โ€œThere [still] ainโ€™t no sense to nothinโ€™โ€: A Wayward Text Comes Home

โ€œHome at last,โ€ I could almost hear myself sigh as, out of the narrow slit in our front door, I yanked the packet arriving today.  Bearing my name, as few pieces of mail of any consequence or sustenance do nowadays, it contained the volume Audionarratology: Lessons from Radio Drama, to which I had been invited a few years ago to contribute a chapter.  The book was published in July 2021 by Ohio State University, a press renowned for its contribution to the evolving discourse on narratology.  

The titular neologism suggests that an engagement with aural storytelling is proposed as one way of broadening a field that has enriched the interpretation not only of literature but also of visual culture.  Whether such aural storytelling should be subsumed under the rubric โ€˜radio dramaโ€™ is something I debated in my study Immaterial Culture, for which I settled on the term โ€˜radio play,โ€™ as, I argued, the fictions written for radio production and transmission are hybrids whose potentialities remained underexplored and whose contribution to the arts underappreciated in part due to the alignment of such plays with works for stage and screen.  Nor am I sure that, by adding the prefix, โ€œaudionarratologyโ€ will be regarded as a subgroup of narratology โ€“ which would defeat the purpose of broadening said field.

To the question what โ€œLessonsโ€ may be learned from plays for radio, or from our playing with them, the quotation that serves as title of my essay provides a serviceable response: โ€œThere ainโ€™t no sense to nothin.โ€  The line is uttered by one of the characters in I Love a Mystery, the thriller serial I discuss โ€“ and it is expressive of the bewilderment I felt when first I entered the world created in the 1930s and 1940s by the US American playwright-producer Carlton E. Morse.  My cumbersome subtitle is meant to suggest how I responded to the task of making sense not only of the play but also of the field in which I was asked to position it: โ€œSerial Storytelling, Radio-Consciousness and the Gothic of Audition.โ€

By labelling โ€˜gothicโ€™ not simply the play but my experience of it, I aim to bring to academic discourse my feeling of unease, a sense of misgivings about explaining away what drew me in to begin with, the lack of vocabulary with which adequately to describe my experience of listening, the anxiety of having to theorise within the uncertain boundaries of a discourse that I sought to broaden instead of delimiting.

Throughout my experience with radio plays of the so-called golden age, I felt that, playing recording or streaming play, I had to audition belatedly for a position of listener but that I could never hear the plays as they were intended to be taken in โ€“ serially, via radio โ€“ during those days before the supremacy of television, the medium that shaped my childhood.

In the essay, I try to communicate what it feels like not knowing โ€“ not knowing the solution to a mystery, not quite knowing my place vis-ร -vis the culture in which the play was produced or the research culture in which thriller programs such as I Love a Mystery are subjected to some theory and much neglect.  Instead of analysing a play, I ended up examining myself as a queer, English-as-second-language listener estranged from radio and alien to the everyday of my grandparentโ€™s generation โ€“ never mind that my German grandfather fought on the Axis side while the US home front stayed tuned to news from the frontlines as much as it tuned in to thrillers and comedies that were hardly considered worthy of being paraded as the so-called forefront of modernism.  So, a measure of guilt enters into the mix of emotions with which I struggle to approach or sell such cultural products academically.

The resulting chapter is proposed as a muddle, not as a model โ€“ although its self-consciousness may be an encouragement to some who are struggling to straddle the line between their searching, uncertain selves and the construct of a scholarly identity.  Its failings and idiosyncrasies are no strategic efforts to fit in by playing the misfit or refitting the scene โ€“ they are proposed as candid reflection of my mystification.  

They also bespeak the fact that the essay, unfinished or not fully realised though it may seem, was a quarter century in the making.ย ย It started out by twisting the dial of my stereo receiver and happening on Max Schmidโ€™s ear-opening programย The Golden Age of Radioย on WBAI, New York, agonising whether to turn my newly discovered hobby into the subject of academic study, enrolling in David H. Richter’s course โ€œThe Rise of the Gothicโ€ at CUNY, and by responding to the essay brief by exploring gothic radio plays and radio adaptations of Gothic literature.

Once I had decided to abandon my Victorian studies in favor of old-time radio, the essay was revised to become a chapter of my PhD study Etherized Victorians.  It was revisited but removed from Immaterial Culture as an outlier โ€“ the only longer reading of a play not based on a published script โ€“ during the process of negotiating the space allotted by the publisher.  It had a lingering if non-too-visible presence on my online journal broadcastellan as an experiment in interactive blogging, and it now appears in a volume devoted to a subject of which I had no concept when I started out all those years ago.

The draft, too, has gone through a long process of negotiation — of editing, cutting and rewriting โ€“ at some point of which the frankness of declaring myself to be among the โ€œoutsidersโ€ of the discourse did not make the editorsโ€™ cut.

So, home the essay has come; but the home has changed, as has its dweller, a student of literature who transmogrified into an art historian with a sideline of aurality, and who now has to contend with tinnitus and hearing loss when listening out for clues to non-visual mysteries and, ever self-conscious, waits for his cue to account for the latest of his botches, or, worse still, to be met with silence.  Estrangement, uncertainty, and the misery of having to account for the state of being mesmerised by mysteries unsolved โ€“ such is the gothic of audition.

Recycling Questions: Just What Is or Ain’t an Adaptation?

As a product of postmodern culture, I lay no claim to originality.  Indeed, I have always been thoroughly unoriginal, and, occasional anxieties of influence notwithstanding, often gleefully so.  As a child, I ripped off comics, tore apart magazines and took whatever images were available to create collages and parodies.  Using an audio tape recorder, I appropriated television programs by inserting my voice into mass-marketed narratives, transforming a saccharine anime like Heidi (1974) into a subversive adolescent fantasy.

