So to Speke

When not at work on our new old houseโ€”where the floorboards are up in anticipation of central heatingโ€”we are on the road and down narrow country lanes to get our calloused hands on the pieces of antique furniture that we acquired, in 21st-century style, by way of online auction. In order to create the illusion that we are getting out of the house, rather than just something into it, and to put our own restoration project into a perspective from which it looks more dollhouse than madhouse, we make stopovers at nearby National Trust properties like Chirk Castle or Speke Hall.

The latter (pictured here) is a Tudor mansion that, like some superannuated craft, sits sidelined along Liverpoolโ€™s John Lennon Airport, formerly known as RAF Speke. The architecture of the Hall, from the openings under the eaves that allowed those within to spy on the potentially hostile droppers-in without to the hole into which a Catholic priest could be lowered to escape Protestant persecution, bespeaks a history of keeping mum.

Situated though it is far from Speke, and being fictional besides, what came to mind was Audley Court, a mystery house with a Tudor past and Victorian interior that served as the setting of Mary Elizabeth Braddonโ€™s sensational crime novel Lady Audleyโ€™s Secret. The hugely popular thriller was first serialized beginning in 1861 and subsequently adapted for the stage. Resuscitated for a ten-part serial currently aired on BBC Radio 4, the eponymous โ€œladyโ€โ€”a gold digger, bigamist, and arsonist whose ambitions are famously diagnosed as the mark of โ€œlatent insanityโ€โ€”can now be eavesdropped on as she, sounding rather more demure than she appeared to my mindโ€™s ear when reading the novel, attempts to keep up appearances, even if it means having to make her first husband, a gold digger in his own right, disappear down a well.

As if the house, Audley Court, did not have a checkered past of its ownโ€”

a house in which you incontinently lost yourself if ever you were so rash as to attempt to penetrate its mysteries alone; a house in which no one room had any sympathy with another, every chamber running off at a tangent into an inner chamber, and through that down some narrow staircase leading to a door which, in its turn, led back into that very part of the house from which you thought yourself the furthest; a house that could never have been planned by any mortal architect, but must have been the handiwork of that good old builder, Time, who, adding a room one year, and knocking down a room another year, [ … ] had contrived, in some eleven centuries, to run up such a mansion as was not elsewhere to be met with throughout the county […].

โ€œOf course,โ€ the narrator insists,

in such a house there were secret chambers; the little daughter of the present owner, Sir Michael Audley, had fallen by accident upon the discovery of one. ย A board had rattled under her feet in the great nursery where she played, and on attention being drawn to it, it was found to be loose, and so removed, revealed a ladder, leading to a hiding-place between the floor of the nursery and the ceiling of the room belowโ€”a hiding-place so small that he who had hid there must have crouched on his hands and knees or lain at full length, and yet large enough to contain a quaint old carved oak chest, half filled with priests’ vestments, which had been hidden away, no doubt, in those cruel days when the life of a man was in danger if he was discovered to have harbored a Roman Catholic priest, or to have mass said in his house.

Loose floorboards weโ€™ve got plenty in our own domicile, and room enough for a holy manhole below. It being a late-Victorian townhouse, though, the hidden story we laid bare is that of the upstairs-downstairs variety. At the back, in the part of the house where the servants labored and lived, there once was a separate staircase, long since dismantled. It was by way of those steep steps that the maid, having performed her chores out of the familyโ€™s sight and earshot, withdrew, latently insane or otherwise, into the modest quarters allotted to her.

I wonder whether she read Lady Audleyโ€™s Secret, if indeed she found time to read at all, and whether she read it as a cautionary tale or an inspirational oneโ€”as the story of a woman who dared to rewrite her own destiny:

No more dependency, no more drudgery, no more humiliations,โ€ Lucy exclaimed secretly, โ€œevery trace of the old life melted awayโ€”every clue to identity buried and forgottenโ€”except […]

… that wedding ring, wrapped in paper.  Itโ€™s enough to make a priest turn in his hole.

โ€œI pulled and she shookโ€: A Dรฉcor to Try Oneโ€™s Decorum

My dog, Montague, demonstrating his wallpaper training in response to my stripping

All right, so Iโ€™m sounding like an aging burlesque queen about to toss her tassels and turn in the G-string that is a turn-on no longerโ€”but, by Gypsy, I am tired of stripping. Wallpaper, I mean. This old Mazeppa has nothing but a scraper for a gimmick, and the only hand she ever got for all her grinding is a mighty sore one. I just could not live with it, though, that dreadful patternโ€”having it stare me down in defiance, berate me for letting myself be defeated by all the work that needs doing in the old house we plan on inhabiting before long. The idea (not mine, mind) was to paint over itโ€”but I scratched that faster than I could scrape. It might peep out from behind the paint, that ghastly design. It might start to creep up on me if I donโ€™t get at it firstโ€”just like in that most famous of all interior decorating nightmares, Charlotte Perkins Gilmanโ€™s โ€œYellow Wallpaperโ€ (1892). To date, Gilmanโ€™s feminist tale of terror is the most convincing argument for taking it all off.

