in 1952 as “Chicago: The Second City,” still possesses the power of creating instant rage there.

                He considered Carl Sandburg’s poetic evocation of a brawling, enterprising city outmoded. Mr. Liebling said its cry had changed from “Let me at him!” to “Hold him offa me,” and suggested that the appearance of the city indicated it has been “plopped down by the lakeside like a piece of waterlogged fruit.”

                In an extended New Yorker profile that appeared in book form in 1953 as “The Honest Rainmaker,’ he told of Hames A. Macdonald, a man of many occupations who was at the time a racing columnist for The New York Enquirer und the pen name of Col. John R. Stingo. The colonel, now deep in his 80’s, is still a familiar figure in midtown cafes.

                Perhaps Mr. Liebling’s most widely read book was “The Earl of Louisiana,” which appeared in 1961, and was based, as usual, on a series of New Yorker pieces. Mr. Liebling took the rather unorthodox view that Governor Long, better known for his eccentricities, was the South’s most effective liberal in recent years.

                He had been an amateur boxer in his youth, although, as he observed, he was not in the Ernest Hemingway class for size, skill or literary attainment, This interest was reflected in accounts of major prizefights and sketches of ring personalities that appeared from time to time in the magazine.


He studied ancient history at the Sorbonne, without much dedication, and became a scholar of the bistros and cafes.


                A collection of his articles on boxing, titled “The Sweet Science,” was published in 1956

                In the middle fifties he revisited the old battlegrounds of the First Division, reacquainting himself with the delights of Calvados and Norman delicacies he described in loving detail in “Normandy Revisited,” which appeared in 1958.

                In “Between Meals,” published last year, Mr. Liebling cast an unaccustomedly tender eye on his growing up in Manhattan, trips to Europe with his parents as a child and his own student days in Paris in the early twenties.

                In October of this year, “The most of A.J. Liebling,” a selection from a dozen of his earlier collections, was published.

                Mr. Liebling never lost the reporter’s skill of recording facts accurately, but as his style matured it became convoluted, subtle and abounding in unlikely allusions. An account of a Sugar Ray Robinson fight, for example, might be a delicate embroidery on a theme suggested by a medieval Arabian historian to whom he was partial.

                Mr. Liebling bore the marks of the gourmet: an extended waistline and rosy cheeks. “I used to be shy about ordering a steak after I had eaten a steak sandwich,” he once said, “but I got used to it.”

                Abbott Joseph Liebling was born in New York on Oct. 18, 1904. His father, Joseph Liebling, was a furrier. The son later described him as embodying the Horatio Alger legend in reverse, making his money early and dying broke.

                The Son, who was generally known as Joe, was expelled from Dartmouth College for refusing to attend chapel. He enrolled at the School of Journalism at Columbia University, which he later said, had “all the intellectual status of a training school for the future employees of the A. & P.”

                Last May, though, on the school’s 50th anniversary, he was one of 81 persons honored as distinguished alumni.

                His first job after graduation was in the sports department of The New York Times. One of his jobs was to compile basketball box scores, right down to the name of the referee. One night Mr. Liebling failed to get the official’s name from a high school correspondent and gave it as “Ignoto,” which is Italian for “unknown.”

                Deciding he was on to a good thing, Mr. Liebling stopped asking for the referee’s name. In the weeks that followed, Ignoto appeared at games all over the East Coast, sometimes several in a night. The sports editor made inquiries. He didn’t see the joke, and eight months after being hired, Mr. Liebling was dismissed.

                He went next to The Providence (R.I.) Journal and Evening Bulletin, where as a reporter and feature writer, he later said, “I oozed prose over every aspect of Rhode Island life.”

                In all he spent four and a half years there, interrupted by a year in Paris. He arranged to have his father finance the trip by telling him that he was thinking of marrying a cotton broker’s mistress. There he studied ancient history at the Sorbonne, without much dedication, and became a scholar of the bistros and cafes.

                He returned to New York in 1930. Not immediately finding employment, he hired a man to picket the entrance of The World, carrying a sign that read, “Hire Joe Liebling.” The city editor always used the back door, and it was not until the paper had gone out of business that Mr. Liebling caught on with the World-Telegram.

                Mr. Liebling wrote hundreds of feature stories during the next five years and gained the familiarity with off-beat New York that he continued to The New Yorker.