My postmodern past (note my de Chirico take on a mass-produced vase)

No evidence of my early experiments is extant today; but adaptation became an enduring fascination and a field of study.  As a student, I wrote essays on adaptations of Frankenstein and on Brechtโ€™s revisitations of Galileo Galilei โ€“ Leben des Galilei (1938/39 and 1955), as well as Galileo (1947).  I produced an MA thesis on translation (โ€œMeister Remasteredโ€) and a PhD dissertation on the relationship between stage, screen, print and radio (“Etherized Victoriansโ€).  The latter I recycled as Immaterial Culture, published in 2013.

Now a lecturer in art history, I have repurposed some of the above and pieced together a Frankenstein’s creature of an undergraduate module I call Adaptation: Versions, Revisions and Cultural Renewal.  In a series of lectures and seminars, the course (at Aberystwyth University) investigates the processes involved in translative practices that range from the reworking of a literary classic into a graphic novel to drawing a moustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa.  It explores relationships between form and content, genre and mode, integrity and hybridity, durability and transience, culture and commerce, as well as art and the environment.

As I state in the syllabus, many products of culture endure by shifting shape: stories are turned into sculptures, plays are reimagined as dramatic canvases and mass-produced ephemera are recycled for art. What survives such transformations? What is lost or gained in translation? What are the connections between โ€“ and interdependencies of โ€“ so-called originals and the works that keep coming after them?

Given the monstrous scope of the course, another question emerges: Just what is not an adaptation? It is a question that becomes more complex if tackled by anyone who, like me, regards originality as a myth.

Much of what is published on the subject is limited to matters of narrative, of what happens when telling becomes showing, or vice versa.  Linda Hutcheonโ€™s study A Theory of Adaptation opens promisingly โ€“ if somewhat patronizingly โ€“ with the following statement: โ€œIf you think adaptation can be understood by using novels and films alone, youโ€™re wrong.  The Victorians had a habit of adapting just about everythingโ€ฆ. We postmoderns have clearly inherited this same habitโ€ฆ.โ€

Hutcheon does not quite deliver on her promise of inclusivity.  Unable or unwilling to break the “habit” of adaptation scholars who came before her, Hutcheonโ€™s study also concentrates on “novels and films,” the word “film” appearing on 229 pages, compared to, say, “painting” on 17 pages, including index and bibliography.   There is no mention at all of collage or assemblage.  Left out are the projects of Dada, Neo-Dada and Pop, as well as the debates about Kitsch, Camp and Pastiche that were central to Postmodernism.

Hutcheonโ€™s definition of “adaptation” is at once too broad and too narrow.  Her brief statements on โ€œWhat Is Not an Adaptation?โ€ are welcome yet imprecise and contradictory.  What is worse, her definition is at times arbitrary.   She states, for instance, that โ€œfan fictionโ€ is not a form of adaptation, offering no explanation for its exclusion.

I agree with Hutcheon that adaptations need to be readable as a version, an acknowledged take on or taking of something we perceive as same yet different.  Adaptations are not copies, and, as spurious as they may sometimes strike us, they are not fakes, either.

Hutcheon distinguishes between parody and adaptation, claiming that the former does not need to be acknowledged.  If unacknowledged, parodies โ€“ or any other form of adaptation โ€“ cannot operate qua adaptation.  They are like irony in that respect.  You just canโ€™t be ironic all by yourself.  Any dance of the index fingers needs an audience.

As I see it, adaptations, be they parodies or pastiche, anarchic or reverent, have to exist as concrete products โ€“ rather than ideas or themes โ€“ that are distinct from yet related to other products with which they engage or from which they openly borrow in more or less creative acts of transformation.

Am I an adaptation?

Hutcheon, who does not insist on a change in medium as a criterion for adaptation, cites a source that identifies as a “new entertainment norm” the “process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience.”  The resulting products are not meant to exist independently but serve as a deliberate fragmentation for the sake of maximizing market potential and profits by increasing the potential audience.  Is this still adaptation? Perhaps, if the audience rejects to buy the lot.

Buying the lot is something I rarely do.  I pick and choose, take apart and transform according to my own desires and limitations.  And pick apart I must when I read Hutcheonโ€™s comments on radio drama as a form of “showing” like “all performance media,” at which point her study recommends itself for recycling as pulp.  Anyone who appreciates the hybridity of radio plays would balk at such simplifications.

Trying to make a case for elevating their cultural status, Hutcheon asks: “If adaptations are โ€ฆ such inferior and secondary creations why then are they so omnipresent in our culture and, indeed increasing steadily in number?” Well, junk food is “omnipresent” โ€“ and so are feebly argued studies โ€“ which does not make either any less “inferior.”  Besides, the question is not whether adaptations are good, bad or indifferent.  The question is: what are and what ainโ€™t they?

Immaterial Is the Word for It

“Etherized Victorians,” my doctoral study on American radio plays, had been lying for years in a virtual drawer. A string of rejection letters from publishers made me leave it for dead. ย Then, when I learned about an opportunity to get it out of that coma at last โ€“ with the aid of a reputable academic publisher to boot โ€“ I went for it.ย  I have regretted that decision ever since. ย The anger welled up in me anew when I read “Academics are being hoodwinked into writing books nobody can buy,”ย an article in theย Guardian, which aย colleague of mine hadย shared via Facebook.