To the tormented soul telling the story, the paper she finds in her roomโ€”the room in which she is meant to restโ€”becomes a โ€œconstant irritant.โ€ Within a few short weeks of studying it, for want of the intellectual activity denied to her, she is driven to the distraction once classified as hysteria:

The color is hideous enough, and unreliable enough, and infuriating enough, but the pattern is torturing.ย 

You think you have mastered it, but just as you get well underway in following, it turns a back-somersault and there you are. It slaps you in the face, knocks you down, and tramples upon you. It is like a bad dream.

Unlike the blank, โ€œdeadโ€ paper on which she writes in secret, the wallpaper is teeming with life, just below the surface. It is the surface of conventions that Gilman tears down with a vengeance:

This bed will not move!

I tried to lift and push it until I was lame, and then I got so angry I bit off a little piece at one cornerโ€”but it hurt my teeth.

Then I peeled off all the paper I could reach standing on the floor. It sticks horribly and the pattern just enjoys it! All those strangled heads and bulbous eyes and waddling fungus growths just shriek with derision!

When Gilman’s story was adapted for US radio, listeners to CBSโ€™s Suspense program may have felt rather differently about this schizophrenic battle when, in a broadcast that aired on 29 July 1948, it was enacted by Agnes Moorehead, who, in tackling the part, had to struggle as well with our memories of the neurotic and disagreeable Mrs. Elbert Stevenson, her most famous Suspense role. โ€œSorry, Wrong Paper,โ€ I kept thinking as I witnessed the disintegration. And yet, as the hard and cutting echoes of Mrs. Stevenson suggest, paper can beat both rock and scissorsโ€”a thought that filled me with renewed terror.

โ€œIt dwells in my mind so!โ€ Gilmanโ€™s character remarks, tellingly, about the dreaded wall covering. The dwelling has overmastered the dweller, like a wild animal resisting domestication, a beast beyond paper training. The prospect of being dominated or possessed in this way by a questionable dรฉcor is a scenario horrifying enough for me to put penknife to paper . . . and keep stripping.

Dream Like Petrocelli

The presumably out-of-date with which I choose to concern myself in this journal cannot be expected to have an air of minty freshness about it; but by now broadcastellan is beginning to smell downright musty. Still, I cannot quite muster the energy to attend to the cobwebs in which this nugatory niche is shrouded. The state of neglect is owing to the dust that has enveloped my carcass of late. For the past three weeks or so, we have been engrossed in the project of renovating a late-Victorian house we intend on calling home in a few short weeks from now, or whenever the central heating and at least one of the bathrooms are installed.

Each day, it is becoming a little easier for me to see past the rubble and imagine myself lolling there, keeping up with past in the leisurely and blissfully inconsequential manner to which I have become so readily accustomed. Until that can happen, though, I shall have to go back, again and again, to scrape floors, strip wallpaper, and remove whatever trace we find of those who lived in there immediately before us, all the while uncovering the more distant past they deemed it fit to hide behind layers of outmoded modernity.

Aside from the dirt and the all too apparent signs of aging, the only thing I seem to have in common with this place is the state of being pre-occupied. It isnโ€™t the work alone and the costs involved that weigh on my mind. It is my own history of habitation on which I feel compelled to dwell. I am reminded of the time when my father decided to get us out of that working class neighborhood whose drabness and influx of foreign workers must have seemed a stigma to him but that was to prepubescent me the only world I knew . . . and one shared by a great many kids my age.

Sure, the prospect of having, for the first time in my life, a room of my own was exciting; but the move, some fifteen miles from where I had grown up, came at a great price . . . including the loss of my ability to communicate, to make myself understood and others laugh (something that was important to me, being that I felt too short to be good at much else). Regional dialects were very pronounced back then in Germany; and moving even that short distance meant that I could barely follow what folks were saying, let alone lead them in laughter. I remember our neighbor asking my sister and me whether we had come to help our father build the house. โ€œYes,โ€ I said, expectantly. I thought the man had just offered me a couple of peaches. Thatโ€™s how it sounded to me, anyhow. Life wasn’t going to be a bowl of fruit.

For my parents, it was the picket fence dream coming true (without the picket fence, mind you, which is an American clichรฉ). Still, being working class, no matter how hard we tried to come across otherwise, meant that the house was coming along only graduallyโ€”which is why my mother could relate to Petrocelli.

Petrocelli was a mid-1970s crime drama, and a pretty formulaic one at that. The action unfolded in flashbacks, from crime to prosecution; but it always ended in the presentโ€”and that present was a construction site. After each case, defense lawyer Petrocelli went to inspect the progress on his new home, the one his job helped to build. Week after week, there was little noticeable change, a state of incompletion that made it easy for my mother to identify with the frustrated ambitions of the titular character.

As for myself, I felt it difficult to relate to anything or anyone back then. Everything was unfamiliar and new (even the ledgers I had filled with pictures and stories had been discarded during the move), and apart from the promise of having that room to myself, nothing seemed worth the trouble of giving up so much of what had felt like home to me, no matter how it might have looked to a status-conscious adult.

To this day, putting tens and hundreds of thousands into a single project like building or doing up a house is troubling to me. Rather than the financial risk and the potential hardship it poses, it is the peril it can mean to oneโ€™s sense of home. You see, the house my father built was never to become our home. It meant the end of our familyโ€”the end of all family activities for which there was no money left in the budget, the end of my parentsโ€™ marriage and, ultimately albeit indirectly, my fatherโ€™s life.