                He remained active until he entered the hospital a week ago, working on a study of the reaction of the southern press to the assassination of President Kennedy.

                Despite the considerable breadth of his published works, it is likely that Mr. Liebling most enjoyed his role as a press gadfly. His favorite themes were the diminishing competition and consequent loss of enterprise caused by merger and sales.

                In 1948, when the fist collection of “Wayward Press” articles was published, Mr. Liebling dedicated it “To the foundation of a School for Publishers, Failing Which No School of Journalism Can Have Meaning.”

                Mr. Liebling was awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honor by the French Government for his work as a writer on French subjects and as a war correspondent. He was the translator and editor of “The Voices of Silence,” a compilation of writings be members of the Resistance during World War II.

                He lived at 45 West 10th and had a summer home at Easthampton, L.I.

                He is survived by his widow, Jean Stafford, the novelist, whom he married in 1959, and a sister, Mrs. Harold Stonehill. Two previous marriages, to Ann Beatrice McGinn in 1934 and to Lucille Hille Spectorsky in 1949, ended in divorce.

                Funeral services will be held at the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Church, Madison Avenue and 81st Street, at 1 P.M. tomorrow.

Joan Didion’s Commencement Address

California-rooted author and new journalism maven Joan Didion, who died Dec. 23, 2021, delivered a commencement address at UC Riverside in 1975. In subsequent decades, excerpts have frequently been quoted in major media, including in a New York Times review of her book “The Year of Magical Thinking” and again in a Times story on the day of her passing. An excerpt was published as part of National Public Radio’s “The Best Commencement Speeches, Ever.”

With the exception of its oft-quoted closing passage, the 3,000-word-plus commencement address has existed for nearly 50 years only in the stacks of UCR Special Collections on the fourth floor of the Rivera Library, and never to our knowledge in digital form. It was printed in a circa-1975 UCR alumni print publication titled “See Page Three.”

UC Riverside creative writing professor Susan Straight, an acclaimed novelist who – like Didion – is from California, weighed in at Didion’s passing with an L.A. Times article. The Joan Didion commencement text was subsequently shared with her. Of Didion’s address, Straight remarks: “I think this is one of the most moving, beautiful and evocative pieces of Didion’s work, and yes, seeing the exhortation below is perfect for the very moment in history, when people are living inside, online, not making deep connections in person to other humans or trees or sidewalks or strangers. Didion’s writing here is a reminder of her own generation, but also how much it means for writers like me, in the generation after her, to keep writing about our own homes in California, the places long unseen, and for professors like me to read the new voices of our students who are writing about their own stories in this place. Our homeland…”

Special thanks to university archivist Andrea Hoff and Special Collections public services coordinator Karen Raines for their work excavating the address, which is entitled, “Planting a Tree is Not a Way of Life.”

The text follows in its entirety: 

I’ve never talked to this many people, but this is not my first engagement as a Commencement Lecturer. I spoke at my eighth grade graduation in 1948, and my topic then was “Our California Heritage.” I was graduating that year from an elementary school in Sacramento County that was in a district that was just in the process of changing from rural to suburban. You know, the kind of school in which some of us had sheep dogs – dogs that ran sheep – and some of us had fancy Old English Sheep Dogs. 

When my talk on our California heritage began, my mother saved it for me. It was written out in pencil: “One hundred years ago our great-grandparents were pushing America’s frontier westward to California. Those who came to California were not the self-satisfied, happy and content, but the adventurish, the restless and the daring. They were different even from those who settled in the other western states; they didn’t come for homes and security, but for adventure and money.”

There was more in that rather predictable vein. There was a part about how our great-grandparents had pushed over the mountains and built golden cities. And there was the part about how those great-great grandparents of ours had come to make a killing instead of a community, that maybe there might be some ambiguities in this heritage of ours, a little serpentine among the gold in those golden cities our relatives had built. 

But I believed, ambiguities to one side, that California was my heritage. And I also believed that it was the heritage of everybody else in the auditorium in Arden School that day. 

My great-great-grandparents HAD come across the mountains a hundred years before, and I sincerely believed that everybody else’s had, too. I believed that we were all – every child, and every parent, and every teacher in the auditorium that day – children of the same frontier, participants in the same myths, communicants in the same social sacrament.