A toothy smile after years of anger and disappointment

It is not that I believe that should have let my study lie, that it did not deserve to be revived. ย Rather, I feel it deserved a better home than the publisher provided for it. ย Funeral home is more like it. ย To send it there,ย I agreed to pay ยฃ1600 for the production of a book thatย contains no images, except for the cover art that was supplied to me by my artist friend Maria Hayes. ย Besides, I did all the editing, proofreading and indexing myself.ย ย There was no substantial input or support from the publisher, Peter Lang, other than a list of instructions and some rather frustrating feedback on my blurb for the back of the book, which, to my disappointment, has been issued as a paperback only.

Turning “Etherized Victorians” intoย Immaterial Cultureย meant cutting back and stripping bare. It was an instructive experience, painful though it was. ย I renegotiated but was nonetheless obliged to cut about 50,000 words, and I rue the quick decision to get rid of an entire chapter (available online, on my website, but since reworked for a chapter in the anthology Audionarratology: Lessons from Radio Drama). I also had to let go of the list I had compiled of my primary sources, the plays I discussed. ย When I asked for corrections of errors or inaccuracies I spotted close to the deadline, I was first told that no further changes were possible and then threatened with a ยฃ30 per hour editing fee.ย  So much for academic standards.

Peter Lang did nothing, apparently, to promote theย Immaterial Culture. ย Living up to its new name, my studyย did not even show up on Google books.ย  I was mailed a few โ€˜complimentaryโ€™ copies, some of which I sent to a friend with connections to the BBC.ย  Nothing came of that.ย  I also walked one copy up to the theater, film and television department of Aberystwyth University, where I work for next to no pay, thinking I might give a lecture or make a course out of it.ย  I have not heard from the department since.

And who else besides a library or an institution of higher learning would bother to purchase a text that is overpriced at ยฃ 52.00 ($ 84.95), thus too expensive to attract radio drama aficionados? Not that anyone potentially interested would have even heard of the book. ย Apart from one long and highly complimentary review (in German),ย Immaterial Cultureย received no press, despite my filling out a great number of forms to assist in its promotion.

It is disappointingย โ€“ letโ€™s make that โ€˜pointlessโ€™โ€“ ย to write for an audience that proves allusive and impossible to reach. ย So, I decided to donate a copy of the book to the Paley Center for Media in New York City, where I conducted research for it.ย  It would be rewarding and reassuring to me if someone made use of or derived pleasure from my work.ย  Why else โ€˜publishโ€™?

Academic publishing is tantamount to a vanishing act. I much rather carry on a supposed vanity project such as this journal, which is freely accessible to all and sundry, just like the once popular plays for broadcasting about which I go on in Immaterial Culture.

“You Were Wonderful,” Lena Horne

When I heard of the passing of Lena Horne, the words โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€ came immediately to mind. Expressive of enthusiasm and regret, they sound fit for a tribute. However, by placing the emphasis on the first word, we may temper our applauseโ€”or the patronising cheers of othersโ€”with a note of reproach, implying that while Horneโ€™s performances were marvellous, indeed, the system in which she was stuck and by which her career was stunted during the 1940s was decidedly less so. No simple cheer of mine, โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€ is also the title of a radio thriller that not only gave Horne an opportunity to bring her enchanting voice to the far from color-blind medium of radio but to voice what many disenchanted black listeners were wondering about: Why fight for a victory that, of all Americans, will benefit us least? As title, play, and cheer, โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€โ€”captures all that is discouraging in those seemingly uncomplicated words of encouragement.

Written by Robert L. Richards, โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€ aired over CBS on 9 November 1944 as part of the Suspense series, many of whose wartime offerings were meant to serve as something other than escapist fare. As I argued in Etherized Victorians, stories about irresponsible Americans redeeming themselves for the cause were broadcast nearly as frequently as plays designed to illustrate the insidiousness of the enemy. Despite victories on all fronts, listeners needed to be convinced that the war was far from over and that the publicโ€™s indifference and hubris could endanger the war effort, that both vigilance and dedication were required of even the most war-weary citizen. โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€ played such a role.

When a performer in a third-rate nightclub in Buenos Aires suddenly collapses on stage and dies, a famous American entertainer (Horne) is rather too eager replace her. โ€œIโ€™m a singer, not a sob sister,โ€ she declares icily, thawing for a tantalizing rendition of โ€œEmbraceable You.โ€

The very name of the mysterious substitute, Lorna Dean, encourages listeners to conceive of โ€œYou Were Wonderfulโ€ in relation to the perennially popular heroine Lorna Doone, or the Victorian melodramatic heritage in general, and to consider the potential affinities between the fictional singer and her impersonatrix, Lena Horne, suggesting the story to be that of an outcast struggling to redeem herself against all odds.

One of the regulars at the nightclub is Johnny (Wally Maher), an seemingly disillusioned American who declares that his country did not do much for him that was worth getting โ€œknocked off for.โ€ Still, he seems patriotic enough to become suspicious of the singerโ€™s motivations, especially after the club falls into the hands of a new manager, an Austrian who requests that his star performer deliver specific tunes at specified times. The absence of a narrator signalling perspective promotes audience detachment, a skeptical listening-in on the two central characters as they question each other while all along compromising themselves.

When questioned about her unquestioning compliance, Lorna Dean replies:

Iโ€™m an entertainer because I like it. ย And because itโ€™s the only way I can make enough money to live halfway like a human being. ย With money I can do what I want toโ€”more or less. I can live where I want to, go where I want to, be like other peopleโ€”more or less. ย Do you know what even that much freedom means to somebody like me, Johnny?

However restrained, such a critique of the civil rights accorded to and realized by African-Americans, uttered by a Negro star of Horneโ€™s magnitude, was uncommonly bold for 1940s radio entertainment, especially considering that Suspense was at that time a commercially sponsored program.