In retrospect, that new houseโ€”the dream of being a four-walled somebodyโ€”looks an awful lot like a Petrocelli flashback . . . a wrong move and a slow process of undoing.

A Half-Dollar and a Dream: Arthur Miller, Scrooge, and a โ€œbig pile of French copperโ€

The currency market has been giving me a headache. The British pound is anything but sterling these days, which, along with our impending move and the renovation project it entails, is making a visit to the old neighborhood seem more like a pipe dream to me. The old neighborhood, after all, is some three thousand miles away, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan; and even though I have come to like life here in Wales, New York is often on my mind. You donโ€™t have to be an inveterate penny-pincher to be feeling the pressure of the economic squeeze. I wonder just how many dreams are being deferred for lack of funding, dreams far greater than the wants and desires that preoccupy those who, like me, are hardly in dire straits.

Back in March 1885, Joseph Pulitzer was doing his part to make such a larger-than-life dream a reality when he tried to raise funds for the erection of the Statue of Liberty. In one of his most sentimental plays for radio, Arthur Miller told the story through the eyes of a soldier and his miserly grandfatherโ€”Millerโ€™s Scrooge.

Broadcast on 26 March 1945, โ€œGrandpa and the Statueโ€ is announced as a โ€œwarm, human story of the most famous pinup girl in the world.โ€ Miller claimed that he โ€œcould not bearโ€ to write just โ€œanother Statue of Liberty showโ€ designed to โ€œillustrate how friendly we are with France and how the Statue of Liberty will stand forever as a symbol of a symbol and so on.โ€ As I put it in my dissertation, the Dickensian comedy he wrote instead โ€œis a nostalgic response to the publicโ€™s growing World War-weariness and the prospects of international unity and concord after Yalta.โ€

As the play opens, a wounded American soldier, recovering in a hospital room with a view of New York Harbor, recalls how his grandfatherโ€”โ€œMerciless Monaghan,โ€ the โ€œstingiest man in Brooklynโ€ got โ€œall twisted up with the Statue of Liberty.โ€ Old Monaghan (played by Charles Laughton) refused to make a contribution to the Statue Fund and, for decades to come, stubbornly defended his position until, one day, his grandson entreats him to take a ferry to Bedloeโ€™s Island:

GRANDPA. What I canโ€™t understand is what all these people see in that statue that theyโ€™ll keep a boat like this full makinโ€™ the trip, year in year out. ย To hear the newspapers talk, if the statue was gone weโ€™d be at war with the nation that stole her the followinโ€™ morninโ€™ early. ย All it is is a big pile of French copper.

YOUNG MONAGHAN. The teacher says it shows us that we got liberty.

GRANDPA. Bah! If youโ€™ve got liberty you donโ€™t need a statue to tell you you got it; and if you havenโ€™t got liberty no statueโ€™s going to do you any good tellinโ€™ you you got it. It was a criminal waste of the peopleโ€™s money.ย 

Among the visitors to Bedloe Island is a veteran of the Spanish-American War. Celebrating the birthday of his fallen brother by visiting the โ€œonly stone heโ€™s got,โ€ the veteran convinces the old man that the โ€œstatue kinda looks like what we believe.โ€

Profoundly moved, Monaghan asks to be left alone while inspecting the inscription at the base of the statue: 

GRANDPA (to himself). โ€œGive me your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses . . .โ€

(Music: Swells from a sneak to full, then under to background.)

YOUNG MONAGHAN. I ran over and got my peanuts and stood there cracking them open, looking around. And I happened to glance over to grampa. He had his nose right up to that bronze tablet, reading it. And then he reached into his pocket and kinda spied around over his eyeglasses to see if anybody was looking, and then he took out a coin and stuck it in a crack of cement over the tablet.

(Biz: Coin falling onto concrete.)

YOUNG MONAGHAN. It fell out and before he could pick it up I got a look at it. It was a half a buck. He picked it up and pressed it into the crack so it stuck. And then he came over to me and we went home.

(Music: Changes to stronger, more forceful theme.)

Thatโ€™s why, when I look at her now through this window, I remember that time and that poem [. . .].

Unlike the published script (as it appeared in the 1948 anthology Plays from Radio), the broadcast play concludes with the last lines of Emma Lazarusโ€™s famous if oft misquoted sonnet โ€œThe New Colossus.โ€

I am highly critical of Arthur Miller in Etherized Victorians; but, for all its sentimental propagandizing, โ€œGrandpa and the Statueโ€ is one of Millerโ€™s most affecting plays for the medium. As I read and listen to it now, so far away from New York City, I get a little wistful; and yet, the message is not lost on me, either, as I think of the larger picture, the ideals worth our investment, and the funds unreplenished, that makes my pouting for a few weeks in the Big Apple seem downright petty. Besides, I’ve got the airwaves to carry me through and keep me buoyant when I go “Oh, boy.”


Related recordings
โ€Grandpa and the Statue 26 March 1945

Related writings
“Politics and Plumbing” (Arthur Millerโ€™s โ€œPussycatโ€)
โ€œArthur Miller Asks Americans to โ€˜Listen for the Sound of Wingsโ€™”
โ€œArthur Miller Unleashes a Pussycatโ€

Many Returns, Mostly Happy: Toscanini at NBC

“I want you to go to Milan and get him. The American radio listener deserves the very best in music. All we can lose is a few weeks of your time and the expenses of the trip. No more cables. Get on a boat.”