Now, of course, we were not. I didn’t know that at the time, but I know it now. I see the day very clearly: I was wearing a pale green organdy dress that my mother had made for me, and I had on a crystal necklace which I remember because it was a hot day in Sacramento and crystals are cold on your neck, and if you’ve got something cold on your neck in the afternoon sun in Sacramento, you think you have made it.

And I was standing on the stage and I could see the American flag with 48 stars and the Bear flag, and could see Mr. Winterstein, the principal. I mean as I stand here now, I can see these things. I see the folding chairs and the doors open to catch what we always called the breeze off the river. We were nowhere near the river, but there is no day so hot in Sacramento that somebody won’t talk about the breeze off the river.

I also see the faces in that auditorium. And as those faces materialize in front of me, I know for a fact that we were not all children of the same frontier, not all communicants in the same social sacrament. I see now that at least some of those children would have had trouble keeping tabs on their fathers, never mind their great-great-grandfathers. I see now that I was talking that day about the triumph of California irrigation to at least a few children to whom indoor plumbing was a novelty.

And I cannot only see their faces, but I can hear their voices, and there is a very distinctive identifiable note in those voices. You hear the same note in my voice, because I grew up in Sacramento County, and the note you hear has nothing to do with pushing across any mountains in 1848. It has to do with coming out of the Dust Bowl in the ‘30s. And it has to do with coming out to work in the Kaiser shipyards in the ‘40s.

It’s a particular accent that denotes a particular social convulsion or what is called in the central valleys of California an Okie accent. Now if you’d said Okie to me that day in 1948, I could have given you 10 minutes on the social injustice of the Dust Bowl. My eyes would have brimmed over because I had read The Grapes of Wrath and I’d cried all one night over Tom Joad and Rose of Sharon.

But if you had told me I was going to school with Rose of Sharon’s children, I would have looked at you with my mouth open. Rose of Sharon was somebody I cared about in a book, but she was not a character in my own movie. In other words, I had a literary idea of social reality. I had no real perception at all.

It was a case of standing there in a pale organdy dress and failing to see what I should have seen, of being blinded and made stupid by projecting my own image onto the world, of seeing the world only in terms of some idea I already had of it. You could call that idealism, or you could call that not getting the picture.

You may think I’m making rather a large lunch out of something that happened to me in eighth grade. I mean it isn’t even something that happened to me; it’s a misapprehension I had with no apparent consequences. But the point is that this was not an isolated misapprehension.

I’ve had to struggle all my life against my own misapprehensions, my own false ideas, my own distorted perceptions. I’ve had to work very hard, make myself unhappy, give up ideas that made me comfortable, trying to apprehend social reality. I’ve spent my entire adult life, it seems to me, in a state of profound culture shock. I wish I were unique in this, but I’m not. You may not be afflicted with my misapprehensions, and I may not be afflicted with yours, but none of this starts “tabula rasa.” We all distort what we see. We all have to struggle to see what’s really going on.

That’s the human condition, providing the human is awake and living in the world which, by the way, is not as automatic as you might think, but I’ll get to that in a minute. Some of you are going to spend the whole rest of your life in culture shock, and what I’m saying today is that I think all of you should.

I’m talking about trying not to be crippled by ideas; I’m talking about looking out, about looking out at the world and trying to see it straight, about making that effort to look out for the whole rest of your life.

I doubt very much if you want to hear about the rest of your life today. And you must be very tired; all I could think about when I was making notes for this talk was how tired you must be.

Writer Joan Didion walks among hippies during a gathering in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco

Writer Joan Didion walks among hippies during a gathering in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. Photo by © Ted Streshinsky/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

I remember my own last year as an undergraduate; it was at Berkeley, and all I remember was walking around in a raincoat saying over and over and over again, lines from a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins that went, “I have desired to go where springs not fail, to fields where flies not sharpened and sided hail, and a few lilies blow.” And the poem is called “Heaven Haven,” and that’s what I wanted – a haven.

And I was so tired and drained my last year of college that I think if some perfect stranger had come up to me on the campus and said, “You must be very, very tired,” I would have burst into tears and married him. And right away I would have felt less tired, because my main problem was that I had no idea what I was going to do with the rest of my life. And that would have settled it, at least for a minute, not very long.