โ€œ[W]e are not normally a part of radio drama, except as comedy relief,โ€ Langston Hughes once remarked, reflecting on his own experience in 1940s broadcasting. A comment on this situation, Richardsโ€™s writingโ€”as interpreted by Horneโ€”raises the question whether Horneโ€™s outspoken character could truly be the heroine of โ€œYou Were Wonderful.โ€

Talking in the see-if-I-care twang of a 1930s gang moll, Lorna is becoming increasingly suspect, so that the questionable defense of her apparently selfish behavior serves to render her positively un-American. When told that her command performances are shortwaved to a German submarine and contain a hidden code to ready Nazis for an attack on American ships, she claims to have known this all along.

The conclusion of the play discloses the singerโ€™s selfishness to have been an act. Risking her life, Lorna Dean defies instructions and, deliberately switching tunes, proudly performs โ€œAmerica (My Country โ€˜Tis of Thee)โ€ instead.

About to be shot for her insubordination, Lorna is rescued by the patron who questioned her integrity, a man who now reveals himself to be a US undercover agent. When asked why she embarked upon this perilous one-woman mission, the singer declares: โ€œJust to get in my licks at the master race.โ€

โ€œYou Were Wonderful,โ€ which, like many wartime programs was shortwaved to the troops overseas, could thus be read as a vindication of the entertainment industry, an assurance to the GIs that their efforts had the unwavering support of all Americans, and a reminder to minorities, soldiers and civilians alike, that even a democracy marred by inequality and intolerance was preferable to Aryan rule.

Ever since the Detroit race riots of June 1943, during which police shot and killed seventeen African-Americans, it had become apparent that unconditional servitude from citizens too long disenfranchised could not be taken for granted. With โ€œYou Were Wonderful,โ€ Horne was assigned the task of assuring her fellow Negro Americans of a freedom she herself had to waitโ€”and struggleโ€”decades rightfully to enjoy.

Had it not been for this assignment, Lena Horne may never have been given the chance to act in a leading role in one of radioโ€™s most prominent cycles of plays. Yes, โ€œYou Were Wonderful,โ€ Lena Horneโ€”and any tribute worthy of you must also be an indictment.

โ€œ. . . reduced, blended, modernisedโ€: The Wireless Reconstitution of Printed Matter

Nearly two centuries ago, young Rebecca Sharp marked her entrance into the world by hurling a book out of a coach window. That book, reluctantly gifted to her by the proprietress of Miss Pinkertonโ€™s academy for young ladies, was Johnsonโ€™s dictionary, a volume for which Ms. Sharp had little use, given that she was rarely at a loss for words. By the time her story became known, in 1847, words in print had become a rather less precious commodity, especially after the British stamp tax was abolished in 1835, which, in turn, made the emergence of the penny press possible. Publications were becoming more frequentโ€”and decidedly more frivolous.

Gone were the days when a teenager like Mary Jones, whose story I encountered on a trip to the Welsh town of Bala last weekend, walked twenty-five miles, barefooted, for the privilege of owning a Bible. Sure, I enjoy the occasional daytrip to Hay-on-Wye, the renowned โ€œTown of Booksโ€ near the English border where, earlier this month, I snatched up a copy of the BBCโ€™s 1952 Year Book (pictured). Still, ever since the time of the great Victorian novelists, the reading public has been walking no further than the local lending library or wherever periodicals were sold to catch up on the latest fictions and follow the exploits of heroines like Becky Sharp in monthly installments.

In Victorian times, the demand for stories was so great that poorly paid writers were expected to churn them out with ever greater rapidity, which left those associated with the literary trade to ponder new ways of meeting the supply. In Gissingโ€™s New Grub Street (1891), a young woman assisting her scholarly papa is startled by an

advertisement in the newspaper, headed โ€œLiterary Machineโ€; had it then been invented at last, some automaton to [. . .] turn out books and articles? Alas! The machine was only one for holding volumes conveniently, that the work of literary manufacture might be physically lightened. But surely before long some Edison would make the true automaton; the problem must be comparatively such a simple one. Only to throw in a given number of old books, and have them reduced, blended, modernised into a single one for todayโ€™s consumption.

Barbara Cartland notwithstanding, such a โ€œtrue automatonโ€ has not yet hit the market; but the recycling of old stories for a modern audience had already become a veritable industry by the beginning of the second quarter of the 20th century, during which โ€œgolden ageโ€ the wireless served as both home theater and ersatz library for the entertainment and distraction craving multitudes.

A medium ofโ€”and only potentially forโ€”modernity, radio has always culled much of its material from the past, โ€œReturn with us nowโ€ being one of the phrases most associated with aural storytelling. It is a phenomenon that led me to write my doctoral study Etherized Victorians, in which I relate the demise of American radio dramatics to the failure to establish or encourage its own, autochthonous, that is, strictly aural life form.