Toscanini and his wife, Carla De Martini

That is what, back in the fall of 1936, RCA president and NBC chairman David Sarnoff told New York Post music critic Samuel Chotzinoff, whom Sarnoff made musical director at NBC. The man that โ€œChotzyโ€ was to go “get” was none other than the legendary Arturo Toscanini, born on this day, 25 March, in 1867. Earlier that year, Toscanini had announced his retirement from the New York Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra and, on 1 March 1936, he had conducted what he meant to be his final radio concert as guest conductor of the General Motors Symphony. Nearly seventy, Toscanini could hardly be expected to jump at the opportunity of raising his baton in a series of weekly broadcasts; but that is just what General Sarnoff had in mind.

Chotzinoff, who was a friend of the temperamental Maestro and later recalled his career in the somewhat less than faithful Intimate Portrait, sailed for Europe to make Toscanini an offer he could not refuse. He was promised an orchestra โ€œhand-picked from the finest virtuosi available,โ€ along with the enticing sum of $40,000, and the added perk to have his income tax paid by the network.

According to radio historian Thomas DeLong, it took a shrewd businesswoman, Toscaniniโ€™s wife (pictured above with her husband), to convince Arturo that it was worth his while to return to the US. The best part of the deal, though, was getting away from Mussolini, whom Toscanini openly despised.

The first of the Saturday evening concerts, broadcast live from studio 8-H at Radio City, New York, was heard on Christmas in 1937. As Francis Chase wrote in the October 1938 issue of Radio Stars, a studio audience of

over 1,400 persons sat breathless as the white-haired, flashing-eyed, dynamic little figure of Toscanini mounted the podium before one of the greatest symphony orchestras ever assembled; certainly the greatest ever presented wholly for the radio audience. ย The finest instrumentalists from many great American orchestras sat beneath the master’s baton, while in the brilliant audience, listeners hardly breathed. ย There was not the faintest rustle of a program (so that no slightest sound should mar the transmission, programs had been printed on silk).

Less attention was paid to the studio acoustics, which, as B. H. Haggin argues, were โ€œunresonantly dry, flat, hard and made airlessly tight by the audience which filled the studio.โ€ That did not stop the perfectionist from demanding the best from his orchestra, and, judging from the rehearsal recordings shared on NBC’s Biography in Sound tribute that aired on the day after Toscanini died, the Maestro was fierce in his criticism. โ€œDo you believe that I am crazy?โ€ he asked the performers, not waiting for a reply. “No,” he insisted, “sensitive.”

Year after year, the aging and only very gradually mellowed Toscanini vowed to retireโ€”but for seventeen seasons he returned to the studio until, on 4 April 1954, he stepped from the podium for the last time; having faltered and dropped his baton during a performance temporarily taken off the air and replaced with recorded music, Toscanini walked off before the orchestra had played the final chord. He was eighty-seven years old.

The stick with which he conducted the NBC orchestra (if not always too well), must have been a kind of crutch to Toscanini. It enabled him to hold together a body of artists at an age when most men can barely keep their own from falling apart.

Related recordings
โ€œThe Man Behind the Legend: A Tribute to Arturo Toscanini,โ€ Biography in Sound (22 January 1957)
Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, NBC Symphony Orchestra, (probably 11 November) 1939

Gong-ho: A Time-Delayed Cheer for Going Live

There was a time when much of what was on the air, first on radio, then on television, was live. Whatever drama unfolded, it played out on a stage the size of a nation. Nowadays, only breaking news can arrest our promiscuous gazeโ€”the rest will have to wait until we are ready to take it in. With all the technology at our fingertips, we are in danger of losing that sense of sharing and partaking that is live theater. In an age when we can communicate with one another instantly while on the go, we are far less inclined to sit down and make time for anyone speaking to or performing for us. Sure, we all got our home theatersโ€”but we pride ourselves on being able to determine just when the curtain is going up.

Broadcasters got wary of going live, and audiences are weary of waiting for the end of the commercial breaks that have gotten way longer than our attention span. Does anyone still watch American Idol without recording it first? I donโ€™t have that option, mind, being that, here in Britain, the program is shown a day or two after it airs on Fox; but I surely could not be asked to set aside two hours for what amounts to, what, forty minutes of entertainment?

The only programming format not in danger of getting canned is the call-in, the kind of theatrical presentation that depends for its drama on the audienceโ€™s possibility of getting in on the act. You might say that audience participation programs like Stop the Music spelled the end of comedy on radio; but, aside from greed, what kept listeners glued to their sets was a sense of urgency and immediacy, of being in the here and now when it mattered, of tuning in at just the time when being live could change your life.

Seventy-five years ago, a man called Major Edward Bowes created a sensation by exploiting that very concept: give the audience a say, turn them into voters and judges, leave them with the impression that, should they chose to do so, they, too, could be on that stage, and phones will start ringing. The Amateur Hour, heard locally in 1934 on New York station WHNโ€”of which the Major was the directorโ€”went national on 24 March 1935. “You within sound of my voice are just as much part of this show as the youngsters that come to the microphone,” the Major insisted, urging listeners to “telephone [their] choice, telephone early, telephone often. You decide the winners, and the winners will receive immediate professional engagement.”