I’d like to talk soothingly to you, I’d like to make you feel that for this one day that somebody is taking care of you, someone knows how tired you are. But I’m obliged, not only by the convention of the Commencement address but by my own rather harsh Protestant ethics, to try to make you think instead about the rest of your lives. I’m not going to give you the usual Commencement line about how you stand on the brink of something. I don’t know what that means. We all stand on the brink of something every day we get out of bed, and it usually turns out to be a precipice.

And I’m not going to tell you that today you begin to live in the world because, as I said before, I don’t think that happens automatically. Some of you live in the world already and some of you never will. It takes an act of will to live in the world, which is what I’m talking about today. By living in the world, I mean really trying to see it, look at it, trying to make connections.

And that’s not easy, it takes work. You have to keep stripping yourself down, examining everything you see, getting rid of whatever is blinding you. And sometimes when you get rid of what’s blinding you, you get your eyes opened, you don’t like what you see at all. And that’s the risk. It’s much easier to live in a world you imagined. At Heaven Haven, “where springs not fail.” A world in which the questions fit the answers and the answers fit the questions; the connections are already made. A world in which everything fits neatly into some idea or ideology.

But that kind of world is only easier for a little while. It cripples people who live in it. And it’s also dangerous in a bad way. It’s dangerous to the society, it’s dangerous to your own soul and sometimes it’s even physically dangerous. When you walk around blind long enough, someday you’re going to fall off that precipice that I mentioned you were on the brink of.

I don’t need to give you a lot of literary examples of why living by an idea alone is dangerous because you can probably think of more than I can. Let me give you an unliterary example.

A few weeks ago I spent the day reading newspapers and magazines. We get a lot of newspapers and magazines and sometimes I read them and sometimes I don’t. But on this day I was trying, I had this idea that I would find out what people were thinking and get my finger on the pulse of things, my ear to the ground. So there I was this entire day with the papers.

And in one paper there was a story about sneakers. Sneakers is a social phenomenon. And in this story it told about one company that makes sneakers and how it sponsored a poetry contest – poems about sneakers. To enter the contest, you had to be between 8 and 18. And the paper printed the winning entries. Now one of the winners was a young woman, 17, from Roslyn, New York, and her entry read this way:

“I’d rather be a guy in jeans than in a suit and shirt. I’d rather be a girl in pants than nylons and a skirt. I’d rather farm than live where earth is scarce and plants are few. I’d rather wear a sneaker than a shoe.

“I’d rather hike in the mountains than in the city’s festering noise. I’d rather give my kids some clay than guns and warfare toys. I’d rather work by planting trees than on an Air Force crew. I’d rather wear a sneaker than a shoe.

“I’d rather drink a glass of milk than kill a baby lamb. I’d rather eat an apple than a slaughtered piglet’s ham. I’d rather not use leather which a cow’s live body knew. I’d rather wear a sneaker than a shoe.”

Now what I want to talk about here are the sentiments, not the verse itself. There is nothing any right-minded person could object to about any of these sentiments in this verse. In the note of piety, maybe. But nothing substantive. Substantively, what we have here is pretty standard middle-‘60s return to innocence, back-to-the-earth stuff. But I found myself getting very, very upset about it, very angry. Angry not at this 17-year-old from Roslyn, New York, but at the whole sloppy, simple-minded decade from which she had inherited this mess of pottage.

I wanted to wake her up. I wanted to save her soul. I wanted to show her pictures from Auschwitz. I wanted to keep her from walking off the precipice. I wanted to sit her down and read the rest of the paper out loud to her.

In the same paper that day there was a story about a man who had murdered his three-year-old daughter by banging her head against the wall. In the papers that day there were definite indications that someone highly placed in the United States government had at one time put out a contract on Fidel Castro. In the papers that day every story seemed to suggest psychic and social connections and convulsions of the most dark and wrenching kind.

Now I don’t know how you deal with these convulsions, how you make those connections if you’re sitting around in sneakers congratulating yourself for planting a tree. Planting a tree can be a useful and pleasant thing to do. Planting a tree is not a way of life. Planting a tree as a philosophical mode is just not good enough.

I was teaching at Berkeley this spring and I had the impression from the students I talked to there that not many of the people who are graduating this year are in danger of being blinded by the more obvious ideologies.