Sure, the works of Victorian authors are in the public domain; as such, they are cheap, plentiful, and, which is convenient as well, fairly innocuous. And yet, for reasons other than economics, they strike us as radiogenic. Like the train whistle of the horse-drawn carriage, they seem to be the very stuff of radioโ€”a medium that was quaint and antiquated from the onset, when television was announced as being โ€œjust around the corner.โ€

Perhaps, the followers of Becky Sharp should not toss out their books yet; as American radio playwright Robert Lewis Shayon pointed out, the business of adaptation is fraught with โ€œartistic problems and dangers.โ€ He argued that he โ€œwould rather be briefed on a novelโ€™s outline, told something about its untransferable qualities, and have one scene accurately and fully done than be given a fast, ragged, frustrating whirl down plot-skeleton alley.โ€

It was precisely for this circumscribed path, though, that American handbooks like James Whippleโ€™s How to Write for Radio (1938) or Josephina Niggliโ€™s Pointers on Radio Writing (1946) prepared prospective adapters, reminding them that, for the sake of action, they needed to โ€œretain just sufficient characters and situations to present the skeleton plotโ€ and that they could not โ€œafford to waste even thirty seconds on beautiful descriptive passages.โ€

As I pointed out in Etherized, broadcast writers were advised to โ€œfree [themselves] first from the enchantment of the authorโ€™s styleโ€ and to โ€œoutline the action from memory.โ€ Illustrating the technique, Niggli reduced Jane Eyreโ€”one of the most frequently radio-readied narrativesโ€”to a number of plot points, โ€œbald statementsโ€ designed to โ€œeliminate the non-essential.โ€ Only the dialogue of the original text was to be restored whenever possible, although here, too, paraphrases were generally required to clarify action or to shorten scenes. Indeed, as Waldo Abbotโ€™s Handbook of Broadcasting (1941) recommended, dialogue had to be โ€œinvented to take care of essential description.โ€

To this day, radio dramatics in Britain, where non-visual broadcasting has remained a viable means of telling stories, the BBC relies on 19th-century classics to fill much of its schedule. The detective stories of Conan Doyle aside, BBC Radio 7 has just presented adaptations of Thackerayโ€™s Vanity Fair (1847-48), featuring the aforementioned Ms. Sharp, and currently reruns Trollope’s Barchester Chronicles (1855-67). The skeletons are rather more complete, though, as both novels were radio-dramatized in twenty installments, and, in the case of Trollopeโ€™s six-novel series, in hour-long parts.

BBC Radio 4, meanwhile, has recently aired serializations of Trollope’s Orley Farm (1862), Wilkie Collinsโ€™s Armadale (1866) and Mary Elizabeth Braddonโ€™s Lady Audleyโ€™s Secret (1862). Next week, it is presenting both Charlotte Brontรซโ€™s Villette and Elizabeth Gaskellโ€™s Ruth (both 1853), the former in ten fifteen minute chapters, the latter in three hour-long parts.

Radio playwright True Boardman once complained that adaptations for the aural medium bear as close a relation to the original as โ€œpowdered milk does to the stuff that comes out of cows.โ€ They are culture reconstituted. โ€œ[R]educed, blended, [and] modernisedโ€œ, they donโ€™t get a chance to curdle . . .

Note: Etherised Victorians was itself ‘reduced and blended,’ and published as Immaterial Culture in 2013.


Related writings (on Victorian literature, culture and their recycling)
โ€œHattie Tatty Coram Girl: A Casting Note on the BBCโ€™s Little Dorritโ€
โ€œValentine Vox Pop; or, Revisiting the Un-Classicsโ€
“Curtains Up and ‘Down the Wires'”
Eyrebrushing: The BBC’s Dull New Copy of Charlotte Brontรซ’s Bold Portrait”

Manus Manum . . . Love It: Lever Brothers Get Their Hands on Those Nine Out of Ten

“Ladies and gentlemen. We have grand news for you tonight, for the Lux Radio Theater has moved to Hollywood. And here we are in a theater of our very own. The Lux Radio Theater, Hollywood Boulevard, in the motion picture capital of the world. The curtain rises.โ€

Going up with great fanfare on this day, 1 June, in 1936, that curtain, made of words and music for the listening multitude in homes across the United States, revealed more than a stage.  It showed how an established if stuffy venue for the recycling of Broadway plays could be transformed into a spectacular new showcase for the allied talents at work in motion pictures, network radio, and advertisement.

Marlene Dietrich and Clark Gable at the premiere of the revamped Lux Radio Theater program

โ€œFrankly, I was skeptical when the announcement first reached this office,โ€ Radio Guideโ€™s executive vice-president and general manager Curtis Mitchell declared not long after the Hollywood premiere. The program was โ€œan old production as radio shows go,โ€ Mitchell remarked, one that was โ€œrich with the respect and honorsโ€ it had garnered during its first two years on the air. Why meddle with an established formula?

Mitchellโ€™s misgivings were soon allayed. The newly refurbished Lux Radio Theater had not been on the air for more than two weeks; and Radio Guide already rewarded it with a โ€œMedal of Meritโ€โ€”given, so the magazine argued, โ€œbecause its sponsors had the courage to make a daring moveโ€ that, in turn, had โ€œincreased the enjoyment of radio listeners.โ€ Thereโ€™s nothing like a new wrinkle to shake the impression of starchiness.

โ€œI cannot help but feel,โ€ Mitchell continued, that the “two recent performances emanating from Hollywood have lifted it in a new elevation in public esteem. Personally, listening to these famous actors under the direction of Cecil De Mille, all of them broadcasting almost from their own front yards, gave me a new thrill.”

That DeMille had, in fact, no hand in the production did little to diminish the thrill. An open secret rather than a bald lie, the phony title was part of an elaborate illusion. The veteran producer-director brought prestige to the format, attracted an audience with promises of behind-the-scenes tidbits, and sold a lot of soap flakes throughout his tenure; and even if the act wouldnโ€™t wash, he could always rely on the continuity writers to supply the hogwash.

As DeMille reminded listeners on that inaugural broadcast (and as I mentioned on a previous occasion), Lux had โ€œbeen a household word in the DeMille family for 870 years,โ€ his family crest bearing the motto โ€œLux tua vita mea.โ€ Oh, Lever Brother!