And call they did. According to the June 1936 issue of Radioland, the program

brought a rush of business to the telephone company, which had to install 200 special lines to handle the vast volume of incoming phone calls registering the preferences of voters on the Majorโ€™s talent. Ordinarily this might seem to be a nice piece of business for the late Mr. Bells concern, but company officials earnestly deprecate any such assumption. Very few nickels roll into their coffers, they explain, for most of the incoming calls are placed by subscribers who are entitled to a minimum number of calls per month as part of their service charge. Be this as it may, thereโ€™s something heartening to watch 200 nimble-fingered young women registering votes quicker than you can say โ€œMajor Bowesโ€โ€”all to the fatalistic end that a yodeler or a man who extracts music from a saw may have his chance at fame.

On that first national broadcast, at least, on the first anniversary broadcast (24 March 1935), the yodeler got the gong. “You mustn’t applaud too long,” the Major good-naturedly admonished the studio audience. “He was through the Boer War and we went through one of his yodels. So, it’s even-steven.” Winners during that first season included the Duchess of Torlonia, a Singing Garbage Man, a Chinese Hillbilly, and some Texas Cowboys from Norwich, Connecticut. The oldest contestant was 110.

Since the phone company had no stake in the matter, listeners could cast multiple votes with one call. Radio Guide put this to the test when, its representative claiming to be one of sixty-seven listeners at the Sinai Temple in Mount Vernon, New York, was able to cast sixty-seven votes all at once. The amateur for whom he voted was one Orville Edwards, an undercover Radio Guide reporter posing as a โ€œcorn-fed tenorโ€ to investigate the audition process, which, from writing the application to being on the program, lasted a mere three weeks. Proving that โ€œballot-stuffingโ€ was part of the game, Edwards came in third on the 23 February 1936 broadcast.

โ€œThe wheel of fortune spins,โ€ Edward quipped, imitating the words made famous by Major Bowes, โ€œโ€˜Round and round she goes, and where she stops, nobody knowsโ€”except the Major, and Radio Guide.

The Major and his minions were amateurs compared to the folks operating Dame Fortuneโ€™s wheel these days. Whether or not every vote counts, they make sure that it costs. Meanwhile, the results, however quickly they are tallied, are being reported at a dayโ€™s delay.

I guess we owe it to the less than choice ingredients, and a ladle now firmly in the hands of those who hunger for profits, if we are no longer feasting together at the community table. Itโ€™s a pity, really. Canned goods may be convenient; but we are missing out on the flavor of the moment.


Related writings
โ€œA-spinning goes our weekly wheel of fortune . . .”
โ€Back in the X Factory; or, the Legacy of Major Bowesโ€

Floyd and the Flood

Wherever fighting men are in actionโ€”wherever disaster shakes the earthโ€”wherever history is in the makingโ€”there youโ€™ll find Headline Hunter Gibbons, the machine-gun stylist of words.

His record is 217 words a minute, steady flow for sustained speech. But what a price he has paid for the background that makes his record possible!โ€”His body is crosspatched with bullet wounds and sword cuts. The spot where his left eye should be is covered by a white patch. Heโ€™s bivouacked on the feverish sands of Mexico, India and Egypt. His toe joints have been frozen on the arctic waste of Manchuria.

But heโ€™s happy. It is his life and he loves it.

That is how a 1934 article in Radio Guide (for the week ending 17 November) introduced Floyd Gibbons (1887-1939), a news commentator whose life was as thrilling and fast-paced as the one he breathed into the scripts he readโ€”or, rather, performedโ€”on the air.

Delivering his lines, and with such rat-a-tat rapidity, was not easy for the battle-scarred Headline Hunter. According to Robert Eichbergโ€™s Radio Stars of Today (1937), Gibbons was with the American army at Belleau Wood, France, when, on 6 June 1918, the major leading his troop was struck down by German machine gun fire:

Suddenly a bullet struck Floyd in the left shoulder, and another tore through his left arm. Still he crept toward the stricken officer, only to have a third shot pierce his steel helmet, fracturing his skull, and blind him in his left eye.

As one of his colleagues, John B. Kennedy, recalls (in Robert Westโ€™s 1941 broadcasting history The Rape of Radio), Floyd โ€œused to have his scripts typed in jumbo type so that he could read easily. โ€˜With that big type he would come to the studio with forty or fifty pages of stuff, almost four times as many as the rest of us used!’โ€

Little now survives of Gibbonsโ€™s celebrated broadcasts, aside from a couple of reports aired on the Magic Key program. In March 1936, Gibbons returned to the airwaves after nearly seven months, โ€œgladโ€ to be getting away from the crisis in Ethiopia to focus instead on a natural catastrophe much closer to home: the Connecticut River Valley flood. A few years earlier, he had abandoned his coverage of the Sino-Japanese conflict to rush to Hopewell, New Jersey, to get in on the sensational story of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.