For one thing, most of you grew up on that darkling plain we call the ‘60s. Which seems, as we look back on it, a decade during which everyone lived in an entirely imagined world; where everybody operated from an idea and all the ideas got polarized and cheapened. In the ‘60s one either believed that America was being greened or that America was being morally defoliated. You either believed that this was the dawning of the age of Aquarius or you believed that we were on the eve of destruction.

I sometimes think that the most malignant aspect of the period was the extent to which everyone dealt exclusively in symbols. Certain artifacts were understood to denote something other than themselves, something supposedly abstract; some positive or negative moral value. And whether the artifact was positively or negatively charged depended not on any objective reality at all but on where you stood, where the polarization had thrown you.

Marijuana was a symbol. Long hair was of course a symbol, and so was short hair. Natural foods were a symbol – rice, seaweed, raw milk, the whole litany. I found myself in situations during the late ‘60s where my refusal to give my baby unpasteurized milk was construed as evidence that I must be “on the other side.” Probably an undercover. In fact, it meant nothing except that I had grown up around farms and I had known children who got tuberculosis and brucellosis from drinking raw milk.

But this was a period in which everything was understood to have some moral freight, some meaning beyond itself. And in fact, nothing did; that was the peculiarity of the decade.

In a way it was very touching, this whole society so starved for meaning that it made totems out of meaningless artifacts. The whole country was like a cargo cult. But it was also very destructive. Because nothing meant what it was supposed to mean.

Of course, we’ve always lived by symbols – the human experience is symbolic. But never in my lifetime have the images of things gotten radically separated from the reality of things. You notice this particularly about language during the ‘60s.

A lot of this came out of Vietnam. Words were used peculiarly. Meanings became obscure. We heard interdiction for bombing. Armed reconnaissance for flying low in bombing. Tactical redeployment for retreat. Incursion for invasion. Termination with extreme prejudice for killing.

But it wasn’t only the government which was using language that way. I was cleaning out a file drawer the other day looking at some old notes, and I think I spent that whole decade listening to people who used language for some purpose other than communication. Black Panthers and police talked the same way. Pentacostals and Maoists talked the same way.

I spent an hour studying a sentence I’d copied down from a book by a Brazilian guerilla. Now here is the sentence: “The fact that our organization is revolutionary in character is due above all to the fact that all our activity is defined as revolutionary.”

I don’t know that that means. I can track the sentence – the sentence parses but it has no meaning at all. It’s like broken home, it’s like culture at the crossroads, it’s like ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. It is devoid of meaning. I don’t remember trusting very much that was said during that entire decade. 

There’s a famous exchange about the ‘60s between Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. “I seem to have slept through the ‘60s,” Tennessee Williams said to Gore Vidal. “You didn’t miss much,” Gore Vidal said to Tennessee Williams. 

But like most famous exchanges, that’s a little bit wrong. You would have missed something by sleeping through the ‘60s. You would have missed this astonishing period in which there were so many symbols and none of them meant anything; in which there were so many words and all of them meant something other than what they conventionally meant. 

It was a period in which some people began to wonder if the symbols didn’t mean anything and you couldn’t trust the words; if there was any objective reality at all. That was the question the ‘60s gave us – was there any objective reality? That was the question most of you grew up on. And you grew up, a lot of you, correctly suspicious; suspicious of ideologies and answers and easy symbols. And you’re probably not in too much danger of being blinded by those things.

I think what you might be blinded for, what you ought to watch out for, is the habit of saying no, the habit of not believing anybody or anything. You’ve got to watch out for moving into a world where you don’t think there’s any objective reality, where there’s only you and that tree you just planted. There’s an objective reality, there is an objective social reality. Take it on faith.

All I want to tell you today, really, is not to do that. Not to move into that world where you’re alone with yourself and your tree. I want to tell you to live in the messy world, throw yourself into the convulsion of the world.

I’m not telling you to make the world better, because I don’t think that progress is necessarily part of the package. I’m just telling you to live in it. Not just to endure it, not just to suffer it, not just to pass through it, but to live in it. To look at it. To try to get the picture. To live recklessly. To take chances. To make your own work and take pride in it. To seize the moment.

And if you ask me why you should bother to do that, I could only tell you that the grave’s a fine and private place, but none I think do there embrace. Nor do they sing there, or write, or argue, or see the tidal bore on the Amazon, or touch their children.

And that’s what there is to do and get it while you can and good luck at it. 

Original by J.D. Warren from the U.C. Riverside found Here