Perhaps the motto should have been โ€œManus manum lavat.โ€ After all, that is what the Lux Radio Theater demonstrated most forcibly. In the Lux Radio Theater, one hand washed the other, with a bar of toilet soap always within reach. As I put it in Etherised Victorians, my doctoral study on the subject of radio plays, it

was in its mediation between the ordinary and the supreme that a middlebrow program like Lux served to promote network programming as a commercially effective and culturally sophisticated hub for consumers, sponsors, and related entertainment industries.

With DeMille as nominal producer and Academy Award-winner Louis Silver as musical director, the new productions came at a considerable cost for the sponsor: some $300 a minute, as reported in another issue of Radio Guide for the week ending 1 August 1937. Of the $17,500 spent on โ€œThe Legionnaire and the Lady,โ€ the first Hollywood production, $5000 went to Marlene Dietrich, while co-star Clark Gable received $3,500. Those were tidy sums back the, especially considering that the two leads had not even shown up for rehearsals.

The investment paid off; a single Monday night broadcast reportedly attracted as many listeners as flocked to Americaโ€™s movie theaters on the remaining days of the week. As DeMille put it in his introduction to the first Hollywood broadcast, the audience of the Lux Radio Theater was โ€œgreater than any four walls could encompass.โ€ Besides, the auditorium from which the broadcasts emanated was already crowded with luminaries.

โ€œI see a lot of familiar faces,โ€ DeMille was expected to convince those sitting at home: โ€œThereโ€™s Joan Blondell, Gary Cooper (he stars in my next picture, The Plainsman), Stuart Erwin and his lovely wife June Collier.โ€

Also present were Al Jolson, Ruby Keeler, and Franchot Tone. โ€œAnd I, I think I see Freddie March,โ€ DeMille added in a rather unsuccessful attempt at faking an ad lib. While there is ample room for doubt that any “nine out of ten” of those stars named actually used Lux, as the slogan alleged, they sure made use of theย Lux Radio Theater. It was an excellent promotional platform, a soapbox of giant proportions.

A visit to the Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight

As I was reminded on a trip to the Lady Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight last year, Lever Brothers had always been adroit at mixing their business with other peopleโ€™s pleasure. Long before the Leverhulmes went west to hitch their wagon on one Hollywood star or another, they had disproved the Wildean maxim that the greatest art is to conceal art and that art, for artโ€™s sake, must be useless.

It is owing to the advertising agents in charge of the Lever account that even the long frowned upon โ€œcommercialโ€ did no longer seem quite such a dirty word.


Related recording

“The Legionnaire and the Lady,โ€ Lux Radio Theater (1 June 1936)

Related blog entries

“Cleaning Up Her Act: Dietrich, Hollywood, and Lola Lolaโ€™s Laundryโ€

Tyrone Power Slips Out to War on a Bar of Soapโ€

โ€œAfter Twenty Years of Pushing Stars and Peddling Soap, a Hollywood Institution Closes Downโ€

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€

"But some people ain’t me!": Arthur Laurents and "The Face" Behind Gypsy

Gypsy again? I guess that is what many theatergoers thought when, only five years after the previous revival, the show opened on Broadway for the fifth time since its debut back in 1959. I have seen three of those revivals and, not inclined to wield my thumb, shanโ€™t ponder publicly whether or not this might be the definitive production. It better not be, since I hardly mind seeing the play interpreted a few other ways, if only to get a chance to catch the old routines with โ€œnew orchestrations.โ€ Still, be it stagecraft, performance, or my own very gradual process of maturity, I have not seen the dramatic finale of Gypsy staged any more movingly than in the current production. To be sure, I am opening to Arthur Laurentsโ€™s book differently now that I have completed my doctoral study on American radio drama since seeing the 2003 revival starring Bernadette Peters. I am reading betweenโ€”not intoโ€”Laurentsโ€™s celebrated lines to find the former radio playwrightโ€™s โ€œFace.โ€

โ€œMay we entertain you?โ€ Laurentsโ€™s career in radio began in 1939, when the Columbia Workshop produced his first original play, โ€œNow Playing Tomorrowโ€ (30 January 1939), a fantasy concerning the doubtful advantages of gazing into the future. With such a high-profile debut to his credit, the young writer had little difficulties selling scripts to various network programs, including Hollywood Playhouse (1937-40), The Adventures of the Thin Man (1941-50), and This Is Your FBI (1945-53). โ€œCommercial pulp, all of it,โ€ he commented sixty years later; yet unlike fellow playwright Arthur Miller (one of whose wartime radio dramas I discuss here), Laurents was not dismissive of, let alone bitter about, his radio days. He had actively pursued such a career, attending an evening class in radio writing at NYU. Laurents did not feel that he was โ€œfaced with the art vs. commerce dilemmaโ€; besides, he was โ€œtoo flatteredโ€ being โ€œwanted, too thrilled at being paid for being happy.โ€

“Extra! Extra! Hey, look at the headline! / Historical news is being made!” Contributing to the war effort by writing plays for a number of dramatic propaganda series kept the draftee from facing combat overseas and secured him an income of up to $350 per script. The Army arranged for him to work on programs like Armed Service Force Presents (1943-1944), Assignment Home (1944-46), and the Peabody Award-winning documentary drama The Man Behind the Gun (1942-44).

Toward the end of the war, Laurents had found his voice as a radio playwrightโ€”a voice strong and convincing enough not to be muffled by spineless industry executives. Drawing on personal experiences, he managed to explore themes similar to those he tackled on Broadway, where he made his entrance with Home of the Brave (1945), a play dealing with anti-Semitism in the Army. While Washington looked closely at his scripts after he had been accused of communist affiliations, Laurents not only managed to get a controversial play about black soldiers on the air, it (โ€œThe Knifeโ€) even earned him a citation.