In his Magic Key notes from 22 March 1936, which Jim Widner shares in his tribute to the man, Gibbons referred to the overflowing of the Connecticut River as โ€œthe worst flood in the history of the last half century.โ€ Seen, as he had it, from aboveโ€”a view not generally afforded his listenersโ€”the valley looked like a โ€œvast inland seaโ€ on which Gibbons spotted โ€œdismal, un-milked cowsโ€ and โ€œbedraggled wet chickensโ€ that were โ€œperched bewilderedโ€ upon โ€œisolated elevations like animated weather cocks.โ€

Gibbons talked of the โ€œwithered mushroomsโ€ that were the gas and oil tanks of the refining companies, each containing โ€œhundreds of thousands of explosive fuel which in turn represent fire and disaster should these enormous receptacles be torn loose from their foundationsโ€ and โ€œlose their fiery contents.โ€ Those at work to prevent further disaster looked like โ€œLilliputiansโ€ as they tried to โ€œtie down these deadly metallic giants.โ€

Meanwhile, in the riverbed,

in which ambitious men had hoped to incarcerate old man river with dikes and dams of stone and steel, the prisoner [ was] lashing, foaming, writhing like a serpent striking back with frightful force and power, an unexpected fury.

Some nine months before his death, Gibbons gave a brief account of his exploitsโ€”riding with Pancho Villa in Mexico, sailing on the Laconia when it was torpedoed and sankโ€”to listeners of the Lux Radio Theater (16 January 1939). In it, he remarked that

the best and most truthful report of any happening is that of the personal eye-witness who can honestly say “I saw it. I was there when it happened.” He has to keep in mind the importance of the main event, but must not overlook the apparently unimportant little facts that prove the truth of the story.

In the rush of his reportage, โ€œlittle factsโ€ at times made way for great effects. According to West, Gibbonsโ€™s report of the Ohio River Flood of 1937 referred to โ€œsensational happeningsโ€ that had not actually taken place as described. Gibbons was sued for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in damages by a scriptwriter who argued that โ€œhis reputation had been marred.โ€

What Gibbonsโ€™s rapid-fire imagery does convey, though, is the fury of the scenes we imagine he beheld. In a rhetorical style long fallen out of favor but so vital to depiction in the absence of visuals, Gibbons personified the threatening force of the raging Connecticut River to capture the truth of the moment in a torrent of pathetic fallacies:

Like a slave, freed from the chains of his presumptuous would-be masters, the river is striking back in wild retaliation. It seems to say: for years, for years I have turned your wheels and lighted your cities and watered your fields and cattle, and heated your homes and transported your commerce; and now, now comes my day of revolt, to show you my strength.

At the conclusion of his report from the Connecticut River Valley, Gibbons paid his respect to those who kept their ears to the flooded ground and saved โ€œthousands of livesโ€ simply through word of mouth: a โ€œnewly developed class of men and women,โ€ the โ€œshort and long wave amateur operatorsโ€ who, โ€œ[w]hen landlines and other means of high-power communications became disruptedโ€ by the flood, โ€œstuck to their dangerous postsโ€ and โ€œkept going a running fire of information.โ€

Few understood better than the Headline Hunter how to keep that fire from dying out; and to men like him we must turn to rekindle our imagination in a world awash with images.

Hand a Swellhead a Pin and Heโ€™ll Make It His Scepter

Personally, your editors don’t like Mr. Welles. He is the seven-year-old kid next door who has a vocabulary twice his size. He is the good-looking young man who walks off with your best girl. He is the braggart who says impossible things and then does them. Your editors are average people. Thatโ€™s why they personally are not fond of the man who is too good and knows it and shows it! . . . Your editors donโ€™t like him because everything he does is perfect, from movies to radio plays. But heโ€™s good, drat it, he is!

That is what the readers of a May 1941 issue Movie-Radio Guide were being told about the most talked about man in radioโ€”Orson Welles.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this backhanded compliment had been dictated by the erstwhile Wunderkind himself. However uneven his career, however fickle his fortunes in Hollywood, the kid from Kenosha kept the conceit of his genius alive on the radio, which, immediate and expedient, proved just the medium for putting on airs.

In March of 1943, when comedian Jack Benny was unable to carry on with his weekly broadcasts, Welles was chosen to fill in for “old sniffle snoot.” The format of the Grape Nuts Flakes Program remained intact, and Jackโ€™s gang was at hand to become foilsโ€”or fodderโ€”for the theatrical showman-thespian.

Now, Benny had pretty much perfected the comedy of deflation by creating the persona of a pompous, vain, miserly and slightly delusional performer at whose character flaws listeners felt at ease to laugh even if the act held a distorting mirror to them by accentuating their own failings. It was not so with Welles, for whom self-deflation seemed to have been just another means of boosting his ego.

Whereas Benny presents us with a caricature whose features are not unlike some of our own, Wellesโ€™s persona was always larger than life, and as such untouchable. โ€œI have spent years inflating the balloon that is Welles,โ€ the guest tells Benny regular Dennis Day: โ€œPlease do not puncture it.โ€ Fat chance, really.

On the 21 March 1943 broadcast, Welles was not so much filling in for Benny as he was filling up the studio with his aura, dimming the sunny atmosphere by shrouding it in layers of Orson. It might be a gasโ€”but, aside from Welles’s hilarious take on the Grape-Nuts commercialโ€”it isn’t quite nitrous oxide. As Simon Callow puts it in Orson Welles: Hello Americans,

[p]art of the problem is that, unlike the Jack Benny character, which is preposterous and bears no relations to the real man, this โ€œOrson Wellesโ€ is uncomfortably close to the real one: are we laughing at or with him?

Indeed, the โ€œballoonโ€ act seems โ€œself-serving,โ€ an advertisement for what could be too readily taken for the man himself. Aided by Bennyโ€™s writers, Welles in his grandeur does not have to suffer one scratch from Mary Livingstoneโ€™s barbs (“Gee, I like this guy”) or Eddie Andersonโ€™s retorts (“Mr. Welles, working for you is paradise”). Being that the entire act revolves around him, none of his fellow players gets an opportunity to cut him down to any size other than super. The familiar casting skit, in which Welles rehearses a scene that gives none beside him a chance to get a word in, works far better on the Fred Allen Show, where one genius was pitted against another, where the war of the words and the battle for a line becomes a genuine sparring match.

โ€œOrson Welles is a genius,โ€ Don Wilson concludes the broadcast, โ€œbut this program was written by Bill Morrow and Ed Beloin.โ€ That remark, drowned out by the applause from the studio audience is about the only jab at Welles, who was known for taking all the credit. No, the โ€œballoon that is Wellesโ€ was not in danger of popping, โ€œprickโ€ being a noun in this case. If only Welles had permitted himselfโ€”or been permitted by those who helped to fashion and fix his personaโ€”to accept the pin without turning it into a scepter.


Related recordings
Grape Nuts Flakes Program, 21 March 1943

East If With Eagle

For the reward of a single dollar, readers of Movie-Radio Guide used to send in โ€œbonersโ€โ€”fluffed or unintentionally funny lines they had caught on the air. On 29 Feburary 1940, for instance, Olive Doeling of Petaluma, California, tuned in to station KGO and heard Benny Walker (Benny Walker?) say: “Wish you could see her, folks. She’s lugging a saxophone almost as big as she is behind her.โ€ Another buck went to a listener from Jackson, Mississippi, who reported the following exchange between Major Bowes and a contestant on his Amateur Hour broadcast from 7 June 1936:

CONTESTANT. I was a dressmakerโ€™s model and then I married.
MAJOR. Wholesale or retail?

Reading lines like these makes me want to tune in the original program, to find the recording and hear for myself.

The other day, when I read that Mary Livingstone was supposed to have giggled โ€œJack, Iโ€™ll never forget the look on that ski house when it saw your face,โ€ I wondered whether that was indeed what she had said and how her husband, the cast, and the studio audience had responded. Listening to a recording of the 25 February 1940 broadcast of the Jell-O Program, I heard no such fluff. โ€œIโ€™ll never forget the impression on your face when you crashed in the ski house,โ€ Livingstone said instead. Had J. N. Lawrence from San Diego earned that dollar? Was the โ€œbonerโ€ bona fide or bogus?

Well, before accusing any of those tuners-in, I had to remind myself that many of the live programs of the past were staged twiceโ€”once for the East Coast, then for the West. What J. N. Lawrence had picked up on California was not what anyone living East could have heardโ€”or anyone listening to a recording of the East Coast broadcast.

How different the two broadcast could be was demonstrated on 20 March 1940, when a certain Mr. Ramshaw caused a riot on the Fred Allen Show. Mr. Ramshaw was a celebrated Golden Eagle who toured the US with his British trainer, falconer Captain C. W. R. Knight. The Captain was encouraged by Allen to let the Mr. Ramshaw fly around in the studio; but, as it turned out, he had little success in convincing the bird to return to him as rehearsedโ€”and not until he had left his mark on the members of the audience assembled in studio 8-H, Radio City, New York.

Actually, as Allen recalled in Treadmill to Oblivion, Mr. Ramshaw had narrowly “missed the shoulder of a student who had come down from Fordham University to advise [Allen] that [he] had won a popularity poll at the school.”

Responding to a complaint from the vice president of NBC, a less than apologetic Allen remarked: “i thought i had seen about everything in radio but the eagle had a trick up his feathered colon that was new to me,” to which he added: “i know you await with trepidation the announcement that i am going to interview sabu with his elephant some week.”

There was no getting back to the script that evening; and the commotion that ensued was another forceful reminder that, for all his talent as a writer, Allen was in even finer feather when he did not have to stick to the ink from his mechanized quill. Now, winging it, or flying by the seat of oneโ€™s pants, was not condoned by those who footed the bill of comedy-variety programs and kept an eagle eye on their production. Everything had to be performed as scriptedโ€”and strictly within the time allotted for each number, sketch, and broadcast.

So, when Allen had to repeat his program three hours laterโ€”at midnightโ€”for the West Coast audience, the spokesperson of Young and Rubicam, the advertising agency working on behalf of the showโ€™s sponsor, did not permit Mr. Ramshaw to make an encore. The segment was out, and, as Stuart Hample (author of โ€œall the sincerity in hollywoodโ€ told Max Schmid in a 4 November 2001 interview over WBAI, New York, Allen was forced to revise the script and remove the offending segment.

Allen defended his feathered guest by claiming that Mr. Ramshaw had resented the censor’s “dictatorial order” and, “deprived by nature of the organs essential in the voicing of an audible complaint, called upon his bowels to wreck upon us his reaction to [Mr. Royal’s] martinet ban.”