Like Gypsy and West Side Story, Laurentsโ€™s radio plays are personal records; their author arrived at a code that made it possible for him to share his own story, the story of an outsider. There is a bit of Louise in many of them. โ€œThe Face,โ€ a Writers’ War Board “best script of the month” for April 1945, is no exception. โ€œDo you love a man for his face?โ€ the play asks of us, exploring the experience of a disfigured soldier dreading his reintegration into post-war society, a society, he knows to place great importance on appearances.

โ€œSmall world, isnโ€™t it?โ€ Like many of Laurentsโ€™s early works for stage and screen, from Home of the Brave to his screenplay for Hitchcockโ€™s Rope (1948), โ€œThe Face,โ€ as I put it in Etherized Victorians, is a play of masked figures and figurative unmasking. Dreading the prejudices of post-war America, the disfigured Harold Ingalls and his fellow patients must learn to be strangers โ€œjoining forcesโ€:

GOLDSTEIN. ย When you get plastered . . . who do you go with?
INGALLS. ย There used to be a fellowโ€”but he was discharged last week.
GOLDSTEIN. ย Was heโ€”like us?
INGALLS. ย Yeah. ย So now I go alone.
GOLDSTEIN. ย Ifโ€”if I can get a pass . . . canโ€”I go with you?
INGALLS. ย Sure! You know it makes it good, when there are two of you.

โ€œTogether, wherever we go!โ€ Rather than confronting his biological family, the mother and brother heโ€™ll never quite โ€œget away from,โ€ Ingalls is eager to escape with his double, his secret sharer:

INGALLS. ย Youโ€™re more of a brother than he is.
GOLDSTEIN. ย Now thatโ€™s a real compliment.
INGALLS. ย Oh you know what I mean.
GOLDSTEIN. Sure.
INGALLS. ย Well, Iโ€™ll get my mother over with quick and then weโ€™ll beat it into town and really tie one on. ย You and me.
GOLDSTEIN. ย Right!
INGALLS. ย Thatโ€™s the best way.
(Biz: Fade in MOTHERโ€™s footsteps approaching slowly.)
INGALLS. ย You and me. ย Thatโ€™s theโ€” (He cuts as he hears the footsteps. ย They are still off but coming closer, closer.)

Those footsteps are the sound of reality encroaching on oblivion and denial, of a past that Ingalls has to reconcile with his present. To move on, Ingalls needs the strength to let go of both by forging new relationships from or in spite of his state of effacement. โ€œIf Mama Was Married,โ€ what might have happened to stripper-novelist Gypsy Rose Lee and her sister, June Havoc, who teamed up with a big name in radio? One stuck in infantilizing routines, the other in the rear of a cow costume, each fashioned a career out of a pipe dream of vicarious living.

When Ingalls is discharged, the Army psychiatrist reminds him that โ€œevery single day, people get slapped because of ignorance. They get slapped for religion, for color, for how they talk or what they look like.โ€ She encourages him to โ€œstand up to them and tell them theyโ€™re wrong!โ€ The play ends with the wish that โ€œthis will be the beginning, the beginning of a world where the only thing that does matter is each man himself for what he is himself.โ€

“But I / At least gotta try [. . .].” While it may never be โ€œRoseโ€™s Turn,โ€ the resilient Arthur Laurentsโ€”whose next project will be a revival of West Side Storyโ€”has long had a โ€œwonderful dreamโ€ worth living, a vision of that โ€œplace for us, somewhere,โ€ the voicing and realization of which is well worth the agony of uncovering the not always handsome face behind our masks . . .

Magnetic Realism: Norman Corwin’s One World Flight

Well, it kept Bing Crosby on the air; but it also made that air feel a lot staler. Magnetic tape. Its introduction back in 1946 was a recorded death sentence to the miracle and the madness of live radio. Dreaded by producers of minutely timed dramas and comedy programs, going live had been the life or radio. Intimate and immediate, each half-hour behind the microphone had the urgency of a once-in-a-lifetime event. Actors and musicians gathered for a special moment and remained in the presence of the listener for the express purpose of being there for them and with them, however far away. They made time for an audience that, in turn, was making time for them. In a world of commerce in which democratic principles were reduced to the ready access to cheap reproductions, the quality of being inimitable and original was fast becoming a rare commodity indeed. The time for the magic of the time-bound art, the theater of the fourth dimension, was fast running out.

And yet, in the right hands, this new technology also meant innovation. It held the promise of unprecedented access to an unscripted and unrehearsed reality, the kind that live broadcasting scarcely approximated but often faked. One such groundbreaking program was Norman Corwinโ€™s fourteen-part documentary One World Flight, which premiered on this day, 14 January, in 1947.

As I discuss it at length in Etherized Victorians, my doctoral study on so-called old-time radio, Corwin had played with the idea of taking listeners around the world in flights of fancy like โ€œDaybreakโ€; he had created the illusion of on-the-spot reportage in dramatic series like Passport for Adams. Journalistically speaking, One World Flight was the real thing.

As a recipient of the first annual One World Award commemorating Wendell Willkieโ€™s diplomatic tour in 1942, Corwin spent four months circling the globe, gathering one hundred hours of interviews, indigenous sounds, and ethnic music. โ€œHere is real documentary radio,โ€ playwright Jerome Lawrence declared in his introduction to a published transcript of the first program; โ€œ[r]adio from a shiny chrome studio at Sunset and Vine or at 485 Madison [was] kindergarten stuff in comparison.โ€

One World Flight presented a post-war world in turmoil, at once a strange new world of opportunity and a breeding ground for hatred and conflict. Corwinโ€™s editorial scissors did not snip away what his tape had managed to capture, even though the voices of hope were given a prominent spot. The future prime minister of India is heard calmly expressing the belief that โ€œfreedom for one worldโ€ lies in the acceptance of the fact that people and nations โ€œare not alike,โ€ that โ€œeverybody is not the same,โ€ and that otherness does not imply inferiority.

One World Flight provides aural proof in support of this sentiment, โ€œmoments out of interviews with people high and low; optimists, pessimists; liberals, fascists, communists; stevedores, prime ministers.โ€ According to Corwin who also narrated, the โ€œprofoundest thingsโ€ were not always said by โ€œpresidents and premiers,โ€ but by โ€œordinaryโ€ and โ€œhumble people.โ€

Among the โ€œactually recordedโ€ speakers are an Italian woman despairing over the loss of her family during the bombardment of her village; a Filipino girl dismayed that Truman did not drop the atomic bomb on Russia; a Russian newspaper editor who warns that fascist conflagrations begin with a spark; and an Australian accountant cautioning against the advancement of the โ€œcolored races,โ€ a โ€œFrankenstein monsterโ€ that would โ€œturn onโ€ and โ€œdevour us, like the Japanese.โ€ Replacing his idealizedโ€”and idealizingโ€”microphone with a magnetic wire recorder, Corwin picked up ideological dissonance where he had hoped for โ€œtestaments of agreement.โ€

To Lawrence, these recordings, though not always โ€œMagnavox-clear,โ€ were of an โ€œauthenticityโ€ that was โ€œstartlingly refreshing to a fiction-tired radio listener.โ€ He defied his readers to โ€œsit down at a typewriter and compose such simple, straightforward literary dynamiteโ€ as was set off on One World Flight.

โ€œWithout the tape recorder one wonders if radio would be the exciting instrument it is today,โ€ remarked one radio critic, citing as exemplary The People Act (1952), a short-lived series of community documentaries that relied entirely on taped interviews and speeches. Such uses of magnetic tape remained the exception, however; the increasing reliance on recorded material resulted instead in the prefabrication of formerly live programming and the institution of summer reruns, a new efficiency in network broadcasting that spelled artistic impoverishment rather than renewal.

A Letter to Make a Day

Well, he deserved better than being barked at. For once, he had something of interest in his inky, pamphlet-sorting hands. The mailman, I mean. Among the bills and flyers I tossed aside, there was that rare specimen of posted correspondences: a personal letter. A missive that did not include the dismissive “sorry” or “unfortunately,” words frequently uttered by the publishers I approach regarding Etherized, my dissertation on American radio drama. Instead, it contained words like “remarkable” and “wonderful”โ€”both, “remarkable” indeed, referring to just that study, of which this webjournal is an unacademic extension. And none now living is more qualified to make such an assessment (or pronounce such flattery) than the greatest of all American radio playwrights: the Old-time Radio Primer inspiring subject of a 2006 Academy Award winning documentary, Norman Corwin.

Researching about so-called , I never contacted any of the people whose performances are discussed in my work. As I expressed it to Mr. Corwin, I was “desirous to let the words they had intended for publication and broadcastingโ€”words so rarely heardโ€”speak for themselves at last. It was a listener’s respect” for such words, I declared, “not a criticโ€™s arrogance.” I treat radio plays as art, not artifacts. I approach them as such, rather than as occasions to wax nostalgic or opportunities to get at a factual past, however important it is to keep their historical context in mind.

When I write about listening to radio plays, I avoid phrases like “the author believed” or “the writer was trying to…..” I am not a biographer; I don’t presume to know what anyone believes. Instead, I pay attention to an artist’s public utterances to discover what they can make me believe, what they convince me ofโ€”to express how their works stimulate my emotional or intellectual responses.

Recently, someone perusing this journal disagreed with my reading of a radio play by modernist poet Archibald MacLeish, arguing that I “misunderstood” the author’s “intent.” I appreciate any alternate interpretation of the works I discuss; indeed, I encourage and long for such dialogue, debates I generally have with myself. I just don’t believe that an author is the ultimate authority, that the creator of any work, once that work has been released to the public, can lay claim to any single, definitive interpretation. The brainchild has been given up for adoption, set free to dwell and flourish in the mind of foster parents the existence of which the one giving birth cannot conceive. Writing about literature and art means to adopt a reading, rather than return the presumably lost child to its cradle.

When a parent like Norman Corwin, curious to find out whatever happened to his child and how it fared in the world, finds traces of it in the adoptee’s home, there can occur a get-together of sorts, a reunion by proxy. I am pleased Mr. Corwin recognized his child and did not find me wanting in my care or amiss in my rearing of it. How elated I am to be commended for having produced, in turn, a response to radio that Mr. Corwin argues to be “leagues ahead of anything ever written on the subject in this country” (meaning, the USA). Perhaps, I ought not to have repeated it here; but, as in any such reunion, there is that moment in which pride, like the hot air in a much-damaged balloon, inflates the ego of the one privileged to have given rise to such a joyful occasion.

It is a moment to celebrate the life of a piece of writing, a life continual as long as there are eyes to read, ears to hear, and minds to create it anew. It is the hope I hear in this opening of “Daybreak,” one of Corwin’s many remarkable performances, which was brought to life again in a CBS production broadcast on this day, 10 July, in 1945:

A day grows older only when you stand and watch it coming at you. Otherwise it is continuous. If you could keep a half degree ahead of sunup on the worldโ€™s horizons, youโ€™d see new light always breaking on some slope of ocean or some patch of land. A morning can be paced by trailing night. This we shall do, where we begin we shall return to, circling the earth meanwhile.

My mind has been going in circles today; and, for once, it still feels like morning.