The feather “l’affaire eagle” added to Allen’s cap never got to tickle his West Coast listeners. Network radio programs may have had a coast-to-coast audience; but, be it an eagle, a turkey, or a lark, some of what took off or managed to escape in the East could never fly or land in the West.


Related recordings
Fred Allen Show, 20 March 1940

Fa(r)ther?

Historically speaking, it is difficult for me to get the larger picture. When I express anything amounting to a weltanschauung, I go all philosophical. Perhaps, I live too much in the confines of my own peculiar everyday to engage with the political events and developments that shape my existence. Life in the United States has taughtโ€”or, at any rate, encouragedโ€”me to live in and for the now, a modus of going about oneโ€™s affairs that is more personally rewarding even though it might not always be quite so socially or globally responsible. Seizing the day for the sake of that day and its glories alone is not something to which Germans, in particular, are prone; they are more likely to seize opportunities for the future, or another country, for that matter.

In the old world, people tend to plan for what might happen in generations to come; they are anxious to map out what they presume to lie ahead, sometimes for as much as a thousand years. I suppose that, once those old world futurists went west to seek their fortune, they needed to learn to reconcile themselves to the vagaries of the wilderness, to fight everyday battles, to carve a niche for themselves right out of those woods.

In societies that have a medieval past in which the individual matters less than the tribe, fascism and communism are more likely to flourish than in the United States. Creating order out of the chaos that is time not yet present so as to provide for the future of oneโ€™s kind makes even genocide justifiable.

I wonder whether, had I been born American and grown up the in United States during the 1930s, I had possessed the foresight to anticipate just what this kind of mindset is capable of undoing and getting done. Would I have been an isolationist or urged for an involvement in the European conflict? Would I have been all peacetime business as usual or seen war as a way of insuring the future of an ideal?

I trust that, for all my shortsightedness, I would have seen right through a man like Father Charles Coughlin, who, back in 1939, continued to rail against the warmongers in the US. Using the microphone and Social Justice magazine as means of reaching the American multitudes, he went so far as to recruit school children for his cause. On 19 March 1939, the notoriously anti-semitic priest offered prizes to any youngsterโ€”Christian, Jew, or gentileโ€”who could best express reasons to stay out of a foreign โ€œentanglementโ€ involving military action. One answer suggested by the announcer of Coughlinโ€™s radio addresses, who was also a spokesperson for Social Justice, hailed economic sanctions as a modern mode of warfare.

In 1936, Father Coughlin could still count on a popular magazine like Radio Guide as a forum to pose a challenge to โ€œFranklin Doublecross Roosevelt,โ€ the President he had staunchly supported some six years earlier. By 1940, Coughlinโ€™s influence was vastly diminished, his motives questioned, his hypocrisy exposed. In an issue of Radio-Movie Guide for the week of 16 to 22 March 1940, news editor and radio historian Francis Chase, Jr. shared the outcome of his investigation into Coughlinโ€™s mysterious absence from the airwaves on 4 February of that year when a “series of cryptic and intriguing announcementsโ€ informed the listening public that Coughlin โ€œwould not appear to speak and intimated that dire and sinister forces were at work to prevent his addressing the radio audience.โ€ Chaseโ€™s subsequent

investigations showed that neither [station] WJR nor the Coughlin radio network had censored Coughlinโ€™s address. ย Neither had the Catholic Church nor the Federal Communications Commission. ย The inescapable conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that Father Coughlin, and Father Coughlin aloneโ€”was responsible for the weird performance after exhorting, through his announcer, all listeners-in to telephone their friends and get them to their loudspeakers.

Apparently, Coughlin was determined to present himself as a martyr threatened to have his tongue cut off by those who did not like what he had to say. Among those who very much liked what Coughlin saidโ€”and who liked what his staged disappearance from the airways might implyโ€”where the editors of Hitlerโ€™s Vรถlkischer Beobachter, who sneered that, in a so-called free America, Coughlin was facing censorship for the โ€œtruthsโ€ he dared to speak.

Was Coughlin, who envisioned a fascist โ€œCorporate Stateโ€ to do away with what he argued to be a corrupt United States, consumed with the larger picture in a foreign frame? Or was he, Canadian-born and barred from the Presidency, picturing mainly himself in whatever frame suited him best or was most likely to accommodate him?

However far-reaching or far-fetched his scheming, much of what the far-righteous Father espoused Chase demonstrated to be personally motivated. When Coughlin denounced the worshipping of the โ€œGod of Gold,โ€ for instance, and argued it a “Christian concern” to restore silver to โ€œits proper value,โ€ the US government disclosed that the Thunderer of Royal Oak owned “more silver than any other person in Michigan.โ€ While loudly condemning “Wall Street gambling,โ€ Coughlin was known to have played the stock market.

Sure, even the larger pictureโ€”a vision, however ghastly or inhumaneโ€”is only a reflection of the minds that conceive it; but in how far are the likes of me, whose frame of mind is too narrow or too feeble to get hold of that larger picture, content to be framed by the masterminds who seize the opportunity of creating, mounting and authenticating it?


Related recordings
Coughlin broadcast 19 March 1939
Coughlin broadcast 4 February 1940

Related Writings
โ€œ’I hold no animosity toward the Jews’: The Father Coughlin Factor”